[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 93 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3744-H3753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2578, CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC
GROWTH ACT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 688 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 688
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. 2578) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and
shall not exceed 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 112 25. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment,
[[Page H3745]]
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. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
{time} 1220
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), with also a congratulations and a welcome back to the
gentlelady from New York, who has been incapacitated for a while. It is
nice to see her back on the floor with her health starting to recover.
Pending that, 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. BISHOP of Utah. I also ask, Madam Speaker, that all Members may
have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This particular resolution provides for a
structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2578, the Conservation
and Economic Growth Act, which contains 14 titles containing important
legislation impacting our Nation's public lands and our national parks.
The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order the vast majority of
amendments which were filed at the Rules Committee. So this structured
rule is extremely fair and will provide for a balanced and open debate
on the merits of this particular bill.
It was only a couple of Congresses ago, Madam Speaker, in which the
Senate sent over an omnibus bill. It had over 100 particular bills
added to it. I should have been happy. Three of them were mine. And
even though mine were really great bills, some of the rest of them were
really bad. That was 1,200 pages. But what was most egregious about
that bill that was sent from the Senate is that 75 of those 100 bills
had not had any hearing whatsoever in the House. One in particular that
dealt with my State, although not my district, not only had not had a
hearing in the House, it hadn't even had a hearing in the Senate when
it was put into this pile, and it was brought to the floor under a
closed rule.
This bill, every single title has gone through regular order. The
committee of jurisdiction has had a hearing on each of these elements.
They have had a debate in full committee on each of these sections, and
they have had a markup on every one of these bills. The committee has
heard and has done the work. The amendments that were germane to the
issue and were not assigned to other committees were made in order to
be heard on the floor.
So once again, this is a bill that is unique in the spectrum of
traditional omnibus bills, tying things together, because it did go
through regular order, the committee did hear each of these provisions,
and it is appropriate to now send it over to the Senate so they can try
to consider something at some time in some form of regular order.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, first I want to say how happy I am to be back. I
appreciate the welcome I've gotten from all my colleagues, and I've
missed you terribly. I missed you, like we used to say in Kentucky,
like a front tooth.
The bill before us today, Madam Speaker, is another wasted
opportunity, I'm afraid. Today's legislation is composed of 14 separate
bills, several of which are even bipartisan. But regrettably, these
worthy proposals will not be signed into law because the majority has
packaged them with other proposals that endanger our environment and
public health.
Several of the controversial provisions before us are based on
Democratic proposals. Unfortunately, the Democratic bills were taken
and rewritten in such a way--extremely--that they can no longer receive
bipartisan support. Two provisions in particular illustrate the
extremely partisan approach.
First, title 3 would unnecessarily change a long-standing agreement
and endanger the biologically sensitive Alaskan wilderness. This
provision would open up our Nation's largest national forests to
logging and allow rare old-growth forests to be clear-cut and sold for
private gain.
Second, in the most extreme proposal before us, title 14 would impose
a so-called ``operational control zone'' over almost 100 million square
miles of American land.
On Federal land within this zone, the Department of Homeland Security
would then be allowed to ignore 36 environmental laws, and Federal
border agents would be able to operate with few limits on their power.
My good friend from Utah has put forward an amendment to pare the 36
laws down to 16, but that is still 16 too many.
Title 14 proposes a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Proponents claim that environmental protections prevent the U.S.
Customs and Border Patrol from stopping illegal immigration. However,
sworn testimony by both Border Patrol officials and the Federal land
agency officials contradict this claim. In fact, the Department of
Homeland Security opposes this legislation.
My entire district, all of it, would fall under the newly created
operational control zone. As a result, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
could take control over all the historic landmarks, such as the
Theodore Roosevelt National Historic Site, build anything on it that
they needed. And I know my constituents pretty well after this number
of years. They would not take to that at all.
Meanwhile, the sacred, historic, and sovereign lands of the Tuscarora
Indian Nation would also be open to Federal agents. Such an extreme
Federal overreach would violate the sovereignty of the Tuscarora Indian
Nation. Many other tribes around the country whose land falls within
this zone would face the same problem.
In a letter to the leaders of the House, the United South and Eastern
Tribes wrote of the danger of this provision. They wrote:
Many Indian tribes have lands and sacred places located
near U.S. international borders, and we believe that the
sovereignty and cultural integrity of our member tribes and
others is unnecessarily put in jeopardy by the sweeping
approach in this bill.
Federal cooperation, not Federal overreach, is a proven and prudent
way to protect our borders. A recent GAO reported confirmed what we
learned in sworn testimony: every time Federal cooperation between the
Border Patrol officials and our land management officials was
requested, it was given--every time. The only time conflicts remained
between environmental laws and border enforcement was when Border
Patrol officials didn't bother to ask the Department of the Interior
nor the USDA for cooperation.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the majority violated the rules
of the House when they combined 14 unrelated bills into the one bill
before us today. However, the Rules Committee gave itself a waiver
despite repeatedly denying such waivers for Democratic proposals
throughout the year. Once again, when the majority wants to break the
rules, they find a way. But when Democrats ask for a waiver for one of
our proposals, all of a sudden the rules of the House have been written
in stone.
I urge my colleagues to oppose today's extreme and partisan
legislation and to stand up against the Federal overreach contained
within this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H3746]]
Within this bill, there are, as I said, several proposals that are
there, all of them dealing with Federal lands and all of them dealing
with overreach that has taken place, unfortunately, by this
administration. Let me just highlight a couple of them and why these
bills are useful and very much important.
Title X of this particular section deals with Cape Hatteras in North
Carolina. Cape Hatteras in North Carolina was established as a
recreation area. In fact, the economy of that particular county, Dare
County, was established as a recreation zone and a recreation area.
Authorized in 1937, that's still 30,000 acres for recreation purposes.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service started in negotiations with the
community of how they would actually try to manage that land,
especially governing off-road vehicles. They established certain
restrictions that would limit visitation.
{time} 1230
And for local residents who were there, the residents agreed to
those, even though they weren't really quite happy about it. And
everything was going well until special interest groups started the
litigation process.
You see, the Fish and Wildlife Service had issued a biological
opinion finding that this interim management strategy that was
established in the cooperative, collaborative process had indeed solved
the problem and that there would never be any kind of jeopardy to any
endangered species listed in that particular area. Everything was going
well until, once again, there was a lawsuit.
A year after this agreement had been made, there was a lawsuit which
this administration, unfortunately, decided to negotiate out of court.
The lawsuit was never actually adjudicated. No judge made a decision.
Basically, the administration caved to the special interest groups; and
they rewrote the opinion that had been ruled by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, their biological opinion that it did not jeopardize any
endangered species.
So that went into effect. And, unfortunately, in March of this year,
they even shrank the rule again to make it even more restrictive than
the consent decree that had been settled out of court.
What this bill, this section of this particular bill, does in Cape
Hatteras is do what's logical. It goes back to the original concern,
the original land management plan that was done with the cooperation of
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the local constituents that had been
agreed upon, that had nothing to do with endangered species and did not
jeopardize anything, simply going back to what had been done before the
administration decided simply to cave in to special interest groups and
settled out of court.
There's another section, I believe it's section 11, that deals with
grazing rights. One of the things that businesses deal with, especially
those that deal with grazing rights, is they need a constant to make
sure that business is not uncertain. That is a most significant part.
One of the things we're finding out right now, though, is with
grazing, especially in the West, excessive paperwork within the
Department means we create missed deadlines that cause environmental
litigation. And once again, stability is a constant that is necessary
in business, and grazing is a business. It's one of those problems that
to redo a permit to allow grazing will take 4 to 7 years for a permit
that's only 10 years in the first place.
What this bill does is say those permits now go from 10 to 20 years,
once again, to give some consistency to those who are engaged in
grazing activities. It also codifies appropriation language that has
had bipartisan support for over a decade and makes sure that NEPA
review in crossing and trailing of livestock on public lands is not
going to be subjected to another layer of red tape.
This industry puts $1.4 billion into our economy every year. And if,
indeed, we do not treat our ranchers well, the 22,000 ranchers who have
these Federal permits, the ability of maintaining this as a viable
occupation is put in jeopardy. This amendment, this section fixes that.
It solves that problem.
There are some other good ones. In fact, the one that I am proposing
I will talk about in a minute. But for now, let me simply reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentlewoman.
Madam Speaker, I rise to focus attention upon one provision in this
legislation, perhaps a few rose petals hidden in a very unnecessary
thicket of painful thorns that are the center of this legislation.
Recently nominated as a World Heritage Site, the Spanish missions in
San Antonio are a unique treasure for parishioners, for tourists, and
for Texans everywhere. In 2010, our able former colleague, Ciro
Rodriguez, introduced bipartisan legislation, both to expand the San
Antonio Missions National Historical Park by about 151 acres and to
require a study by the Secretary of the Interior about even further
expansion of this important park.
In 2010, this very House approved the Rodriguez legislation. Though a
companion bill was offered by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and she got
it out of the Senate committee, the full Senate failed to act on the
Rodriguez bill.
During this Congress, I have been one of five Members who joined
Representative Canseco in re-introducing the Rodriguez bill. Instead of
approving our bipartisan measure, the Resources Committee has merged
only a fraction of that bill into a totally unrelated piece of
legislation that is little more than a giant giveaway and exploitation
of public property and which will endanger irreplaceable natural
resources from the seashore in North Carolina to the Tongass wilderness
in Alaska.
While Senator Hutchison continues to work on a bipartisan basis, this
particular measure really includes little of the protection that our
missions deserve. Now any purchase of additional land for this park, an
original purpose of the bill, that's prohibited, and even a mere study
of the possibility of additional park expansion, that's denied in this
bill.
Now, the only way that the park can be expanded is if a private or
public owner donates land to the park. In other words, it makes future
expansion and protection of these San Antonio missions dependent
entirely upon charity.
No matter how public-minded some private property owners may be, some
are likely to be unable to afford to donate the land.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.
Mr. DOGGETT. So some property owners will be unable to donate their
land. Instead of continuing the previous bipartisan commitment to the
missions, this bill reflects the same ideological extreme so evident in
our larger public policy debates, like that over the future of our
national transportation system. Yes, our Republican House colleagues
are all for good transportation. It's just paying for that
transportation that they're opposed to.
And so today we hear about private property rights. Well, what about
the private property right of an individual landowner to sell their
property for a legitimate public purpose such as expanding this vital
national park? That is denied in today's bill.
This bill will not grow the park in the way necessary to fully
enhance the missions that are so very significant to San Antonio and to
the culture and history of our Nation. The better approach is to wait
and follow Senator Hutchison's lead and to approve a freestanding,
bipartisan bill and give these missions the protection they deserve.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again, I appreciate the opportunity of
talking about a couple of other elements in this bill. I appreciate the
gentleman from Texas and his comments.
Unfortunately, yes, the study was taken out because it would be a
replication of what has already been done; and the land that could be
used to expand this is already in the public domain. And what we are
simply saying with this particular bill is, no, we don't need to try
and force private property owners to sell their lands. If they want to
donate it, that's fine. It's not essential to the expansion of this
particular park. I think it's the appropriate thing to do.
Let me, though, Madam Speaker, if I could, talk about the other
provision,
[[Page H3747]]
title XIV in there, which deals with our border security. It's one of
those things that I happen to think fairly significant.
If I could start with just a few charts so that people understand
what is going on. This chart is simply the division of this country by
Border Patrol sections. You'll find out that certain sections have a
lot more people coming into this country illegally than other sections.
For 2009 and 2010--those are the last 2 years for which we have full
data--there were about a half million people that were illegally
apprehended, just apprehended coming into this country. But of those
half million, a quarter million, 51 percent or more, were coming
through one sector which happens to be the Tucson, Arizona sector.
That's not even the entire State of Arizona.
So the question has to be asked, why are 200,000-plus people being
apprehended in Arizona when in Maine it looks like about 39 people were
apprehended? Why is this area the entrance of choice?
I think it's undeniably that one of the reasons is simply because of
the territory on that southern border. Everything in red on this border
is land that is owned by the Federal Government. You'll see that 80
percent of Arizona is Federal land, much of that being wilderness and
endangered species habitat or conservation rights-of-way.
One of the ironies is our Border Patrol, which is tasked with
securing our border, has almost unlimited rights to do what they need
to do to protect our border on private property and no one objects to
it, which is why the statement of the gentlelady from New York is
somewhat disingenuous, because most of her district is, indeed, private
property. Border Patrol already has these kinds of options.
{time} 1240
It is only on Federal property that the Federal Border Patrol is
prohibited from doing its Federal job, and that seems bizarre and,
indeed, unusual.
See, this is what the border actually looks like. That's the fence,
and that's the one road that the Border Patrol is allowed to use if
this happens to be a Federal wilderness designation. The break in the
fence, by the way, happens to be there so that animals can go freely
from Mexico into the United States and back and forth. I think I could
contend that not only animals are using that kind of break in the
fence.
Needless to say, the issue at hand simply is: Why is the Border
Patrol prohibited from going into certain Federal areas when they need
to do it even though the bad guys--the drug cartels, the human
traffickers, the kidnapping rings, the prostitution rings--are allowed
to go in there?
We have in these Federal wilderness areas 8,000 miles of illegal
roads, created by illegal drug traffickers, going into this area, and
the Border Patrol by our rules and regulations and laws is prohibited
from going into that same area. Is it right that they, in hot pursuit,
should have to go to the edge of one of those wilderness areas and then
have to wait? Indeed, that is what has happened.
Secretary Napolitano, when she was first put in there, simply said:
One of the issues is, at the Southwest border, it can be
detrimental to the effective accomplishment of our mission.
In fact, it may be inadvisable for officers' safety to wait
for the arrival of horses for pursuit purposes or to attempt
to apprehend smuggling vehicles within wilderness with less
than capable forms of transportation.
The Border Patrol clearly recognizes this. They actually tell us they
don't need more money, that they don't need more manpower. What they
need is access into that area, which currently they are denied. Let me
show you how that works.
This is simply one of the sensors that's used. Instead of having an
actual fence, you use the sensor. It's a truck with a sensor on the
back of it. In this Federal national monument, which is almost all
wilderness designation, the Border Patrol wanted to move this truck
from point A to point B. It took the land manager 3 months to grant
approval to back up the truck and move it to some other place. During
that 3 months, there was a 7-mile blackout area in which there was no
surveillance possible. At the end of that 7 months, if the land manager
had said, ``No, that area is too sensitive. I don't think you should go
there,'' I would have objected, but I would have understood.
Unfortunately, after 3 months of review, he let them move the truck,
and it was too late to do it then.
That kind of example of what is happening on our border is replicated
time and time again. Let me give you some examples.
In 2007, the Border Patrol asked permission to improve two forest
roads in the Coronado National Forest, a total of 4 or 5 miles on the
border at the edge of this area. They wanted to be able to move their
mobile surveillance systems to higher ground to actually get control of
the particular area. They would use the road at most once a day, but
the Fish and Wildlife Service delayed the decision because they were
afraid some of the dirt may eventually get into one of the streams in
the particular area. The net result is, in 2011, permission still not
being granted in this particular area, a catastrophic wildfire burned
68,000 acres. Three illegal aliens were arrested, and one admitted
actually starting the blaze.
In 2010, the Border Patrol requested three helicopter landing sites
in the Miller Peak Wilderness. The Forest Service liked the idea
because they could use those sites also for fire suppression. Once
again, the Fish and Wildlife Service, a competing agency, had concerns
because it would have an impact on the Mexican Spotted Owl.
Unfortunately, when they did a survey, they found that there were no
spotted owls in the area. Nonetheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service
stopped the construction of those helicopter pads. Then in 2011--you
guessed it--1 year later, a 32,000-acre fire, which destroyed dozens of
homes, took place. Once again, it was found that illegals coming into
this country started those fires.
The citizens of Tombstone, Arizona, are allowed to go five at a time
with hand tools into these wilderness areas in order to repair the
pipeline, which supplies water to the city, that was damaged in these
fires. Once again, the Fish and Wildlife Service said the Mexican
Spotted Owl was the reason for those limitations.
GAO did a survey, a report: 17 of the 26 Border Patrol stations
experienced delays, and 14 of those 17 reported being unable to obtain
permits or permission from land managers to use it. Stations that were
found in California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico confirmed that they
were unable to control the border due to land management positions.
Even on the northern border, in the Spokane sector, they found, once
again, they were being blocked from existing roads on national forest
land due to environmental concerns.
The GAO report found that it could take 6 months or more for
permission to improve roads needed for patrolling in New Mexico.
Another Border Patrol station reported 8 months in delay for the
permission to move a sensor as the land manager required an historic
property assessment. A station in California reported that it took 9
months for permission to do road maintenance on Federal land.
These are the factors that are inhibiting our Border Patrol from
doing their job.
Now, in the GAO report--and some people look at the executive
summary, and they are looking at it improperly--it said that 22 of the
26 agents in charge reported that the overall security status had not
been affected. What that meant was their status of being a controlled
sector, a managed sector, or a monitored sector had not been changed;
but what they did say is they were being inhibited and impeded in doing
their job to try and control our particular borders.
Look, those who are coming in--the drug cartels, the human
traffickers--they don't care about our laws. This is an endangered
species. This cactus was cut down, but it was cut down by the drug
cartel to do a roadblock across a public road in the United States so
they could use it to stop cars and then mug the participants of those
cars, and this is whether in those cars were Americans or other foreign
nationals coming in there.
What is probably worst of all are the rape trees that are taking
place--violence against women who are coming
[[Page H3748]]
down on American land in these areas. That simply means, as the coyotes
lead these women across the border, at the end of that road, as the
final payment, they will rape the women and then leave an article of
clothing on one of the trees as a trophy for their actions.
This heinous activity taking place on American land is not being
prohibited now and will not be prohibited unless the Border Patrol is
allowed to maintain access on this property. That's why this bill, this
section, is so essential. It is the war on women.
We had 19 people in the month of May of this year who died in the
Tucson sector alone. Unfortunately, that is an increase from what
happened a year ago in May. We need to end this problem. There are
three reasons why this section is important:
One, sovereign countries control their borders. We need to be able to
say we control our borders.
Two, I want to see a comprehensive immigration package go forward,
but every time I hold a public town hall meeting, I know the first
question that will be asked of me, which is: When will we control the
border? There is a great deal of anger and anxiety out there, and it is
very clear that we will never get consensus for other immigration
reforms to take place until we have first reduced the anger and
anxiety.
C.S. Lewis said, You do first things first, and second things will be
added to it. If you do second things first, you will accomplish neither
first nor second things.
This administration seems to be intent on trying to do, for whatever
political purpose it may have, second things first. The first thing is
to control the border. When we can truly look with an honest answer in
the eye of our fellow citizens and say, ``America's borders are
secure,'' then there will be a reduction in the anger and the anxiety
that will allow us to move forward.
Three, we have to stop the violence against women. These rapes that
take place on rape trees on American property--on Federal land on
American property--because the Border Patrol does not have access to
this area to patrol it effectively must stop. It's our duty and
obligation to make that stop.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a
member of the Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. I rise today to speak in opposition to the rule for H.R.
2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act.
First, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for allowing me
some time to speak on what I think are some of the good things in this
package. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the appropriate way we
ought to be debating some elements of the challenging issues of
immigration reform in the House of Representatives.
First, these bills should be taken on their individual merits, not as
a package. If we consider them together, we should then have an open
rule that would allow us to then debate the merits of each individual
bill.
{time} 1250
Some of the bills contained in H.R. 2578 are helpful to my
constituents, and I've supported them in the past. As an example, the
measure offered by Mr. Denham allows the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to consider spillway improvements on the project by the
Merced Irrigation District. This would allow an expansion of the
capacity of that reservoir. Some 1,800 feet of the Merced River would
be impacted; but as a result of it, we would gain perhaps as much as
78,000 acre feet of additional water supply that is much needed in the
San Joaquin Valley. That is a good portion of this package.
There are also other areas that I support, language within the bill,
to provide certainty to the grazing community that I am an original
cosponsor for: grazing land, public lands that provide opportunities
for America's beef industry that is very essential and very important.
However, this bill also contains controversial provisions that would
be damaging to my constituents. H.R. 1505 gives the Customs and Border
Protection authority to waive numerous laws pertaining to Federal land
management.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentlewoman.
H.R. 1505, as I was indicating, would waive numerous laws that
pertain to very important elements of not only the coastal zone, but
mining, public health, safety, and public review within 100 miles of
the U.S. border. I oppose this measure because it is too sweeping in
its efforts.
This bill also portends to provide border security problems on land
management laws. We have challenges with our border; there is no
question about it. I've supported additional funding for the Border
Patrol agency. We must protect our borders, but to do so in a land
management bill simply makes no sense. We should be taking up
comprehensive immigration reform separately from land management bills.
That is, I think, the method that we ought to apply.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Once again, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
California's comments, although I'm going to have to push back slightly
on a few of those, if it's at all possible.
This particular bill deals with 100 miles from the border simply
because that is the legal definition of border land by both statute and
judicial decree. It does not deal with coastal areas. In the committee,
those areas were taken out because it is maritime area. The Border
Patrol deals only with land borders and those particular areas.
The 36 rules that are waivable is precedent established by this
Congress. In California, where the gentleman resides, when they wanted
to finish the fence and it was being withheld by certain kinds of
litigation, Homeland Security came up with 36 specific rules and
regulations they wanted to be able to waive so they could do it. That
was the precedent. The rules and regulations that are in this
particular bill that's now title 15 are the exact same 36. That's where
the precedent comes. That's why Homeland Security wanted that time to
finish their job. That's what they needed this time.
However, I'm also making an amendment to this bill that will reduce
those 36 because, to be honest, some of those never really were a
problem. It will reduce it now to the 12 that the Border Patrol thinks
are the most egregious. But there is precedent for that particular
thing. All we are doing is trying to give the Border Patrol the same
rights on Federal lands that they currently have on private property.
There is no expansion of power and no expansion of jurisdiction. It's
the ability to say our number one goal is to have border security; and
if there is a rule or regulation getting in the way--and there are
according to the GAO reports--those should be waived for the purpose of
border security. That's the whole purpose. We're not expanding a power.
We're not taking anything more than that in particular away.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King), who would like to speak about this particular rule.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for
yielding, and I particularly appreciate it, given the subject matter
I'm about to bring up.
Madam Speaker, I had introduced legislation months ago in this
Congress, in fact, as far back as last August, H.R. 2942. It's the
result of the massive flooding that we have suffered in the Missouri
River bottom last summer.
The Corps of Engineers released unprecedented discharges of water
coming down the Missouri River; 70,000 cubic feet per second was the
previous high. We went through 160,000 cubic feet per second. It was a
secret flood. No one could drive there, and no one could boat there.
You had to fly over it to see it, and it was water that was perhaps a
mile and a half wide downstream from Sioux City, Iowa, to just a few
miles south of there, 8 miles wide at Blencoe, 11 miles wide upstream
of Omaha. And south of Omaha downstream below Glenwood, it became 4 to
6 miles wide all the way down into Missouri, St. Joseph, Kansas City,
and on about halfway towards St. Louis.
[[Page H3749]]
This was a massive flood of historic proportions. It could have been
prevented; yet I have not challenged the Corps of Engineers on that.
I've just said to them we need to fix the problem so it doesn't happen
again. They have declared that this was a 500-year event, even though
the USGS statistician said it is somewhere between a 70- and a 1,000-
year event.
H.R. 2942 enjoys the support of almost everyone that represents the
Missouri River watershed area. And, yes, naturally, it will be more
downstream. But from Sioux City downstream to the mouth, there's only
one that represents the river that has not signed onto this bill. It's
bipartisan; it's the entire Iowa delegation and most of Nebraska. Yet
the Rules Committee turned down my request to offer an amendment even
though there is no discussion and no disagreement. My amendment was
germane to the bill. They raised an issue of jurisdiction after I was
dismissed from the committee. I don't think that was by plan or
strategy.
My preparation is this: if a Member of Congress can't have their
voice heard on an amendment that's germane when all of the boxes are
checked and everything was done right to present it before the
committee--by the way, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for
calling for a recorded vote on this, a party-line vote. This time it
was Democrats siding with Steve King. It's the second time the Rules
Committee has turned me down this year on a legitimate request.
But I'd ask, if the House is going to work its will, as Speaker
Boehner has said, we must have a Rules Committee that will allow when
it's in proper form to allow that kind of a vote here on the House
floor. I'm not going to get that debate. I'm not going to get that
vote. And the people that I represent and all of us from Sioux City
downstream to St. Louis now have been covered by not just water for an
entire summer, more than 3 months of epic-proportions flooding, but now
what's left for us, Madam Speaker, is sand and camel habitat.
I'll vote ``no,'' but I don't intend to try to bring down the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady for the time as I rise in
opposition to the rule.
I agree with my colleague from Iowa. I voted for the amendment to the
rule offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida that would have allowed his
amendment and others.
What are we scared of here? This is what we do. We are the House of
Representatives. Let us work our will. Some of us will be for
amendments, and some of us will be against amendments. But to hold all
that power to a select group of people rather than allow the entire
membership of this body to offer--again, we're talking about relevant
amendments that meet the requirements, meet the rules of the House.
What are we scared of in bringing that forward? Let's have a discussion
on the merits.
Instead, what do we have here under this rule? We have 14 separate
bills all cobbled together with a limited period of time to debate all
of them and without an opportunity to amend them from both sides of the
aisle that would have been afforded under either an open process or a
structured process that allowed all the rules that met the requirements
to be debated under this bill each for their own period of time.
Now, I want to discuss in particular what I find to be one of the
most egregious provisions of the bill, which is really a solution in
search of a problem, namely, this is an aspect of the bill that would
waive over 40 environmental safety and public health laws and give
Department of Homeland Security complete authority to seize control of
Federal lands within 100 miles of our northern and southern borders.
{time} 1300
Now this provision's reach is broad. It rolls back all of the
relevant protection laws. And again, for what purpose? We had a
discussion in the Rules Committee yesterday, and I, with my colleague
Mr. Bishop from Utah, had the opportunity to follow up.
And it is very clear in statute that in any wilderness or any Federal
lands, under any level of protection, if they are in hot pursuit of a
suspect, they are allowed to continue that pursuit in the wilderness.
Wilderness areas are not some sort of legal sanctuary where criminals
can go and not be pursued. That has nothing to do with the purpose of
wilderness, and it has nothing to do with the reality of wilderness.
Much of my district in Colorado has wilderness areas. And if, in fact,
there were these lawless areas that the police couldn't go to pursue
suspects, all the criminals would live in the wilderness, and they
would simply come out to commit crimes and then go back in. That is
simply not the case. Law enforcement officials assure me that whenever
they're engaged in hot pursuit, they are able to, of course, continue
to pursue immigrants or others, criminal aliens, et cetera, into
wilderness territories.
Now this is a problem, the immigration issue, that cannot simply be
enforced away. When we're talking about immigrants without papers, they
are in our cities and towns. They are in our schools. They are the
grandmother of the American grandkids. They are residents of our
communities. They are people who I meet with on a regular basis. We try
to help our immigrants get on with their lives, contribute to our
country, and make it stronger.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will be glad to yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. POLIS. Yes, there's a problem here. And thankfully, President
Obama took a bold first step and reduced the number of illegal
immigrants in this country by 800,000 to 1 million with one stroke of
his pen. But frankly, the presence of any illegal immigrants in this
country is an affront to our law and an affront to our national
sovereignty.
We owe it to the American people to take up real immigration reform
to ensure that there are not 15 million people here illegally, not 10
million people here illegally, but there are zero people here illegally
through comprehensive immigration reform, of which President Obama took
the bold first step of ensuring that young de facto Americans have
their permission to work.
Look, our undocumented population is not fleeing into the wilderness,
and the problem with immigration is not that we are not able to pursue
them. It's simply not the facts on the ground. Let's deal with the real
issue and replace our broken immigration issue with one that works and
makes our country stronger.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm
going to offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to
consider the United States Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection
Act. Call centers have been outsourced more than pretty much any other
type of job from the United States. This bill will help keep call
center jobs in America.
And to discuss his call center proposal, I'm pleased to yield 5
minutes to my colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection
Act, H.R. 3596, is a bipartisan bill. It has 128 Democratic sponsors.
It has seven Republican sponsors. And the bill is very straightforward.
It would do four things. It would require companies that plan to move
a call center overseas to notify the Secretary of Labor no less than
120 days before the relocation occurs. If a company does move a call
center overseas, that company would be ineligible for any Federal
grants, contracts, or loans during the time that the call center
workers are overseas. It would require the Secretary of Labor to
maintain a publicly available list of all employers that relocate a
call center overseas. And it would allow customers who are calling
customer service communications at the beginning of the call to request
that the call be transferred to a U.S.-based call center, if they so
chose.
There are two dimensions to this bill: one is about jobs, and the
other is about the security of consumer data. They are both very
important. But let me start with the more important, which is jobs.
[[Page H3750]]
Now we talk a great deal in this Congress about how the number one
priority has to be the creation of jobs. It does. And we have to move
beyond the lip service that I think the Republican majority has given
to the creation of jobs and actually put policies in place that
will create jobs. But we also have to protect the jobs that we have.
And one of the scourges of our economy right now is the outsourcing of
jobs. Just in call centers alone, in the last 5 years, we have lost
over 500,000 call center jobs. These are good, solid middle class jobs.
To add insult to injury, the companies that are offshoring the jobs
have taken millions of dollars of incentives from local taxpayers to
open call centers in the U.S., only to offshore those jobs a short time
later and leave local communities devastated and still paying the bill.
And the U.S. consumers are getting it. U.S. consumers have become
more and more skeptical of the toll that outsourcing plays on the
American economy. A paper by the Council on Foreign Relations noted
that over two-thirds of Americans think companies sending jobs overseas
is a major reason why the economy is ailing. In a paper done by a
Harvard economist, more recent polling data suggests that these
feelings have increased, where now over half of all Americans are
``resentful of businesses that send jobs overseas,'' and over 80
percent have ``concern for their family future'' due to outsourcing. So
this job creation and job protection dimension of the bill that I have
filed--as I say, with bipartisan support--would address these issues at
least in one piece of our economy, and that is call centers.
Let me move to the issue of the protection and security of consumer
data. Outsourcing call center work exposes the confidential and
vulnerable personal information of American consumers to foreign
workers. Foreign call centers are not subject to the same rigorous
oversight as American call centers. As American companies look to less
developed countries for offshoring their jobs, call center companies
are actually subsourcing call center work without their American
customers' knowledge.
It's expensive and difficult to conduct proper background checks on
foreign call center workers, and up to one-quarter of all foreign call
center applicants provide false or incorrect information. Foreign call
center workers have been caught offering to sell personal consumer data
to undercover journalists, threatening to release Americans' medical
records and employment disputes, misleading American bank customers in
schemes to bolster sales, and attempting to sell trade secrets to their
employers' competitors.
A March 18, 2012, article published in The Times of London cited that
undercover journalists were offered data such as credit card numbers,
medical records, and loan data for hundreds of clients for just
pennies. So clearly, from both dimensions here--from a job protection
dimension and from a consumer data security dimension--this bill
addresses both of these issues; and we simply must put in place these
kinds of protections.
States have already done this. State legislatures in Florida,
Georgia, and New Jersey have all passed bills that are very similar to
the bill that we have before us. This is a commonsense proposal that
enjoys bipartisan support. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous question
so that we may consider this job-saving bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the efforts of my namesake from New
York. I appreciate what he is doing. Chairman Hastings of the Resources
Committee was extremely specific in which he said that after the
Democrat Senate had sent over that atrocious omnibus bill with over 100
bills cobbled together, 75 of which have never had a hearing over here,
we would only put together this type of regulation if it had gone
through regular order. Unfortunately, the gentleman's bill has not had
a hearing in any committee. It has not actually been reported yet,
which is one of the reasons why it has not been included in this
particular list. Although I'm not denigrating his efforts whatsoever.
I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, back in the nineties, I introduced a bill
dealing with the wilderness area along the border. Originally, those on
the other side of the aisle in the Clinton administration opposed the
inclusion of roads in that wilderness area--and they opposed it
strongly--until the Secretary of the Interior came down to the border
and saw the habitat destruction being caused by a lack of proper
enforcement.
This situation that's being proposed now is actually to try to get
this issue addressed appropriately because you have individuals who are
using environmental issues as a way of blocking the enforcement of law
along the border.
And let me say this to both sides of the aisle: If you really do care
about the habitat destruction along the border, if you really do care
about the preservation of the wildlife opportunities down there, will
you ask yourself, Why are you or the Republican side not addressing the
issue that the Federal Government today has not taken care of the
problem at the border because it hasn't taken care of the real source
of the problem of the out-of-control borders, and that is employers
hiring illegals.
I challenge you: Why does the Federal Government allow businesses to
deduct the price of hiring illegals? Why isn't every Democrat and
Republican on the New IDEA bill cutting off the tax deduction and the
ability for people to profit from the tax code by profiting from
illegal immigration?
{time} 1310
Your impact on the border will be addressed more by changing your
enforcement at the workplace and your Tax Code than it will be with
whatever you do at the border. So I just ask you, if you care about the
environment, if you care about eliminating the scourge of illegal
immigration and all the problems, why aren't you stopping the subsidy
of those who are creating the problem by employing them?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey,
Rob Andrews.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend, and it's so good to see her energy
and enthusiasm back on this floor with us today. We welcome her.
286 days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber
and addressed the number one problem that I hear about from my
constituents, which is jobs for the American people.
I know that this bill raises very serious and important issues, and I
applaud its authors and sponsors for bringing it to the House floor,
but I think it's the wrong bill on the wrong day.
The President said that we should cut taxes for small businesses if
they hire people. But we haven't taken a vote on that proposal, and
we're not going to take one today.
The President said that we should put construction workers back to
work building bridges and roads and our electric infrastructure, our
intellectual infrastructure, but we're not voting on that proposal
today.
The President said that firefighters and police officers and teachers
who have been taken off the job should be put back on the job so they
can spend money in the stores and the restaurants, but we're not voting
on that proposal today, and we haven't voted it on it on any of the 286
days since the President proposed it.
Instead, we have the proposal in front of us that, again, is very
serious, raises a lot of issues. But I suspect if most of us went back
to our district today and said, ``What would you rather have us do,
vote on three simple, clear ideas up or down on whether to create jobs
for the American people or vote on this?'' I think they'd want us
voting on the jobs bill.
Now, we have a version of that jobs bill that we have a chance to get
on the floor, and that is Mr. Bishop's proposal that says the
following: If you do business in the United States of America, if you
sell your products to the American consumer, then your call center
ought to be in the United States of America.
How many of our constituents, Madam Speaker, are tired of placing a
call to a call center and you don't know where it is, the person at the
other end of the phone doesn't know what you're saying and doesn't
understand what you're asking about.
[[Page H3751]]
Should we be using American tax dollars to reward companies that
outsource call center jobs? I think the answer is no.
This would be one simple and clear idea that we ought to put on this
floor so the Members have a chance, by voting ``no'' on the previous
question, to say, Let's take a vote on the proposition that you can't
use American taxpayers' dollars to outsource American jobs in call
centers. And then maybe some day, after 286 days, we'll finally get
around to the President's idea to create jobs in small businesses in
this country.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague, the ranking member on
the Rules Committee, for allowing me to speak.
I'm a strong supporter and an original cosponsor or of the U.S. Call
Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation will help
us protect U.S. consumers and level the playing field for American
workers who have seen thousands of call center jobs needlessly sent
offshore in recent years. Namely, this bill would require the call
center to notify the Secretary of Labor at least 120 days before
relocating outside the United States. It would require the Department
of Labor to publicly list the firms that have moved call center jobs
overseas and then make those very firms ineligible for any direct or
indirect Federal loan for 5 years. To protect consumers, this
legislation requires call center employees to notify U.S. consumers
where they are located, if asked, and will require that call center to
transfer calls to an American call center for questions.
The U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act has support
of both sides of the aisle, and I ask all my colleagues in the Chamber
to stand with American consumers particularly, but also with these
American jobs, and support this legislation and, again, support the
effort to make sure we can have a vote on the House floor for that.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I appreciate many of the comments that have been made here. I'm glad
the gentleman from Colorado is still here, because in the memo of
understanding which controls what the Border Patrol does, Border Patrol
is able to go anywhere they want to on foot or horseback. They may go
on a motorized vehicle on existing public administrative roads. But
there is nothing in the memo of understanding that extends there to
prevent them unless it is an existing exigent emergency. And the
problem the Border Patrol actually has is no one really knows how to
define exigent emergencies. That's one of the reasons why they want to
have something specific in the memo of understanding--nor the statute
does not help them in those particular areas--because, indeed, land
managers have handled those exigent circumstances differently.
I would like to say one other thing as well, because there are some
places in this Nation in which the idea of title XIV in this bill,
which is the bill that deals with border security, has been expanded
with information that is simply inaccurate. Montana, for example, has a
545-mile border with Canada. It has different issues than the southern
border--but it's not numbers--but it is remote, and who can cross that
border illegally is significant.
The junior Senator from Montana actually asked the GAO to come up
with a study on border security in the North, and the report was only 1
percent of the northern border is secure. That was his study that he
wanted. Despite the fact that the Missoulian has warned about al-Qaeda
plots in Montana, that the Border Patrol chief from Montana has begged
some kind of action--indeed, this month the Border Patrol has sent out
a warning of the use of terrorists who are talking about--chatter
abusing wildfires as an area to distract so they can come in entrance,
and one of the States they specifically mentioned was Montana.
Even though that is taking place, there is a campaign going on where
this particular issue, border security, has been hijacked in the name
of politics. And only because it is my idea that's being the center of
this, I find that somewhat unusual, somewhat offensive. It is an effort
to say that this effort to try to control our borders is related in
some way to the PATRIOT Act or the REAL ID Act or, indeed, that it
deals with some other element of expansion of power. Some people have
gone as far as saying it is a land grab.
It is unusual to me that this concept of border security was
presented in the Senate on an appropriations bill and was passed by a
voice vote. Then the bill in which this amendment was placed was then
passed by the Senate, and the junior Senator from Montana did not
object to the voice vote and actually voted for it and now claims that
this same idea is an expansion of government power, thus, something not
work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
What I also found somewhat distressing is that in this campaign in
Montana there is another group called Montana Hunters and Anglers, who,
unfortunately, are simply a partisan hit group that are taking out ads
directly against this particular provision and saying that other
members in the delegation from Montana are supporting something that is
wrong. Unfortunately, the members of that hit group have ties to
Democrat organizations. The secretary is part of the Obama Committee in
the State of Montana. The treasurer is a former Democratic staffer up
there.
This group, the Montana Hunters and Anglers, are a faux group. The
real supporters of this bill are people like the Montana Wool Growers
Association, the Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, the
Montana Public Lands Council, Montana Stock Growers Association. These
are real groups, and they all support this particular provision and
this particular bill because they realize the value of border security
that takes place. They also realize what Secretary Napolitano
recognized: that if you improve border security in the area by removing
violators from public lands--those are the people that destroy things--
the land value is enhanced. It is better for Border Patrol if they have
enhanced ability to control those particular borders.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is advised that he has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
{time} 1320
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady. And in response to my friend from
Utah, I want to quote the MOU specifically. It says:
Nothing in this MOU is intended to prevent CBP-BP agents
from exercising existing exigent/emergency authorities to
access lands, including authority to conduct motorized off-
road pursuit of suspected CBVs at any time.
And it goes on to say in wilderness and wilderness study areas, and
all different areas.
In fact, the committee had a hearing on this very topic. There were
three instances cited by Chairman Bishop on this, and it was determined
that those were incorrect interpretations of this existing MOU by local
managers, and it would be addressed through the command structure. So
again, a solution in search of a problem.
We all want to address the problem of illegal immigration in this
country, but that problem cannot be characterized as illegal immigrants
fleeing into the wilderness. It simply isn't the problem. If there are
suspects of any type of criminal nature fleeing into wilderness and
there is law enforcement in hot pursuit, they continue; they continue,
and they don't stop. If they stop, they'll be in trouble with their
superiors, and we'll work it out through the command change.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, we have wasted yet another opportunity to pass some
bipartisan legislation here. Everybody
[[Page H3752]]
knows this bill is not going to be taken up in the Senate, so it's
again a day and a half of exercise in some kind of procedure by the
House of Representatives. By combining worthwhile proposals with
extreme and partisan proposals, they've continued to move forward with
an ineffective and unnecessary partisan agenda.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues 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. BISHOP of Utah. In my last minute, Madam Speaker, there are a
couple of things I would like to say. First of all, I appreciate the
words that were read. Unfortunately, reality is different. One of the
reasons why this particular provision is supported by the Border Patrol
Union as well as the Association of Retired Border Patrol Agents,
reality is sometimes different than what we think it should be. And I
also have a list of three pages worth of groups who support not only
this provision but the other 13 provisions.
I must in closing, though, bid the apology of the gentlelady of New
York for one thing. One of the former Parliamentarians wrote a book and
said when we put C SPAN cameras in here, everyone started to read their
speeches, and our debates became extremely dull. That's true. But when
you read something, you don't make a misstatement. I did. I did a
couple. My amendment does not reduce it from 36 down to 12; it reduces
it from 36 to 16. I also used the ``disingenuine'' in talking about the
gentlelady's remarks. That was the wrong word. That was, indeed, the
word I said, but it is not what I meant to say, and I apologize for
saying that. That goes over the line of comity and I'm sorry, and I
just want you to know that I apologize for ``oopsing.'' That should
only be done by Governors, not by Members of Congress.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, each of these bills in here has been
heard by the committee of jurisdiction. It's had a hearing. It's had a
markup. The difference between this and other bills that we have seen
in the past is that everything had to go through regular order first.
Nothing was included in this rule that had not gone through regular
order through this particular committee.
It's a good bill. It's a good rule. It's a fair rule, and I urge its
adoption.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 688 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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.
3596) to require a publicly available list of all employers
that relocate a call center overseas and to make such
companies ineligible for Federal grants or guaranteed loans
and to require disclosure of the physical location of
business agents engaging in customer service communications.
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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
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 opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will 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. BISHOP of Utah. With that, 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 on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for the electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 178, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 381]
YEAS--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
[[Page H3753]]
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--178
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Bachus
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Crowley
Griffin (AR)
Holden
Huizenga (MI)
Jackson (IL)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Miller (FL)
Nugent
Sanchez, Linda T.
Towns
Young (FL)
{time} 1350
Messrs. HINOJOSA, ELLISON, McNERNEY, and CLYBURN changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LoBIONDO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________