[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6989-H6995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4315, 21ST CENTURY ENDANGERED
SPECIES TRANSPARENCY ACT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 693
Resolved, That at any time after 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. 4315) to amend the Endangered Species Act of
1973 to require publication on the Internet of the basis for
determinations that species are endangered species or
threatened species, 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 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. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed
in the bill, 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 113-55. 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, 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.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York by way
of Kentucky, Ms. Slaughter, 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. I ask unanimous consent 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 the consideration of H.R. 4315, the Endangered
Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, and
[[Page H6990]]
makes in order four separate amendments for floor consideration.
In fact, this rule is generous in making all filed amendments which
were germane and otherwise met the rules of the House in order. Only
four were filed, and they are all made in order, so it is hard to see
how anyone could vote against this resolution as not being fair.
The resolution also provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member from the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is actually a package of four
bills--H.R. 4315, H.R. 4316, H.R. 4317, and H.R. 4318--which aim to
derail the Endangered Species Act.
The four bills are a product of the House Natural Resources
Committee's Endangered Species Working Group, a committee working group
which had not one Democrat Member on it, so that there was no
bipartisan discussion. There is always room to discuss how we can
improve legislation, but the negotiations should not be limited to
backroom negotiations with a select few from a single party.
It is ironic the bill is entitled ``21st Century Endangered Species
Transparency Act'' when the process to create the bill was anything but
transparent. If the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved in
order to better achieve the bill's purpose, then let's have a robust
bipartisan conversation in an open forum, which is what we call the
committee process.
Now, the package we are considering today, however, does not have any
bipartisan support because it would create additional red tape that
undermines essential protections provided for the Endangered Species
Act.
The Endangered Species Act was passed over 40 years ago to protect
imperiled animals and plants from extinction, and it is one of the most
important tools we have to ensure our Nation's wildlife is protected
for future generations.
These bills today do nothing to continue that wonderful background,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to introduce you to an individual in history by the name of
John Gochnaur. John Gochnaur was the shortstop for the Cleveland
Indians in 1902 and in 1903. In 1902, he played the entire year, and
his batting average was .185, as he committed also 48 errors, but was
still good enough to be the shortstop in 1903 as well, where he
completed a second season, once again hitting .185, but this time
committing a still record 98 errors as shortstop, which means one out
of every five times he touched the ball, he threw it away.
{time} 1230
John Gochnaur probably has the record now of being the most inept
major league player we have ever had in history, never hitting above
the Mendoza Line and setting the standard for errors. The worst major
league player--which is still quite an achievement to be a major league
player--but the worst major league player we have ever had in history
hit .185. The Endangered Species Act batting average would be .010 if
you round it up. They have had 1,500 species listed, only 12 have
actually passed the test and been recovered, for an actual batting
average of .008, or .010 if you really want to round up.
The Endangered Species Act, quite frankly, is the most ineffective
and inefficient piece of legislation that we have in the history of
this country. It does not work. It does not meet its goals. It never
has and it never will. The sad part is, though, this act does not go
into significant changes to the Endangered Species Act, which would
change that batting average. Instead, Chairman Hastings has to be
commended for getting a group of people to work together that did a
study, got testimony, produced a report, and came up with the most
basic of reforms that have to be necessary before anything significant
can go on past that.
What these reforms are is simply saying, look, if you are going to
have an Endangered Species Act, for heaven's sake, make sure that the
data that is used to come up with the realization of the program you
have is open to the people, it is transparent and it is public
knowledge. They are paying for it. You might as well make sure that
they have the opportunity to see it.
The President of the United States recognized this when he said in
2008:
Democracy requires accountability; accountability requires
transparency.
And then he quoted Justice Brandeis, who said that ``sunlight is said
to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is the concept that is here.
The data used to make these decisions should be available to the
public, and presently, it is not.
One of the witnesses in the committee, when it was a full committee
markup on this bill, was a long-time biologist by the name Mr. Ramey,
who said:
What are the effects of this lack of transparency on the
public when data are not possible or accessible? Legitimate
scientific inquiry and debate is effectively eliminated, and
no independent third party can produce the results. This
action puts the basis of some ESA decisions outside the realm
of science.
We have the issue that if there is data making these decisions,
people should know about it. It should be transparent. All of the data
that they use to make these decisions should be transparent. That is
not what is happening today.
In an exchange between the director of Fish and Wildlife and the
ranking member, the ranking member asked:
Okay. But again, why would a scientist wish to withhold
that data? I mean, if we gave them the public funds, I guess
we could require they publish the data; right? I mean, we
could change. We could put that into the language.
The Fish and Wildlife official said:
Congress could do that.
The ranking member said:
Okay. That might be something we would want to do. I don't
understand why we would go down the path of withholding the
data.
That is what this bill does. There are two elements to it. The most
significant part is the first of transparency. If there is data that is
going to be used, we need to make sure that we have access to that
particular data.
This is a bill that was passed almost four decades ago. This is a
bill the last time it was addressed I was still wearing saddleback
jeans and platform shoes and my hair had color and it was parted down
the middle and it covered more than just my ears. We haven't touched it
since that time. They didn't have iPods back then the last time we
touched it. It is a new era that requires new information and new data,
and there is no reason that should be withheld from the American
people, and that is what this bill tries to do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Daines), who has had to live with the realities of
the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his
leadership on this important issue. I rise in support of the rule and
H.R. 4315, the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act.
My home State of Montana is called the Treasure State, where we found
settlers. In fact, my great-great-grandmother came out and homesteaded
in Montana. They found productive ag lands. They found riches of
minerals to sustain our industries among the many species that are
important to our fishing and hunting heritage.
When the Endangered Species Act became law, Congress committed to
helping to sustain our unique ecosystems and our way of life. However,
too often ESA decisions are not based on sound science and it is about
political science, unfortunately, and the law results in encouraging
habitual litigation. The result has been fewer jobs and deteriorating
forest health. And, as Mr. Bishop mentioned, the species aren't
actually recovering with a batting average of .008. Frankly, the
Endangered Species Act is like a 40-year-old ranch pickup: it once
served a useful purpose but is in bad need of repair.
[[Page H6991]]
By increasing transparency--and this is about repairing the
Endangered Species Act, bringing it forward to the 21st century so it
actually delivers the outcomes we all desire, and that is recovering
the species versus just listing them. H.R. 4315 begins an important
process toward modernizing this well-intentioned but out-of-balance and
out-of-date law. I urge the House and Senate to pass it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Collins) because he also is faced with the unique situation,
because this is not just a Western issue. This is an issue that affects
all of us.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as we come here today, one of
the things that strikes me--and, of course, I support the rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 4315, because it really strikes a balance and, as
part of the working group that has been meeting under Chairman Hastings
and others, including Mr. Bishop, dealing with this, as my friend from
Utah said, it is an issue that has not been touched in many, many
years. There is nothing that really, from our perspective of
government, should not be looked at every once in awhile, and
especially when you get things such as the Endangered Species Act,
which has grown and multiplied and just really expanded to where not
only does it affect Western States, but it affects States like Georgia.
To come to the floor today to take issue with a bill that simply
permits the concept--and my friend from Utah said we could have
actually gone after a lot more than this. We could have taken on the
Endangered Species than this. We could have taken on the Endangered
Species Act and said: Let's make it better for the 21st century.
Instead, we went to targeted reform, targeted aspects of it. We said:
Let's look at transparency. Let's look at capping attorneys' fees.
Instead of paying pockets of attorneys, it is okay to still sue. We are
saying it is okay if you want to sue, but we are not going to pay
unlimited amounts just so you can sue for maybe dubious data or devious
wins. This is an issue of transparency.
Wouldn't we want to put that money into protecting actual endangered
species? Is that not what the Endangered Species Act is about? Is it
actually protecting endangered species?
The problem with the Endangered Species Act, however, is that it has
expanded to where now the Endangered Species is jobs. It is people. It
is the people who are affected by the Endangered Species Act, and all
we are saying is let's shine a little light on it. That is a song from
back when the ESA was first passed. Let's shine a light. ``This little
light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.'' Well, let's shine a little bit
of light on this as we go forward.
A ``no'' vote on this legislation to me is simply a ``no'' vote,
whether it is the rule or the bill. It is a ``no'' vote for the status
quo. If there is anything that this country is screaming, whether it is
Republican or Democrat, they are tired of the status quo, and
especially in something like this, because when they hear about it,
they don't understand it.
I am going to tell a little story that comes from Georgia, and it
involves the Indiana bat. The Indiana bat is on the endangered species
list. A few years ago--oh, oh, be quiet. A few years ago, a transmitter
went off. It was a little beep. Oh, oh. You might hear it on your
phone. It was a beep in southern Tennessee. It only went off one time
from everything that we can gather, but that transponder hit said the
Indiana bat is moving south.
Well, we expanded the net and said nothing north of Atlanta. All of a
sudden we have to start checking for the Indiana bat. We checked. We
have looked. I have it on my phone here. I brought one to the floor
today. I have a compass. I have a map. I asked this before and nobody
stepped forward, but I will take my compass. I will take my map, and if
you help me, come to northeast Georgia and find the Indiana bat, there
is probably a prize. I will take you to the Waffle House and buy you
whatever you want, because so far it hasn't been found. In fact, the
last time the Indiana bat was actually seen in Georgia was in Athens in
the 1940s.
Now, Athens is home to a wonderful, fine, upstanding institution
called the University of Georgia. Go Dawgs. But it was probably found
or seen maybe after one of the celebrations of our great victories on
Saturday on the gridiron when everyone is partying, and they may have
seen the Indiana bat and said, ``There's the bat,'' but we haven't seen
it since.
So I am not sure what we are looking for, but I tell you what we are
doing. We are paying almost $100,000 on every road project over and
above the cost for hard-earned taxpayer dollars on the Federal and
State level looking for a bat that may have existed in a fraternity
party in Athens 45, 50, 60 years ago because nobody knows. But it came
because, listen--those in the gallery, those watching on TV, listen--
the transponder may go off, and we may just block off all kinds of
areas and say ``pay more'' because the transponder went off.
Now, many times our friends across the aisle say we on our side, we
just want business and we don't care about endangered species, we don't
care about the environment. There is no other Republican, and when you
come to the Ninth District of Georgia--and I know my friend from
Colorado feels that his State is beautiful, and it is. It is great. But
the Ninth District of Georgia is pretty nice, too. And I want clean
water and I want good roads. I want the things that matter because the
environment in north Georgia is great. But what I do not want is an
overreaching regulation that is not addressed when we are simply asking
for transparency. We are simply asking for transparency. When you are
asking for transparency, my question not only is where is the bat, but
where is the problem. Where is the bat? Where is the problem?
The problem with this bill is nothing. The problem with this bill is
it begins to shine light on the things that need shining light on.
Disinfectant, I am not sure what we are doing here because right now
there is no disinfectant. We need transparency to shine a light. ``This
little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.'' I am going to let it
shine on something that protects taxpayer dollars, that protects
transparency and does the things that it is supposed to do.
And by the way, if you happen to be coming by, the problem with this
is simply transparency. It protects taxpayer dollars and protects
endangered species by using the latest in science and being open to the
public.
{time} 1245
But let me ask all who may be watching: if you are driving through
the great State of Georgia, if you are in north Georgia in the Ninth
District, I have got a lot of places for you to come, but when you get
there bring your binoculars, bring your compass, bring a map, and if
you find the bat I will see you at the Waffle House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair and to refrain from addressing occupants of the
gallery.
Without objection, the gentleman from Colorado will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To be clear, the goal of the Endangered Species Act doesn't exist
just to get species off the list, it exists to keep species on the
planet, and has a tremendous track record of success--99 percent
effective at preventing the extinction of species that have been listed
on the endangered species list.
There is strong precedent in passing bipartisan Endangered Species
Act measures. Last Congress, I was very proud to be an original
cosponsor of Mr. Bishop's Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension
Act, which became law in January of 2013. The Endangered Fish Recovery
Programs Extension Act facilitated the recovery of four endangered
species native to the Upper Colorado River Basin. The bill ensures
compliance with the Endangered Species Act for over 200 projects that
use water from the Colorado River and provided enough water for
agricultural and municipal water use as well.
I salute Representative Bishop's efforts to pull together a
bipartisan group from Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming to work
together on that successful modification to the Endangered Species Act.
What we have before us today is not an example of that same
bipartisan spirit and open process of work that
[[Page H6992]]
can build upon, rather than take a step back from, protecting species
that are an important part of our ecosystem.
This bill in its current form would not only waste taxpayer dollars
and Federal Government agency time by creating additional red tape and
bureaucracy, but it is also a waste of our limited remaining time in
session. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, with a border crisis, crises
breaking out across the Middle East, and yet we are debating a
particular change to the Endangered Species Act, which, regardless of
its merits, is simply not one of the top two issues, five issues, 10
issues, even top 100 issues that I have heard from my constituents
about over the last year.
People wonder why this legislative body is as unpopular as we are,
with an approval rating of 12 percent. One need look no further than
what we are working on. Rather than addressing the budget deficit or
restoring fiscal stability to our country, rather than securing the
border and passing comprehensive immigration reform, we are instead
discussing a bill that weakens the Endangered Species Act. And
regardless of whether Members want to strengthen it or weaken it or
modify it--Americans care about jobs, the economy, fiscal
responsibility, addressing our border crisis--having problems with the
Endangered Species Act is simply not on the minds of most everyday
American families. I think most American families think the Endangered
Species Act is a fine thing, maybe they think it should move this way
or that way or be better or stronger or weaker, but that is not the
issue that they want us addressing with our limited time in session.
This is our last week in session in the month of July. In the month
of August, this esteemed body won't even meet once. In September, we
will come back for 2 or 3 weeks. I don't know--are we going to be
discussing endangered species for those 2 or 3 weeks as well?
It kind of reminds me of the historical precedent of Emperor Nero
fiddling while Rome burned. Here we are in record deficits, war and
threatened wars are enveloping the Middle East with the Islamic state
and ISIS occupying much of Syria and Iraq, with the uncertainty in
eastern Ukraine and separatists engaged in battle, with the precarious
recovery of the economy, with things getting harder and harder for
middle class American families to get by and support themselves and
their family, and here we are with only 3 days left in session before
September discussing relatively minor changes that add another
bureaucratic layer of red tape to the Endangered Species Act. It is
simply not what the people in my district hired me to fight for them
on, and I don't think it is what the people in this country want
Congress to do at this point.
There are so many issues that the American people, the people who
sent us here to represent them, agree on, where there is common ground.
One example is immigration reform. Polls have shown that 87 percent
of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform. Perhaps we found
that last 13 percent of people who approve of Congress, maybe it is
those same people who don't want to see immigration reform. The only
people left who approve of these obstructionist tactics with regard to
immigration reform, the tactics which are tearing families apart,
hurting our economy, bloating our deficit, and preventing us from
securing our border, are an ever-dwindling percentage of Americans.
Now that we are dealing with this Endangered Species Act, I hope that
we can get back to addressing immigration reform. Let us have a vote on
comprehensive immigration reform, a vote on raising the minimum wage, a
vote on a comprehensive plan to balance the budget. Let's have a real
debate and exchange real ideas to move our Nation forward.
There are a number of flaws in this modification of the Endangered
Species Act which prevent it from being a true piece of bipartisan
legislation with wide support from this body, like I had the
opportunity to work on with Mr. Bishop last session. But I think even
more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we just need to ask ourselves why, with
days left before Congress adjourns for the summer, are we considering a
topic that, while surely worthy of debate, hardly raises to the level
of these pressing issues, like our budget deficit, the border crisis,
or the Middle East, in which I hope that this body can have a
substantive debate around resolving?
While we are here debating a partisan, politically charged bill that
threatens to undermine the Endangered Species Act, 32 wildfires larger
than 5,000 acres are burning in seven Western States. My district had
several last summer, and we are worried about this summer. These fires
cover a total of 1.4 million acres and are a serious threat to homes,
lives, livelihoods, and health.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. Already 196
Members have signed a discharge petition to bring this legislation to
the floor of the House.
Mr. 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
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this rule or the underlying
bill.
The Republicans are committed to partisan politics over progress for
our country, and this bill is yet another example of that agenda.
In the last 3 days of legislative business before a summer recess of
1\1/2\ months, House Republicans are using this valuable time in the
people's Chamber to simply pass a bill that obstructs the Endangered
Species Act rather than deals with any of the critical issues facing
our country.
Congress should be considering legislation to secure the border or
deal with the crisis of unaccompanied minors on our southern border, to
balance our budget, to reform our broken immigration system, to deal
with wildfires, to raise the minimum wage, to protect workers. But
instead, here we are debating partisan changes to a piece of
legislation that has, frankly, served us well and our ecosystems well
over the prior decades.
We do have an emergency on our southern border with regard to
unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. We need
to have a comprehensive strategy to deal with that and make sure that
we are not overwhelmed by people from other countries.
Before we adjourn for recess, Congress could and should address
immigration reform. The American people want us to pass bipartisan
immigration reform. The bill passed the Senate with over two-thirds
majority. That is very rare. Democrats and Republicans came together to
pass a commonsense immigration reform bill that more than 80 percent of
the American people support, and more than two-thirds of the Senate
support it.
If we can schedule that bill for a vote this week, I am confident it
would pass right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We
have a bipartisan House bill, H.R. 15, that is ready to come to the
floor and be voted on, and I believe it would pass.
I am honored to be a sponsor of H.R. 15, the bipartisan immigration
reform bill. The bill would create jobs here, reduce our budget
deficit, ensure America is more competitive in the global economy,
unite families, and secure our borders. Just as importantly, it will
make sure that our immigration system reflects our values as Americans,
a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants.
House Republicans have refused to allow a vote on immigration reform
and it failed to bring forth a single bill to help improve our broken
immigration system or our dire crisis at the border. Instead, we are
left with time that we could use to debate minute changes that add
bureaucracy and red tape to an already encumbered Endangered Species
Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question so that we can discuss the Wildfire Disaster Funding
Act of 2014. It is so important to my home State and so many others in
the West and Mountain West.
I also will oppose the rule and the underlying bill and encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H6993]]
I am pleased to talk about the Endangered Species Act here because we
need to make sure that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not
to make sure that the government is always funding the listing and the
maintenance of these species, but to make sure that they are healthy
enough so that the government doesn't have to do that, in which case, I
am sorry, the batting average is still .008. The Endangered Species Act
is failing in that effort.
The methods don't work. But we are not discussing the methods here
today. We are discussing something that is simply a commonsense
solution to how we move forward with the Endangered Species Act.
The Governors understand that as well. I received a letter from the
Western Governors' Association, signed by the Governor from Nevada, as
well as the Governor from my friend's home State of Colorado, urging us
to have transparency in this action, transparency in the Endangered
Species Act. It is important that we simply know what is or is not
taking place.
The Endangered Species Act, unfortunately, has an impact on real
people. It is a regulatory taking by the Federal Government. It impacts
real people's ability to use their property, it impacts real people's
ability to have jobs and maintain them. To say that talking about this
impact on these people is not good enough, that this is not a high
enough version, this is not raising to the level, we don't care enough
about these people who are impacted by that act, is something we in
Congress should never say. It is significant, it is important, and to
make commonsense improvements to the Endangered Species Act should be
the goal.
Let me explain a couple of different areas in which these reforms are
going to be significant and important.
The first one is this tries to cap the amount of money we spend
wasted on litigation costs that should be actually going to the
enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and recovery of these
species. This act tries to set a limit on what an attorney can get for
engaging in a petition against the government for the Endangered
Species Act. It is mind-boggling to me that in most of the agencies of
the government we put caps on what can be obtained in attorney fees who
sue the government, but we don't in the Endangered Species Act.
So in San Diego, the Jonas Salk Elementary School was postponed
indefinitely. The firm that actually did that postponement so the kids
didn't have their school charged the Federal Government six figures,
and I promise you the first number in that six figures was not 1.
In the Clinton administration, they were averaging 20 petitions a
year on this act. Today, we are averaging 1,200 petitions a year. So
obviously, we have a problem, as no one has a total concept of what the
total cost of this litigation is or how many full-time employees we are
using simply for this litigation, although we do know that the Fish and
Wildlife Service allotted in 2013 $21 million and 86 full-time
employees just to handling the issue of litigation.
The Ag Department has told us that the litigation cost was the third-
largest cost that they were running at that time. We don't have that
data. We need to have that particular data, and we also need to put in
caps so we are not wasting our money on litigation, we are putting the
money in the program where it should be.
That is a significant commonsense element of this particular bill.
But the most significant commonsense element is simply saying people
should know what data is being used to reach the decisions. The bill
itself says the Federal Government shall cooperate--shall cooperate--to
the maximum extent practical with the States. That simply is not being
done.
Let me give you a couple of examples.
First of all, the dunes sagebrush lizard--a wonderful little lizard,
Mr. Speaker, in your home State of Texas--that is trying to be listed
by the Federal Government, they were using data from the 1960s,
determined that they were locally extinct, the lizard was locally
extinct in an area where it flat-out was not extinct. Had they gone
through with this listing, 47,000 jobs in this district in Texas would
have been impacted by this particular listing, and the data was
inaccurate.
The Governor of Idaho asked for a FOIA request dealing with the
sagebrush. He got back the emails in the FOIA request, and to summarize
those emails that dealt with the national technical team report, the
emails basically said: This is our approach--does anyone out there have
any kind of data we can use? And if there was no data, then their next
step was to use the best guess of the elements of the members who were
actually working in that particular department.
That is not the way you make decisions. You collect the data first,
make it public, let people know about it, then you create the decisions
on where you want it to go. In Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado,
actually had to go to court to try to get the department to give them
the data they were using for the decisions they were going to try to
use on the endangered species in that county, and that simply is not an
example of how you cooperate to the maximum extent possible with the
States.
We have an issue with prairie dogs in southern Utah. The problem is
the Federal Government only counts prairie dogs on Federal lands to
determine if they are a viable species or not. Prairie dogs are very
abundant on private lands and State lands, to the point that you can
actually get a permit to hunt them on private lands. Notwithstanding
the fact that there is an abundance of prairie dogs, the rural electric
co-op down there had to spend $150,000 to airlift transmission lines to
build a transmission line so they went over Federal habitat for prairie
dogs, even though other people hunting prairie dogs happened to be on
the private property.
This is silly, this is unrealistic, this should not take place if we
were actually having a commonsense approach to it.
The bladderpod up in Franklin County, Washington, was threatened to
be listed on the endangered species. A local university came up with
its own study that proved the DNA of this bladderpod was no different
than another flower that was not endangered in that area.
{time} 1300
Nonetheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service rejected that particular
piece of data. They ignored it. They said it wasn't peer-reviewed, but
the sad part is that they ultimately refused to tell us the data that
they were using to reach their own decision. Even when that data was
subpoenaed, they refused to comply with that particular subpoena.
We simply have a problem here, in that decisions are being made on
the Endangered Species Act without having public access to the data
being used to make those decisions, and that is wrong.
That is not the way you run a government. That is not the way
transparency has to be. The people of the United States are paying for
all this data. They have a right to see what it is. They have a right
to look at it. They have a right to question it.
All this bill does is simply make the data that is being used
public--so people know exactly what you are making those decisions on--
and try to limit the amount that we are spending on needless
litigation, so you put some kind of caps on them. That is the first
step.
Does that solve all the problems of the ESA? Of course not, but it is
the first and most important step. This is a commonsense approach that
is rational. It is where we need to go. If we can't get this done, no
other reforms of a system that is failing can possibly take place.
I urge adoption of this bill. I support the underlying bill. I urge
the adoption of the rule that would do it.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate this is a fair rule, and
it is appropriate to the underlying piece of legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 693 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
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
[[Page H6994]]
resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3992) to
provide for wildfire suppression operations, 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
shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget, the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Agriculture, and 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. 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. 3992.
____
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. POLIS. Mr. 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 any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 192, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 458]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
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)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
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
McAllister
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
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
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 (IN)
NAYS--192
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
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
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
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
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
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
[[Page H6995]]
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
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Brady (TX)
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Cleaver
DesJarlais
Graves (MO)
Hanabusa
Hinojosa
Issa
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Perlmutter
Pitts
Pompeo
Ryan (OH)
{time} 1331
Messrs. GRIJALVA, CONYERS, and GARCIA changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 458, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 192, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 459]
AYES--225
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
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
McAllister
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
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
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 (IN)
NOES--192
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
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
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
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
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
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Barton
Brady (TX)
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Cleaver
DesJarlais
Graves (MO)
Hanabusa
Issa
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Perlmutter
Pitts
Pompeo
{time} 1339
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.
____________________