[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.

                          ____________________