Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, today we must decide if you are going to double down on policies that have been an abject failure for the last three decades or if you will chart a new course that doesn't repeat the same mistakes of previous Congresses.
The first ``Screw Nevada'' bill was passed in 1982, and since that time, Nevada's residents, elected officials, business leaders, and health and environmental groups have steadfastly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from over 100 groups in opposition. City of Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, May 7, 2018. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, House Majority Leader, Washington, DC. Hon. Steve Scalise, House Majority Whip, Washington, DC.
Dear Sirs: In 1987 Congress voted for the Department of Energy (DOE) to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain without the support of Nevada. Now, the House of Representatives is planning to consider H.R. 3053, The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. I am writing to express my vehement opposition to this legislation.
Yucca Mountain would cost U. S. taxpayers billions of dollars and require the dangerous transportation of nuclear waste across every state in the country before it arrives in Nevada, which, by the way, produces no nuclear waste These transports journey through communities in the nation whose infrastructures are well-known to be rated at the dangerously low, D+ level by highly renowned associations of engineers and scientific professionals. Bridges and tunnels have not been reinforced in decades, railroad tracks are faulty (as we well know!), and roads are beyond needing repair and replacement. No matter the transport vehicle used, the cargo travels on challenged routes which are unknown to the public and at times undeclared!
In my tenure as Mayor, every year I have warned my fellow Mayors of the dangers of this transportation, and every year the Mayors across the nation have passed a resolution at their annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting requiring that the U.S. Department of Energy instead focus on deactivating and/or repurposing radioactive waste on site. High-priority research is needed to identify methods for the safe treatment and storage of radioactive waste at origination locations in order to mitigate the health and environmental risks of transporting low, high and mixed level waste to offsite treatment facilities. Even Mayors with nuclear waste on their doorsteps understand the dangers of transporting this waste
As Mayor of Las Vegas, I am fortunate to preside over a beautiful city that is home to over 600,000 residents in one of the fastest-growing areas in the nation boasting over 2.4 million residents. Additionally, 42 million visitors choose the Las Vegas valley as a destination annually. Yucca Mountain is less than 100 miles away from this gem in the desert. I believe that DOE's Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be required to have support from state, local and tribal governments before constructing a nuclear waste repository anywhere in the country Therefore, I urge you and your colleagues to vote down H.R. 3053, which rejects science and ignores our steadfast opposition Sincerely, Carolyn Goodman, Mayor. ____ Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas, NV, May 7, 2018. Re The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, H.R. 3053. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Frank Pallone, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker, Madam Leader, Chairman Walden, and Ranking Member Pallone: The Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce/ (``Metro Chamber'') is Nevada's largest and most diverse business organization, representing thousands of employers who employ more than 200,000 Southern Nevadans. As the Voice of Business in our state, its mission is to help Nevada businesses succeed and create jobs. This includes protecting our members from initiatives or legislation at all levels of government that could hinder our state's economy, impede job creation, and hamper development of our local workforce.
As such, the Metro Chamber has been actively engaged with Members of Congress, federal government agencies, Nevada's Constitutional officers, state legislators, local government leaders and entities, trade groups, employers, and residents of the State of Nevada regarding its strong steadfast opposition for more than two decades to the proposed Nuclear Waste Repository Site at Yucca Mountain.
The Metro Chamber's position regarding the proposed Nuclear Waste Repository Site at Yucca Mountain has not changed with the introduction of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. The Las Vegas Metro Chamber continues to strongly oppose a Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, as well as the transportation and storage of any nuclear waste in Nevada, because of the potential negative effect it could have on the safety and health of the visitors and residents of Southern Nevada, as well as the chilling long-term effect it could have on the economy.
The proposed legislation would allow for the storage of approximately 110,000 metric tons of nuclear waste less than 90 miles from Las Vegas, and is a significant concern to the business community and residents as it could pose a national security and health threat. The close proximity of such a facility to Las Vegas could also damage the tourism-based economy of Southern Nevada. In 2017, Southern Nevada hosted approximately 42.2 million visitors, whose direct and indirect economic impact is $58.8 billion. This translates to about a total of 391,000 jobs and $16.4 billion in wages for our region. The reality is that Southern Nevada is the economic engine of the State, and it is incumbent on all stakeholders of our region's economy and future prospects for growth to protect the well-being of all of our residents and visitors.
The potential terrorist threats, environmental impacts, and transportation challenges, as well as the safety of storing nuclear waste material, are too great of a risk on our region's economy. Residents and visitors must feel safe in their communities and the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain could fundamentally undermine that safety. Unfortunately, the passage of H.R. 3053 may only elevate Las Vegas' profile for a potential terrorist attack. We cannot risk such a scenario, since any incident with the transport or storage of nuclear waste could have a severe and negative economic impact on Southern Nevada's economy.
The Metro Chamber is also adamantly opposed to the temporary storage of any nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, which includes reprocessed fuel. The reprocessing of nuclear waste requires large amount of water, which is a concern to businesses, local governments, residents and regional water agencies since the region remains in a severe drought.
In addition, Nevada is ranked by the U.S. Geological Survey as the fourth most active seismic area in the United States. The potential for seismic activity in the region raises serious questions about the logic and prudency of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Seismic activity in the region is another reason why Yucca Mountain is not a feasible or practical site for the storage of nuclear waste.
The storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain should not only be a concern for Southern Nevadans but also for the residents of 329 Congressional Districts in 44 states that nuclear waste shipments must pass through to get to Yucca Mountain. The transport and safety of these shipments need to be part of a national conversation and the potential impacts of any incident during transportation of these casks by rail and truck should not be underestimated. While the people of Southern Nevada have been vigilant about the potential dangers of the transportation of this toxic material, fellow citizens across the country who live in states through which this waste would be transported may not be aware and deserve the opportunity to learn the facts about how this plan would impact their lives and livelihoods.
Thank you for allowing the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce to offer its concerns and strong opposition as associated with the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Site, as proposed by H.R. 3053. Sincerely, Mary Beth Sewald,
President & CEO. Michael Bolognini,
Chairman, Board of Trustees. Hugh Anderson,
Chairman, Government Affairs. ____ May 7, 2018.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 3053, the ``Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017'' (115th Congress, 1st Session). This bill will put our nation's nuclear waste storage policy on the wrong track yet again. It ignores environmental concerns, states' rights and consent to host the waste in the first instance, and attempts to truncate public review in order to force a ``solution''-- either Yucca Mountain or a new consolidated interim storage site--that have both proven to be unworkable. Rather than blindly charge forward at the cost of public safety and public resources, we urge Congress to reject this bill and start the important and necessary work on a comprehensive set of hearings to commence building a publicly accepted, consent based repository program.
The bill you will vote on retains the flaws contained in its earlier forms. Some of these harms include unwise efforts to recommence the licensing process for proposed repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. This is a project certain to fail the NRC's licensing process due to the geology and hydrology of the site that make it unsuitable for isolating spent nuclear fuel for the required time. Next, the draft legislation suggests going forward with a consolidated storage proposal before working out the details of a comprehensive legislative path to solve the nuclear waste problem, entirely severing the link between storage and disposal, and thus creating, an overwhelming risk that an interim storage site will determine or function as de facto final resting place for nuclear waste. The draft provides no safety, environmental or public acceptance criteria, only speed of siting and expense. This is precisely the formula that produced the failure of the Yucca Mountain process and made it, as the previous administration noted, ``unworkable.''
Other provisions conflict with the well-established and necessary requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. Doing so exacerbates the public interest community's (and that of Nevada) objection of the last two decades--that the process of developing, licensing, and setting environmental and oversight standards for the proposed repository has been, and continues to be, rigged or weakened to ensure that the site can be licensed, rather than provide for safety over the length of time that the waste remains dangerous to public health and the environment.
This bill was largely changed for the worse in committee. The bill now sets us on path to go forward in the next few years with a consolidated storage proposal before working out the details of a comprehensive legislative path to solve the nuclear waste problem and, frankly, creates an overwhelming risk that an interim storage site in New Mexico, Utah, or even Texas (although the Texas site just requested that its license application be held in abeyance) will be the de facto final resting place for nuclear waste.
This will not work. It is likely those states will, in some form or another, resist being selected as the dumping ground for the nation's nuclear waste without a meaningful consent based process and regulatory authority that garners both public acceptance and a scientifically defensible solution. Further, and also just as damning, it sets up yet another attempt to ship the waste to Yucca Mountain irrespective of its certain likelihood of failing the regulatory process, or seek to revive the licensed Private Fuel Storage site that has been strongly opposed in Utah or even open up New Mexico's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility for spent nuclear fuel disposal despite strong opposition and contrary to 25 years of federal law. The latter site also was designed and intended for nuclear waste with trace levels of plutonium, not spent fuel (and we note, a site that has already seen an accident dispersing plutonium throughout the underground and into the environment, contaminating 22 workers, and thus the site was functionally inoperable for years). All of this runs precisely counter to the core admonition of the previous administration's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (``BRC'') that ``consent'' come first.
The waste will not be going anywhere for years and it should be incumbent on Congress to fix problems in a meaningful fashion, not attempt an expedient solution that is destined to fail, again.
Our concerns, many of which were detailed above or in earlier letters, remain. We would be pleased to work with any representative on a feasible, constructive path forward, but this legislation would put the nation's nuclear waste storage policy on the wrong track yet again and we urge you to reject it. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely,
350Kishwaukee; 350NYC; Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse; Albuquerque Center for Peace and Justice; Alliance for a Green Economy; Alliance for Environmental Strategies; Alliance for Nuclear Accountability; Alliance to Halt Fermi 3; Baltimore Nonviolence Center; Basin and Range Watch; Bellefonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team; Mothers Against TN River Radiation; Beyond Nuclear; California Communities Against Toxics; Cape Downwinders; Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility; Citizen Action New Mexico; Citizen Power; Citizens Action Coalition of IN; Citizens Awareness Network; Citizens Education Project.
Citizens' Environmental Coalition; Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping; Citizens' Resistance at Fermi 2 (CRAFT); Clean Water Action; Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes; Code Pink: Women for Peace; Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety; Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety; Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone; Consumers Health Freedom Coalition; Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy; Crabshell Alliance; Cumberland Countians for EcoJustice; CT Coalition Against Millstone; Don't Waste Arizona; Don't Waste Michigan; Ecological Options Network (EON); Energia Mia; Energy Justice Network; Environmental Defense Institute.
Environmental Working Group; Fairmont, MN Peace Group; Food & Water Watch; Frack Free Illinois; Franciscans for Justice; Friends of the Earth; Georgia Women's Action for New Directions (Georgia WAND); Grandmothers Mothers and More for Energy Safety; Great Basin Resource Watch; Great Lakes- Environmental Alliance; Green State Solutions, Iowa; Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action; HEAL Utah; Hip Hop Caucus; Hudson River Sloop Clearwater; Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition; Indigenous Rights Center; Indivisible South Bay Los Angeles; Kawartha lakes land trust; Lacuna Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment (LACSE).
League of Conservation Voters; League of Women Voters of the United States; LEPOCO Peace Center; Los Alamos Study Group; Mankato Area Environmentalists; Merrimack Valley People for Peace; Michigan Safe Energy Future, Kalamazoo MI Chapter; Michigan Safe Energy Future, Shoreline Chapter; Michigan Stop the Nuclear Bombs Campaign; Milwaukee Riverkeeper; Missouri Coalition for the Environment; Mountain States Mennonite Conference; Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment; Native Community Action Council; Natural Resources Defense Council; Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ; Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force; New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution; No More Fukushimas; No Nukes NW.
North American Climate, Conservation and Environment (NACCE); North American Water Office; Northwest Environmental Advocates; Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Nuclear Energy Information Service; Nuclear Free World Committee; Dallas Peace and Justice Center; Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Nuclear Issues Study Group; Nuclear Watch New Mexico; Nuclear Watch South; Nukefree.org; Nukewatch; Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance; On Behalf of Planet Earth our developing world; OurRevolution Ocala; Partnership for Earth Spirituality; Peace Action; Peace Action of Michigan; Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Physicians for Social Responsibility--Chesapeake; Physicians for Social Responsibility--Kansas City; Physicians for Social Responsibility--Los Angeles; Physicians for Social Responsibility--Oregon; Physicians for Social Responsibility--San Francisco Bay Area Chapter; Pilgrim Legislative Advisory Coalition PLAC; Pilgrim Watch; Planet Cents. Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security (PRESS); Proposition One Committee; Public Citizen; Public Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE); Public Watchdogs; Rachel Carson Council; Radiation and Public Health Project; Radiation Truth; Redwood Alliance; Residents Organized for a Safe Environment; Riverkeeper; ROAR (Religious Organizations Along the River).
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center: Safe Utility Meters Alliance NW (SUMA-NW); San Clemente Green; San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace; San Onofre Safety; Save The River / Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper; Seacoast Anti-Pollution League; Sierra Club; Snake River Alliance; Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; Southern Illinois Against Fracturing Our Environment; Southwest Research and Information Center; Stand Up/Save Lives Campaign; Straits Area Concerned Citizens for Peace, Justice and the Environment (SACCPJE); SUN DAY Campaign; Support and Education for Radiation Victims (SERV); Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition; Task Force on Nuclear Power, Oregon and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility; Tennessee Environmental Council; Tewa Women United.
Texas River Revival; The Colorado Coalition for Prevention of Nuclear War; The Lands Council; The Nuclear Resister; The Peace Farm; Thomas Merton Center; Three Mile Island Alert; Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy; Touching Earth Sangha; Toxics Action Center Campaigns; Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment); Uranium Watch; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk, U.S. Province; UUFHC (Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Harford County); Vermont Citizens Action Network; Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance; Veterans For Peace Golden Rule Project; Veterans For Peace Chapter 74; Western States Legal Foundation; West Valley Neighborhoods Coalition.
Women's Energy Matters; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Des Moines Branch; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Fresno Branch; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Monterey County Branch; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Pittsburgh Branch; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Santa Cruz Branch; Youth Arts New York. ____ May 8, 2018.
Dear Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The undersigned organizations and businesses write to express our vehement opposition to H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017, which is scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives this week.
By reviving licensing activities for Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, this legislation has the potential to adversely impact citizens and businesses located in Nevada.
Yucca Mountain is located just 90 miles from the world's premier tourist, convention and entertainment destination in Las Vegas, Nevada, which welcomed nearly 43 million visitors last year. Las Vegas is once again on pace to meet or break that number with over 10 million visitors already accounted for in 2018. The Greater Las Vegas area is one of the fastest growing in the U.S. with a population that now exceeds 2.1 million people according to an estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau. Safety and security remain a top priority for all Americans and any problems with the transport of more than 110,000 metric tons of nuclear waste to the site throughout the country, or issues with its storage there, would bring potentially devastating consequences to the local, state and national communities. Moreover, with taxes on Nevada's tourism industry providing 42 percent of the state general fund, even a modest decline in visitors' perception about the region could have severe negative implications for the state's economy and future growth.
We stand with the many concerned citizens, small business operators and bipartisan members of the Nevada delegation in staunch opposition to any attempt to restart the repository licensing process and will work tirelessly to ensure that radioactive waste is never stored anywhere near the world's entertainment capital in Las Vegas.
We strongly urge members to vote against this flawed legislation and, instead, explore alternative solutions that respect state sovereignty and do not put Nevada's citizens and economy at risk.
Sincerely,
Geoff Freeman, President and CEO--American Gaming Association; Virginia Valentine, President--Nevada Resort Association; Mary Beth Sewald, President and CEO--Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce; Rossi Ralenkotter, CEO--Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority; James Murren, Chairman and CEO--MGM Resorts International; Joe Asher, CEO--William Hill U.S.; Keith Smith, President and CEO--Boyd Gaming Corporation; Mark P. Frissora, President and CEO--Caesars Entertainment; Sheldon Adelson, Chairman and CEO--Las Vegas Sands Corporation; Timothy J. Wilmott, CEO--Penn National Gaming. ____ UNITEHERE!, New York, NY, May 8, 2018. Oppose H.R. 3053, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: UNITE HERE represents more workers in Nevada than any other union in the country. Our Nevada affiliate, Culinary Local 226, represents 60,000 workers who are the backbone to the tourism and hospitality industry of the Strip. The role of our union is to fight for what's best for these 60,000 workers and their families, and in the case of H.R. 3053 the best interest of our members is clearly to vote no and oppose all attempts to license a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.
Turning Yucca Mountain into a nuclear dumping ground will put all 60,000 UNITE HERE members of Culinary 226 and their families at enormous risk, along with all 2.1 million people living in the Greater Las Vegas area. Yucca Mountain is dangerously close to where our members and their families live, as well as to the economic heartbeat of Nevada that keeps the economy afloat--only 90 miles from the Las Vegas Strip.
The continued health of our members and their families in Nevada is on stake with your vote on H.R. 3053. To keep 60,000 UNITE HERE workers safe in Nevada, we urge you to oppose H.R. 3053. Sincerely, D. Taylor, International President.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, you have heard that the legislation before you now, ``Screw Nevada 2.0,'' is a work of compromise, a bipartisan effort, not perfect, but a step forward. Well, that, frankly, is an opinion. It is not the facts. Here are the facts:
The legislation overrides environmental laws, allowing the EPA to move the goalposts in terms of radiation limits to ensure that nothing will ever interfere with the agenda of the nuclear industry.
It sets up a consent-based process for the establishment of an interim storage facility but imposes a permanent facility at Yucca Mountain.
It increases the amount of nuclear waste to be dumped in Nevada by 37 percent, 110 metric tons more that were not considered in any of the environmental or safety studies being used to justify the project.
It also removes the prohibition currently in law that prohibits Nevada from being the de facto interim storage facility until a permanent one can be licensed.
It was also changed after passing out of committee to address the high scoring costs, making it less likely that we get host benefits.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, also, contrary to the sponsor's comments, the area around Yucca Mountain is not some desolate area. It has iconic wildlife, endangered species, and Native American artifacts.
Also, the proposed facility sits above the water table and on an active fault and can only be reached by roads that travel through 329 of your congressional districts.
Finally, like New Mexico, the people in Nevada have suffered from tests of atomic weapons that the government told us: Don't worry; it will be safe.
In short, this bill does nothing to really address the root of the problem, and I urge Members to vote against it.
It has cost us 36 years and $15 billion, and all we have to show for it is a hole in the ground. We should be doing consent-based decisionmaking that will move us forward and not continue this failed policy that is bad politics and bad policy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is also supported by my Nevada colleague (Mr. Kihuen) is very simple and straightforward. It sets up consent-based site decisionmaking as an alternative to ``Screwing Nevada 2.0,'' which just continues the process that has lasted 36 years, has cost $15 billion, is going nowhere in the Senate, and has nothing to show for it but a big hole in the ground.
Consent-based siting, on the other hand, is fair. Nevada doesn't want your nuclear waste. We didn't get any benefits from it, and we didn't generate it. But Texas and New Mexico do want it, so why not let them have it?
It is also a sound policy. It was the number one recommendation of the esteemed Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Now, you can argue the politics, you can distort the science, you can assert it is the law--as though a 1982 policy is the Ten Commandments--but you can't have the truth.
Now, my colleagues don't want this dangerous waste in their backyards any more than Nevadans do. I get that. That is pretty easy to understand. But it is funny, they didn't mind the jobs; they didn't mind the tax revenue, the cheap power, and the political support they got from the nuclear power industry over the years that it has existed. Now, they just want somebody else to clean up their mess.
Well, I say, instead of screwing Nevada one more time, why don't we really work together so we can finally and effectively solve the problem? We could do this with consent-based siting for both interim and permanent storage facilities. This would be a real solution that could take us into the future. So I would urge my colleagues to support the Titus amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I would just respond to two things. I thank the gentleman for recognizing what Nevada did to help win the Cold War. We were the site of atomic testing for years. We still bear those scars. But this is not about military waste; this is about commercial waste.
Second, while I appreciate the chairman's concern about Nevada and giving us benefits, the health and safety of Nevadans is not for sale to the nuclear power industry.
Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague and the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, that is in Washington. It is not in Oregon. If you don't even know where Hanford is, I am not sure you really understand what took place there.
I would just say: The law of the land, that is a great argument. You forgot about that argument when you tried to repeal ObamaCare 60 times and have done everything you can to roll back Dodd-Frank. So law of the land is a pretty weak, specious argument.
This is not just about the safety of Nevada. This is about doing what is right, finding a policy that will work, that is based on consent, that the experts say is the way to go, that has a chance to get out of the Senate and really move us forward so we do quit wasting time, so we do quit wasting money, and we find a real solution to an issue that does affect the entire Nation.
That is why it should be consent based. That is why I think we should support this amendment and oppose the underlying bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I would say again, please keep in mind that this has an opportunity to pass. It will really solve the problem. It will not turn the clock back to an old way that has failed, that is faulty science, bad politics, and even worse policy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 80, noes 332, not voting 16, as follows: [Roll No. 178] AYES--80 Amodei Bass Bonamici Boyle, Brendan F. Brown (MD) Capuano Carson (IN) Castro (TX) Chu, Judy Cicilline Clarke (NY) Cleaver Correa Davis, Danny DeFazio DeSaulnier Doggett Ellison Engel Eshoo Espaillat Frankel (FL) Gabbard Gallego Garamendi Gomez Green, Al Grijalva Hastings Huffman Jackson Lee Johnson (GA) Kaptur Kelly (IL) Khanna Kihuen Lee Lewis (GA) Lieu, Ted Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lujan Grisham, M. Lujan, Ben Ray Maloney, Carolyn B. McCollum McGovern Meeks Meng Moore Nadler Napolitano O'Halleran O'Rourke Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Pocan Polis Raskin Rosen Roybal-Allard Ryan (OH) Sanchez Schakowsky Schiff Serrano Shea-Porter Sherman Smith (WA) Soto Suozzi Thompson (CA) Titus Vargas Veasey Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters, Maxine Wilson (FL) NOES--332 Abraham Adams Aderholt Aguilar Allen Amash Arrington Babin Bacon Banks (IN) Barletta Barr Barragan Barton Beatty Bera Bergman Beyer Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (MI) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blum Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bost Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brat Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Brownley (CA) Buchanan Buck Bucshon Burgess Bustos Butterfield Byrne Calvert Carbajal Cardenas Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cartwright Castor (FL) Chabot Cheney Clark (MA) Clay Clyburn Coffman Cohen Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Comer Comstock Conaway Connolly Cook Cooper Costa Costello (PA) Courtney Cramer Crawford Crist Cuellar Culberson Cummings Curbelo (FL) Curtis Davidson Davis (CA) Davis, Rodney DeGette Delaney DelBene Demings Denham Dent DeSantis DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Dingell Donovan Doyle, Michael F. Duffy Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Dunn Emmer Estes (KS) Esty (CT) Evans Faso Ferguson Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flores Fortenberry Foster Foxx Frelinghuysen Fudge Gaetz Gallagher Garrett Gianforte Gibbs Gohmert Gonzalez (TX) Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Graves (GA) Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green, Gene Griffith Grothman Guthrie Gutierrez Hanabusa Handel Harper Harris Hartzler Heck Hensarling Herrera Beutler Hice, Jody B. Higgins (LA) Higgins (NY) Hill Himes Holding Hollingsworth Hoyer Hudson Huizenga Hultgren Hunter Hurd Issa Jayapal Jeffries Jenkins (KS) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jordan Joyce (OH) Katko Keating Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Kind King (IA) King (NY) Kinzinger Knight Krishnamoorthi Kustoff (TN) LaHood LaMalfa Lamb Lamborn Lance Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latta Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lesko Levin Lewis (MN) Lipinski LoBiondo Long Loudermilk Love Lowey Lucas Luetkemeyer Lynch MacArthur Maloney, Sean Marino Marshall Massie Mast Matsui McCarthy McCaul McClintock McEachin McHenry McKinley McMorris Rodgers McNerney McSally Meadows Messer Mitchell Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Moulton Mullin Murphy (FL) Neal Newhouse Noem Nolan Norcross Norman Nunes Olson Palazzo Pallone Palmer Panetta Pascrell Paulsen Pearce Perry Peters Peterson Pingree Poe (TX) Poliquin Posey Price (NC) Quigley Ratcliffe Reed Reichert Renacci Rice (NY) Rice (SC) Richmond Roby Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rohrabacher Rokita Rooney, Francis Rooney, Thomas J. Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothfus Rouzer Royce (CA) Ruiz Ruppersberger Russell Rutherford Sanford Sarbanes Scalise Schneider Schrader Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Scott, David Sensenbrenner Sessions Sewell (AL) Shimkus Shuster Simpson Sinema Sires Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smucker Stefanik Stewart Stivers Swalwell (CA) Takano Taylor Tenney Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tipton Tonko Torres Trott Tsongas Turner Upton Valadao Vela Visclosky Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Walters, Mimi Walz Watson Coleman Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Welch Wenstrup Westerman Williams Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Yarmuth Yoder Yoho Young (AK) Young (IA) Zeldin NOT VOTING--16 Black Budd Crowley DeLauro Deutch Gottheimer Granger Jenkins (WV) Jones Kuster (NH) Labrador Marchant Pittenger Rogers (KY) Rush Speier
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Messrs. BIGGS, BISHOP of Michigan, SWALWELL of California, NEAL, and Ms. FUDGE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. KHANNA, and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source