Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 123 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5600-H5606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 761, NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND
CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 347

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. 761) to require the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop
domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of
strategic and critical importance to United States economic
and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. 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 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 the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5
legislative days in 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. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 761, the National Strategic
and Critical Minerals Production Act. It provides one hour of general
debate, equally divided between both sides. It provides for five
amendments, four of which are Democrat amendments and one is a
Republican amendment. So this rule is fair to a fault and it is totally
generous, and it will provide a balanced and open debate as long as we,
as Members, structure our remarks to the merits of this particular bill
and don't go off on tangents.

{time} 1230

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand before the House and
support this rule. It's a good rule.
I also support the underlying bill, H.R. 761, and I want to
congratulate the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), as sponsor of this
particular piece of legislation, as well as the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for
his leadership in this particular effort.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is blessed with an abundance of resources,
which has made us a leading world economy and industrial power, and we
have only scratched the surface, literally, of what we can potentially
develop.
We have energy potential such as coal, oil shale, and natural gas
deposits, as well as various critical minerals that we, as a Nation,
need and should be developing.
But unfortunately, much of this development of our domestic mineral
resources has actually been stymied by a combination of special
interest politics, as well as bureaucratic red tape, particularly under
this administration. It is a pain we have all seen coming.
Twenty-five years ago, 20 percent of all money that was spent for
development and production of critical minerals was spent here in the
United States. Today that's down to only 8 percent, as other nations
have replaced our efforts, unfortunately.
This has meant an increase in our trade imbalance, dollars going
overseas, escalating prices here at home for both energy and
commodities. It means job losses here in the United States. And
ironically, these jobs that we are losing are some of the highest-
paying middle class jobs that are available. Bureaucratic delays are
causing this, and they are causing us to see a change, both for
manufacturing and defense.
Twenty-five years ago, there were 30 minerals that we actually had to
import to this Nation that were considered critical minerals. Today
that number has gone from 30 to 61.
Twenty-five years ago, there were 16 minerals that we imported a
great majority of. Today that number that has gone to 24.
It affects manufacturing, such as electronics and metal alloys,
ceramics, glass, magnets, catalysts, everything. It affects our defense
as well, as our Defense Logistics Agency tries to

[[Page H5601]]

stockpile these minerals so the demands are there when we actually need
them.
Unfortunately, as we've illustrated, more and more of these are being
purchased from overseas. They are critical to our weapons development
system, including such things as night vision equipment, advanced
lasers, avionics, fighter jet components, missile guidance systems, and
it goes on and on.
Look, the Constitution tells us that our first responsibility is to
provide for a common defense. This bill steps us into the right
direction so we actually can provide for a common defense and do it
intelligently and avoid unnecessary and frivolous delays.
There are some that will criticize us for the kinds of minerals that
we are placing in this restriction area. There was a study in 2009 that
was done called the Great California ShakeOut, which was a mock of what
could happen if the big earthquake actually hit that area, and it found
out that, in an effort to try and rebuild the infrastructure that would
be necessary, there's a whole list of things we normally don't consider
as critical that would, in that situation, be critical, including sand
and gravel, that we simply would have a frightful deficiency of if we
were trying to rebuild under those types of critical situations.
This bill anticipates that, and makes sure that we will not be found
lacking, either in defense, or in manufacturing, or in critical
civilian needs in case of disaster.
This bill doesn't predetermine anything. It simply says, make a
decision, yes or no, on whether this project should go forward; simply
make a decision, and do it in a timely fashion.
We still, today, average between 7 and 10 years in which those
decisions are made. This bill says that that is unrealistic, and it
simply says, you've got 30 months--2\1/2\ years--to make a decision,
yes or no. If you have to have an extension, it provides for that on
common agreement, which is only rational to do. But for heaven's sakes,
finally make a decision.
It is based on not only what we are talking about here, but it's
based on what we are doing in our transportation area. It's based on a
Presidential concept; when the President established an Executive Order
No. 13604, which talked about the importance of trying to streamline
reform and reference our process.
This is the basis of what we are attempting to do in this particular
bill as well. This implies that whenever there are agencies, multiple
agencies involved in a project, that there must be a lead agency which
must take the responsibility of actually getting the job done, so that
any kind of environmental statement should be being done currently, not
sequentially, that we can make sure that any kind of lawsuit does not
stop the process of making a decision.
Once again, this is one of those things that simply is logical. Just
make a decision. You have plenty of time to do it. Make a decision.
There is no reason we cannot make a decision on whether to go forward
on a project in 2\1/2\ years, none, none whatsoever.
The fact that we are dragging our feet is simply done from
bureaucratic excess that is illogical and irrational. We have done this
in other areas. This is the time to do this in this area as well.
If, indeed, we could do this process, it would be very clear that
this Nation would prosper. We could have good-paying jobs, and we could
make the desert blossom.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the
gentleman from Utah, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and, Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such time as I deem necessary.
Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that
everybody in America knows that we should be addressing. Instead, we
are here today on H. Res. 347, a structured rule, and the underlying
bill, H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production
Act of 2013.

I get it that my friends from areas that have these minerals in
public spaces would like for us to proceed apace to extract them. I
understand their feelings. I come from yet another of the critical
areas of our country that we have to protect much of the space of, and
that would be the Everglades.
I don't understand why Congress is trying to provide even more breaks
to the United States mining operations when we do have these urgent
domestic issues that we are confronted with and, somehow or another,
that we were unable to undertake.
We haven't done all of our appropriations. We are having difficulty
getting a continuing resolution. We will soon be faced with lifting the
debt ceiling. And somehow or another, we are dealing with something
that, I might add, we have voted on before, that came out of the House
of Representatives, that did not pass the Senate, and H.R. 761 is not
going to pass the Senate either.
So H.R. 761 guts important environmental protections offered through
the National Environmental Policy Act, referred to as NEPA. It fails to
require adequate financial assurance, and I will have an amendment on
the floor that will address that subject, and offers other benefits to
mining companies.
Mining operations in the United States benefit already from multiple
Federal tax breaks, exemptions to regulation under existing
environmental laws, and no royalty payments to the United States for
mining operations, even on U.S. land.
Mining companies limit their liability for environmental restoration
and cleanup by operating with U.S. subsidiaries to foreign parent
companies. This relationship shields the parent company from liability
and has allowed parent companies to draw profits from United States
mining operations.
So what happens when companies do not pay for environmental damage
caused by their operations?
The people of the United States pay. They pay through a contaminated
environment. They pay through sickness, including cancer. They pay
through taxes, because taxpayer dollars are ultimately needed to clean
up these sites.
It would seem that we should have learned from our mistakes with the
1872 General Mining Law. Mining companies should be held accountable so
that their operations will not impose additional burdens on the
American people.
H.R. 761 not only takes away valued natural resources for hiking,
fishing, canoeing and other recreational activities, it shifts the
burdens of mining cleanup and restoration to the American taxpayer.
Furthermore, H.R. 761 classifies domestic mining operations for
strategic and critical minerals on Federal lands as infrastructure
projects. Using a broad definition that encompasses virtually every
type of mine, this legislation allows mines to take advantage of a
Presidential order from 2012 which requires Federal agencies to
streamline the permitting process for infrastructure projects.
However, building a mine is not the same as building roads and
highways that are much needed in this country, or replacing rotted
sewerage that is much needed in this country, which is, in fact, the
country's infrastructure.
Bills like this are why, in my opinion, the American people are so
frustrated with us here in the United States Congress. We have a number
of issues that we could--no, not that we could, that we should be
working on--and, yet, we are rehashing a bill that went nowhere last
Congress, ain't gonna go nowhere this Congress and, most importantly,
is bad for the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I just want to make a couple of comments before we go on with the
discussion of this particular rule, which, once again, is a fair rule
and is a good rule.
This bill is one of those bills that has no significant cost to the
budget. At no time does this stop any of the NEPA requirements. All it
says is, do your job and do it on time. Nothing big about that, simply
what those regulations are.
And it is obviously one of those things that takes place that we
desperately need, both for the manufacturing sector, as well as for
defense.
Look, I'm old. I still use legal pads. I trust those. They never
crash on me. But if you have an iPhone or an iPad or any of that other
kind of new stuff that my kids like to have, you're going to

[[Page H5602]]

have these critical minerals. And if we are not proposing and
developing them here in the United States, we are paying more to
develop them out of country, and we're putting ourselves,
manufacturing-wise, in a significant deficit situation. And obviously,
with the defense, what is happening is even more critical.
This is simply taking the executive order and saying, yeah, it's good
for infrastructure; it's also good for our critical mineral development
system, and saying, do the job. Do it well, do it quickly, get it done
in a reasonable period of time, and don't drag this stuff out by
sequencing the issues and the actions one after the other. You have a
period of time. Do your job.
It's an amazing concept of asking the bureaucracy of this Nation to
actually do their job, but it's important.
Yes, it was passed in the last session by an overwhelming bipartisan
vote. It's a bipartisan bill. The fact that the Senate did not take it
up is another indictment to Senate leadership, admittedly, an oxymoron,
but it's another indictment for the Senate leadership for ignoring the
significant issues that we have to face in this Nation. It's another
indictment that they should actually do their job.
Just because the Senate leadership decides to sit on these type of
issues does not mean we have to sit on them as well. This is something
we have to have, and it needs to go over to the Senate. If it has to go
over every week to the Senate until the Senate finally decides to
actually do something, then that is our responsibility, and we should
do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
improper characterizations of leadership of the other body.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3
minutes to my good friend from Oregon, (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
Great name. We're really good at messaging around here, particularly
on the Republican side. It's got a great name: National Strategic and
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013.
Now we've heard just earlier that this is about things that are in
critical short supply, vital for our national security and for
emergencies.

{time} 1245

None of those things are true. They could be a miniscule part of
this.
But what this bill does is say that any mining project anywhere on
any public lands in the United States of America does not constitute a
significant Federal action. No matter how large, no matter how
sensitive the area, no matter how proximate to the Grand Canyon and
national treasures or how proximate to Yellowstone or how proximate to
some critical watershed, that's not a major Federal action. So it's
exempt from NEPA. That's one very big problem with this legislation. I
think there's a lot of members of the public even living in very
conservative areas of the country who would find that a little bit of
overreach.
And then, again, these critical minerals are not critical. Sand and
gravel are now critical. Anything is critical that you can find on
public land. Any dirt of any sort, you are going to get an expedited
process. That's a little bit of overreach.
We're going to have a great amendment by Mr. Lowenthal, who will use
an actual definition from the National Research Council for strategic
and critical minerals. So if this is on the up-and-up, the other side
will accept that amendment and we will have these expedited processes,
which still cause us some anxiety; but they will only be for truly
strategic and critical materials, not everything and anything on any
public land.
Secondly, most Americans would be appalled--those who don't already
know--to learn that we give away all of the minerals on our public
lands: gold, uranium, platinum. No matter what it is, we give it away.
We do not charge. Unlike many western States, unlike Native American
tribal lands, unlike private lands, unlike most foreign countries, we
don't charge a royalty for extracting minerals from our lands, no
matter how valuable, no matter how many billions of dollars that that
load might be worth of platinum or gold or uranium. No charge. Give it
away.
Twice this body has passed, on a bipartisan basis, historically, a
modest royalty on the extraction of depletable valuable minerals from
Federal lands. I've been very involved in that in the past. In the
summer, I went to the Rules Committee when this bill was first going to
come up.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. DeFAZIO. They admit there are no parliamentary issues, no scoring
issues. In fact, with my amendment, an 8 percent royalty would raise
hundreds of millions of dollars. And those hundreds of millions of
dollars would be used to remediate hundreds of thousands of mines in
the West that are polluting the environment, polluting our rivers.
I have a foreign company in my district that, yeah, they put up their
million-dollar bond. Unfortunately, they left the country, and it's a
$14 million cleanup. The public is going to get stuck with that. It's
polluting the river, killing fish, and the taxpayers are going to have
to pay for it.
My amendment would have raised the resources necessary to deal with
hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines in the western United States
that need remediation and mitigation, but the Republicans were afraid
to vote on that amendment.
Some in the West know it's a problem. They didn't want to vote
against fixing the problem. Others just say you should run the
government like a business, except when it comes to valuable minerals.
We want to give them away. We don't really care about the deficit.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If we defeat the previous question, I'm
going to offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to
hold a vote on the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill will help to boost
the economy by encouraging businesses to bring more jobs to America and
discourage companies from shipping jobs overseas.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Hastings.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill before us today, H.R. 761, the National Strategic and
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013. I just think it goes too far.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and take up this
legislation, which we've worked on for a full year now, the Bring Jobs
Home Act, a bill which, for the first time, makes sure we promote
insourcing of jobs and stop the corporate welfare business for
outsourcing jobs.
The underlying legislation would set a dangerous precedent by waiving
mining projects from environmental reviews and eliminating public
access to the justice system itself. Pushing mining projects through
the permitting process is sure to continue to degrade our environment
and create workplace situations which are definitely unsafe. But it
won't solve the employment problem.
Since that's been injected into the discussion, the legislation will
simply allow our Nation's resources to be used to pad the pockets of
the same international corporations who ship jobs overseas; and, by the
way, that process of shipping jobs overseas is subsidized by the
Federal Government. We have for years helped corporations send jobs
overseas. What we should be doing is helping them get jobs back to
America, particularly since we see an upgrading of the past 16 months
in the manufacturing sector of our economy.
With this bill we're going to end the tax breaks that encourage
companies to ship their jobs overseas and use that to pay for tax
credits for patriotic companies that want to bring jobs back home. Do
you want to have real job improvement? This is the way to do it.
Over the last decade we've lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs--more
than during the entire Great Depression. Our trade deficit increased by
$300 billion. During the recession, the manufacturing workforce
plummeted to a near 60-year low.

[[Page H5603]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. PASCRELL. More troubling, Mr. Speaker, is that recent studies
estimate that one-quarter of American jobs are at risk of being
outsourced in the coming years. We're not talking about chump change
here. This is a lot of jobs.
So let's defeat this motion so we can actually debate a bill that
will end corporate welfare that allows companies to continue to engage
in outsourcing and then get a tax cut for doing so. Instead, let's
provide incentives that will grow good-paying manufacturing jobs in the
USA.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend if he's
prepared to close. I have no further speakers at this time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Obviously, I am prepared to close. It depends on
how long your closing goes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I can make it go as long as you want it to
go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Picking up where Mr. Pascrell left off, which I wasn't intending to
do until my good friend from Utah mentioned the timeframe. Tomorrow, we
are going to vote on whether or not to cut $40 billion from the
supplemental nutrition program for people this country. One of the
measures included in that is going to be that people can only qualify
for 3 months during a specified period of time if they are able-bodied
people.
Well, if you vote for the previous question that Mr. Pascrell
offered, there may be some jobs for those people. Otherwise, what we're
getting ready to do is put more people in a position of needing the
food stamps. And we continue to talk about jobs, but we haven't done
anything on the infrastructure.
I predict even if this measure before us today were to become law,
which it is not, but if it did by chance become law, we would be lucky
if in the course of time we had the kind of jobs and the number of jobs
that are desperately needed in this country.
What is wrong with this institution? Don't we understand that we have
college kids that are graduating and they can't find a job? We hire
kids up here at lower than the minimum wage because they can't find
jobs in the private sector. This is crazy.
We can't continue doing nothing when in fact the people are suffering
in this great country of ours. We have not only the natural resources
that my friends would have us extract from even public lands without
paying royalties, but we have the resources as a people to do the
things creatively to assist us in bringing jobs here rather than
sending them all over the world and causing a diminution of jobs here
at home.
Again, for the life of me I don't understand why we are considering
this bill today. We're considering virtually every mine on public land,
including uranium and coal mines, to operate without adherence to
Federal environmental laws, which protect public safety. Our priorities
are truly in the wrong place.
As I asked before, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
rule and the underlying legislation, and 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
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the opportunity we have of presenting this particular
rule to the body. I've always appreciated the opportunity of sharing
this time with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is a good
friend and a very colorful orator. And I always like to hear his
orations here on the floor.
You'll forgive me if I want to try and refocus on the matter that it
is hand, for, indeed, I recognize the statements that have been made by
the last two speakers that deal with the significance of jobs. What we
simply have to have is a policy in this country that promotes private
sector jobs, not just government sector jobs.
By promoting private sector jobs, we actually expand the economy and
build upon that concept. That is one of the reasons why this particular
bill is here. But all of a sudden you go from 30 minerals that we had
to import from other areas to 61 minerals that we now have to import
from abroad. That means there are a bunch of minerals that we used to
be producing in good, high-paying jobs that no longer are there.
So this is one of the areas that we can move our country in the
proper direction and not just simply say, Okay, let's create some kind
of make-work program that actually adds particular jobs. It needs to be
the right kind of jobs to move our country forward.
One person once told me the people sitting here is the entire
universe with which we talk. We will not make ourselves rich by paying
each other to take vacations. At some time, someone has to add real
wealth into the equation. That's what this bill is trying to do. We
have critical mineral wealth in this country. It needs to be added to
the equation so that we can create those good-paying mining jobs that
will spin off into good-paying manufacturing jobs in the private
sector. That's everything we are attempting to do.
I would like to take one issue and try to put it to rest as to the
idea that these companies who would be receiving benefit from this are
somehow getting off and not paying taxes or royalties. They are not
paying Federal taxes, but sometimes we forget that we're not the only
equation out there. Every one of these pays significant royalties and
severance taxes to State and local governments.

{time} 1300

The Federal tax that is proposed by some of the amendments to this
bill would be on top of that. It would be a form of double taxation.
Its goal would be to raise money, which is a nice goal, but simply
because you found a potential effort for the Federal Government to try
and raise more money doesn't mean you need to rush into that,
especially when it has a negative aspect somewhere else. It would have
a negative aspect on State and local governments. It would also have a
negative aspect on those companies that some people don't want to have
any empathy for the situation they're in.
If you actually put an additional Federal royalty on top of the State
and local royalty which they are paying and the severance tax that you
are paying, in a traditional company you could pass that tax burden on
to the consumer. In a world market, you cannot. That just doesn't
happen. It has to come out from the company itself.
The companies who are involved in here have clearly said that they
are not opposed if we could put some kind of net proceeds up. But these
kinds of proposals that we will be hearing in the debate today are not
net proceeds tax; they are an unparalleled, unprecedented gross tax.
Nothing has ever gone to that level in which the amendments would try
to put on this program.
So once again, what we're trying to ask you to do is look at this in
the overall view of what we are trying to do to develop real and good
private sector jobs.
The underlying element still goes back to the fact that, look, what
we need is to go through the permitting process but to do it in a way
that is legitimate. It should not have to wait 7 to 10 years to
actually permit something. That is just unrealistic.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am an old schoolteacher. As a
schoolteacher, we had 9 months to do something. If you couldn't get it
done in 9 months, you didn't get it done. There was no idea of just
postponing it to a future date. If a principal came to me and said
we're going to have to have our testing done on Tuesday for the
standardized test, I couldn't say no, I can't do that; let's wait for 2
weeks and maybe--maybe--I will be ready to help you with the testing
data. In any education system, when the time is up, the time is up. You
have to do the work, and you back-schedule to make sure that you
actually do the work. That happens in

[[Page H5604]]

almost every element of society except for here in government.
When I was in the State legislature, we had a constitutional end of
that State legislative date. We had 45 days to make a decision. Often
those decisions are not easy and you make the better of the bad choices
that you have, but we had to make a decision.
I contrast that with what is happening here in the United States
Government in which the Forest Service was asked to do a study on a
potential bridge that we could transfer from Federal ownership over to
State ownership. They said yes, in about 4 years we would be able to do
that study. Four years to do a simple study? We give ourselves these
unreasonable and inexcusable time references, and we do it all the
time.
I had a bill that we passed a couple of years ago and which mandated
that a certain agency of government had to give a piece of property
over to the local entity of government. Congress passed it. They
mandated it. Now here, 2\1/2\ years later, the agency still has not
transferred that land. They are going through their surveys. They are
taking their time. Even the local government had to pay for all these
time-consuming surveys. What Congress mandated, 2 years later, still
has not happened. That is unrealistic. In the private sector, no one
would tolerate that. In our State government, no one would actually
tolerate that. In the education community, no one would tolerate that.
Yet we look at that as the norm, 7 to 10 years, as an average, to
actually permit these things?
That is why what this bill is trying to do is say, look, go through
the process, use the NEPA process, but do it in a fair and rational way
and make a decision. You don't drag things out just for the fun of
dragging things out. If the decision is yes, fine; if the decision is
no, fine; but for heaven's sake, make a decision.
Some elements of government, whom I will not make caricatures about
even if it's true, some elements seem to like to drag out decisions.
This is an area that should not be. So this simply says, if you're
going to deal with this area, you've got 30 months to make a decision.
You can do that in 2\1/2\ years. There is no reason why it cannot be.
We are doing this in other areas of the government. The President, in
his executive order, said this has to be the way we move forward. This
bill moves us forward.
This bill does a good thing. It was right that it passed in the last
session by a huge bipartisan vote because it's the right thing to do.
It's the right message. It's the right program. It moves us forward.
It's the right thing to do this year. And we will continue to push this
until at some point we have succeeded in making sure that we are moving
forward with hard deadlines so that decisions are made and we're not
just piddling and piddling and waiting and delaying time after time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill. It was a good bill last time
we passed it. It's still a good bill. We need to pass this bill again.
It's also a very good rule. It's a fair rule. It's a rule for which we
can be proud.
I would urge my colleagues to make sure that we vote for this rule so
we can move forward on a bill that should have been passed by both
bodies a long time ago. But we need to, once again, start this process
and continue going forward because it is the right thing to do. It will
provide us with resources; it will provide us with jobs; it will
provide us, more importantly, with decisions. Finally, we can actually
have an agency that makes a decision in a timely manner.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 347 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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.
851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage
domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. 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 Ways and
Means. 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 H.R. 851 as specified in section 2 of this
resolution.

the vote on the previous question: what it really means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 347, if
ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 301.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 192, not voting 11, as follows:

[[Page H5605]]

[Roll No. 463]

YEAS--229

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

NAYS--192

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

NOT VOTING--11

Courtney
Diaz-Balart
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Nadler
Perlmutter
Polis
Rangel
Rush
Waters

{time} 1338

Mr. VARGAS, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr.
BARBER, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs. VEASEY, CUELLAR, and Ms. LOFGREN changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 190, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 464]

AYES--231

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

NOES--190

[[Page H5606]]

Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Cardenas
Cassidy
Diaz-Balart
Herrera Beutler
Himes
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Perlmutter
Polis
Rush
Waters

{time} 1345

Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________