[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 134 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6090-H6096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 348, RESPONSIBLY AND PROFESSIONALLY
INVIGORATING DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 758, LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 2015; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 420
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. 348) to provide for improved coordination of
agency actions in the preparation and adoption of
environmental documents for permitting determinations, 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 and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 114-26. 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.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 758) to amend
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve
attorney accountability, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment
[[Page H6091]]
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of September 24, 2015, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous materials on House Resolution 420 currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? The question
resonates throughout our Nation. It is the driving force behind every
solution the Republican majority has offered to this body and every
solution this administration has rejected.
I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Committee on
Rules. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 348, the RAPID Act,
and H.R. 758, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015.
The Committee on Rules met on this measure yesterday evening and
heard testimony from a Republican member of the Committee on the
Judiciary and two Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Committee on Rules solicited amendments for both these measures,
but no amendments were submitted for the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act,
making the rule closed. There were 11 amendments submitted for the
RAPID Act by both Republican and Democratic Members. This rule makes 10
of those in order. Let me repeat that: 11 amendments submitted, and 10
of those amendments are on the floor. Both the RAPID Act and the
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act went through regular order in the Committee
on the Judiciary, including robust amendment debate.
This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary for each piece of legislation.
I appreciate the hard work of the Committee on the Judiciary
chairman, Mr. Bob Goodlatte, and his full committee and subcommittee
staffs in bringing forward these key reforms. It would take more than
60 minutes to list all the ways Republicans have worked to encourage
economic growth and create jobs in the 114th Congress. We have worked
tirelessly to pass litigation reforms that would promote access to
court and ensure the cost of litigation isn't being used to force
settlements.
I am a proud cosponsor of the RAPID Act because men and women across
the Nation are ready to go back to work. Republicans are committed to
giving job creators the confidence to take projects off the drawing
board and onto the worksite.
A 2012 U.S. Chamber of Commerce study of proposed projects in just
one sector of the economy, the energy sector, found that if a modest
number of these projects were allowed to move forward and begin
construction, the direct and indirect economic benefits would be
tremendous--hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars
annually.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars are in the
pipeline, and Republicans believe we should streamline the approval
process so that these projects are either approved or denied, not left
languishing year after year after year.
Americans need jobs now. They have bills to pay and families to feed.
The RAPID Act is one of a number of solutions offered by House
Republicans that would break down unnecessary Federal barriers and
allow employers to break ground on the projects that offer Americans
jobs and economic growth.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, was designed for
an important purpose, one that should be preserved. The Committee on
the Judiciary has done important work exploring the original goals of
NEPA and hearing from experts in the field and academic scholars. The
facts are clear: The NEPA process we have today is far removed from
what the authors intended. It is normal for the review process to take
years and years, and in some cases over a decade. Imagine how the world
has changed in the past 10 years. It is absolutely mind-boggling that a
review process for any project would take a decade.
We live in a world where technology has made the impossible possible.
There is no excuse for relying on old methods or overly complex
regulatory frameworks. It is time for Federal regulators to stop tying
up capital and prioritizing endless paper pushing over job creation.
We can do better as a nation. Our economy and our families depend on
us doing better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding the customary 30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 348, the RAPID Act, is an attempt to limit
flexibility and eliminate the public's role in environmental review and
decisionmaking processes. H.R. 758 would force judges to impose
sanctions against any claim that appears to lack support or involve a
novel legal theory.
These are no doubt important issues to debate and discuss, and we
will have that time on the floor, but I want to address what this body
is failing to address. Though the subject matter of these two bills
couldn't be different, neither one of them relates to the fact that we
are 6 legislative days before a job-killing, money-wasting shutdown of
government.
Now, when we hear 6 legislative days, let me translate that for
normal days that Americans have. That is actually 14 days. We are 14
days until we risk the government shutting down. Of the next 14 days,
Congress is only scheduled to work 6. Now, by the way, we should thank
Pope Francis for that, because before Pope Francis scheduled his visit,
Congress was scheduled to work 4 of the next 14 days.
Now, if everything were going wonderfully and this body was a model
of keeping the government open and fulfilling its responsibilities, I
think the American people would say: ``Well, guess what, Congress. You
deserve a vacation.'' But that is not what I hear from my constituents.
They are not saying that we should be on vacation 8 out of the next 14
days when we are facing a government shutdown.
Not only are we facing a government shutdown now, but we are 76 days
after the expiration of the Export-Import Bank, which already has lost
at least 500 jobs here in our country. We are 41 days until authorizing
legislation to maintain our Federal highway systems expire. We have
already passed that deadline twice and done short-term extensions.
In my August townhall meetings--and I had a number of them across the
district--I do not recall any of my constituents telling me their
family's top concerns are we start eliminating environmental reviews
and public health standards.
While we are wasting unconscionable time on issues when we are only 6
legislative days or 14 real days from a shutdown, we wonder why this
body is losing popularity every day among the American public and will
continue to.
To my friends across the aisle, I want to work with you. My
Democratic colleagues want to work with you. We want to work to avoid a
government shutdown. We want to work with you to reauthorize the
Federal highway bill.
These are not Democratic or Republican principles. Both parties
believe in a Federal Government; both parties believe in highways and
investment in infrastructure. So let's do that. I think we should do
that all 14 days, or at
[[Page H6092]]
least 12 of the next 14 days rather than 6, but at least let's get to
work and do it.
I think we share many of the same domestic and foreign policy
interests, and hopefully we can agree upon our priorities. The average
American family in my district and across our country has no interest
in grandstanding on display. They have no desire to send their hard-
earned dollars in taxes to a body that continues to govern crisis by
crisis, sometimes after the fact.
{time} 1245
So I implore my colleagues to use the next 14 days--or, if they want
to take 8 of them off, 6 days--to consider the threat we are facing and
the hardship a shutdown would cause in districts like mine that rely on
two major universities to receive Federal funding; Federal labs;
national parks that support countless local businesses that would close
if the Federal Government is closed; the Centers for Disease Control,
with a strong presence in Fort Collins; and the many other secondary
and tertiary effects that a Federal shutdown would have.
Let's find a way to avert it. There is still time. Let's not wait
until it is 2 days or 1 day or zero days or negative 1 day or just
hours remaining on the countdown clock. Let's pass a bipartisan bill to
fund government. Let's reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Let's make a
long-term commitment to our Federal highway system and infrastructure
to keep our economy growing.
After we fulfill these basic needs, these self-created crises that
Congress is presented, then let's have a discussion about limitation of
irregular lawsuits or eradication of environmental reviews on public
projects. We can have our disagreements. We can debate them. But let's
get our priorities right.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we just got back after spending time in our districts,
and I know, in my case, one of the reasons that we are back today
dealing with regulatory issues is just a couple of examples that just
continue to come up in conversations.
There were always questions about, frankly, what are we doing in
Washington, what are we not doing in Washington, but there was a common
theme when I went to small business, factories, and when we do
roundtables. The common theme was: Why is Washington constantly keeping
me from doing what I can do or need to do in my business? Why are we
continuing to get regulation after regulation after regulation that
keep us from expanding our business?
I had a businessowner tell us in a roundtable that right now there
were several businesses he knew that would be willing to hire upwards
of 20, 30, 40 folks, but right now they are bound by the caps that they
find under the healthcare law. They don't want to go over a certain
number--that magic 49. They don't want to get involved in other areas
that are keeping them constricted to this point.
So when we look at these packages of bills that we are looking at,
frankly, we are looking at everyday moms and dads; we are looking at
businessowners; we are looking at the folks who are the economic
engines of the United States; and we are saying the government should
not be the inhibitor of your company. The government should not be the
part that is stopping you from creating jobs, from getting that next
big idea, from having that next product that hits the market that takes
us to that different level or hiring that next person who has that
spark, that creative energy to say: ``Here's the next idea that changes
even how we are here today.''
So when we deal with this and we look at it, the question really is:
What drives jobs? The House majority, the Republican majority,
constantly has looked at what it means to be an entrepreneur and to
have people that you employ. What does it mean? It means giving someone
a chance.
This summer, I had the awesome fun or joy, if you will, of watching
my son get his first job. He started to work at a grocery store, and I
can remember at first he was all excited. He went through all the
process and he got that job. The best day was when he actually came
home after working and he was tired, but yet it was payday. He came in
and he looked at me and he said: ``Dad, I got my paycheck.''
And for a moment, regardless of how much that check was--this is not
a story about seeing taxes for the first time; my son has lived in my
house and he understands the burden of taxes, so it was not any of
that--it was just the joy in his eyes that someone had given him a job
and that he went to work. It was that pride of having money that he
could spend. There is a new person in the economic engine.
That is why we continue to bring these bills forward, so that
government can be out of the way and be its proper role, not the
roadblock to job creation. When we do that, then the people of the
United States can look at this House Republican majority and know our
best interests are with those who get up every day looking to make life
just a little bit better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation to reauthorize
the Export-Import Bank.
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 yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of
the Financial Services Committee.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to
thank the gentleman from Colorado for the time to speak on this
important issue.
I rise today in opposition to the previous question in order to give
House Members an opportunity to vote on reauthorizing the charter of
the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. Speaker, it is well past time to end the ideologically driven
shutdown of the Export-Import Bank that has prohibited this critical
agency from continuing to support United States businesses and their
workers.
For almost 2 years, Democrats have been sounding the alarm that a
shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank would be devastating for American businesses
and their workers. Since Republicans in Congress let the Bank's charter
expire in June, companies around the country have been preparing to lay
off employees, and many have stopped expansion plans because they now
lack the critical financing tools that Ex-Im provides.
In fact, just last week, General Electric announced that, due to the
GOP shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank, more than 500 jobs will be shipped to
places like France and China. Last month, Boeing told its workers that
it expected to cut as many as several hundred jobs at its southern
California-based satellite factory after a multimillion-dollar contract
was scuttled due to uncertainty about the future of the Export-Import
Bank.
Republican obstructionism is also having a direct impact on countless
small businesses around this country, many of which are set to lose
their Ex-Im-backed insurance policies in the coming weeks.
Mr. Speaker, a majority of this House supports reauthorizing the
Export-Import Bank, but if we don't give Members the opportunity to
vote up or down on reopening the Bank's doors today, the self-inflicted
shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank may continue for months on end.
If that scenario plays out, the damage to our businesses, their
workers, and our economy will only get worse. The consequences for
average taxpayers would get worse as well. Because the Bank generates
income through fees it charges for its services, failure to reauthorize
the Bank means throwing away billions of dollars that would otherwise
be transferred to hardworking American taxpayers. Accordingly, we
should reauthorize the Bank. If we did, we could raise billions of
dollars in profit for U.S. taxpayers over the coming years. The House
should take a position.
Mr. Speaker and Members, we have too many Republicans, our friends on
[[Page H6093]]
the opposite side of the aisle, claim they support small businesses.
They want to do everything that they can to get rid of the regulatory
obstacles to small businesses being able to grow and expand. They talk
about this with community banks. They talk about this with all kinds of
businesses. But look what they are doing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. They have absolutely stood in the
way of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
And where does that place this country? It places us in a position
where we cannot compete with other countries who fully support the
export opportunity. So I would ask my colleagues to please vote on this
bill at this time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Heck), a leader in the effort to reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous
question so that we might indeed take up legislation to reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank. Because I think the gentleman from Georgia has it
exactly right, the question before this Chamber, before this Congress,
before the President, before the American people is: Where are the
jobs?
Now we know where the jobs, in part, have come from over the last 8
years. In fact, about 1.5 million of them have come through the
activity of the Export-Import Bank, where they supported $200 billion
in exports spread out across 7,300 companies. And we know where the
jobs have not come from since July 1, when the charter of the Export-
Import Bank expired, at which time there were 116 deals frozen,
constituting $9.3 billion in activity.
Who were they?
Norwest Ingredients is a company in my home State that sells mint
flavoring for the manufacturers of candy and oral care. The company
currently employs about a dozen employees. It is a small business.
Without Ex-Im, many small businesses like Norwest aren't going to be
able to extend terms to foreign buyers, and they will have to ask for
cash in advance. When they do, they will lose their business to other
countries who have export credit authorities.
By way of reminder, every single developed nation on the face of the
Earth has an export credit authority right now, except the United
States of America.
Combustion Associates in California, they spent 3 years closing a
deal for a new power project in Nigeria that would generate $39 million
in revenue and create 30 new American jobs. The deal is on hold, along
with two other projects that would have been worth nearly $50 million
in revenue and 100 jobs.
GE, the gentlewoman from California shared the sad news of the 500
jobs that are leaving these shores as a consequence of our failure to
reauthorize the Ex-Im.
Digital Check, an Illinois company, sells check scanning equipment to
clients in nearly 100 countries. Tom Anderson is the family-run
company's chief executive. He says: We're losing now a quarter million
in sales in British markets and around $300,000 in India. And that
half-million-dollar hit is causing the company to reevaluate whether
they will suspend, altogether, their scanner leasing services.
FirmGreen--Steve Wilburn, president of FirmGreen and, I might add, a
proud and highly decorated marine--laid off 10 of its 17 employees last
year because the company lost $60 million in contracts during our
latest period of uncertainty.
They are now, right as we speak, right as we are attempting to answer
the question of where are the jobs, competing for a $300 million
project in the Philippines, and it hinges on securing export credit
financing from the Ex-Im. Without it, that business is going to likely
go to a South Korean rival and, with it, the 400 jobs he would have
added.
Boeing, again, the gentlewoman made mention of layoffs in El Segundo,
California. That was not the first but the second satellite sale to a
foreign company and country that we lost as a consequence of the
uncertainty surrounding the Export-Import Bank.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HECK of Washington. The outgoing CEO, Mr. McNerney, said: ``We
never would have considered that before this craziness on Ex-Im. We
love making and designing airplanes in the U.S. We are now forced to
think about doing it differently.''
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have now moved beyond the
theoretical and the abstract. We are now in the phase of this debate
where real people with real jobs and real families are losing their
livelihood. The question is right: Where are the jobs? The answer is:
In reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
Defeat the previous question so that we might do what a majority of
this body wants to do, which is continue to compete in a global
economy.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the will of the majority is being thwarted in
this House, the people's House. Mr. Boehner, our Speaker, said when he
took his office as Speaker that the House worked best when the House
was allowed to work its will. Mr. Speaker, let the House work its will.
{time} 1300
We are about to take a vote on whether this House should move to
reopen the Export-Import Bank and save thousands--thousands--of jobs
that Speaker Boehner has admitted will be lost without our action.
The Export-Import Bank is a critical tool that supports job creation
here in America by helping American businesses compete in foreign
markets--in other words, making goods here with American workers and
selling them abroad. That is what we need to be doing. The Export-
Import Bank facilitates that happening. It has over 300 votes out of
435 on this floor, but we cannot vote if it is not brought to the
floor.
When the Speaker and majority leader allowed the Bank's authorization
to expire in June, they did so with the full knowledge that a
reauthorization has the votes to pass and will pass with strong,
bipartisan support if brought to the floor. Now, we have a chance to
defeat the previous question and bring that bill to the floor today.
Now, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to some of my colleagues who may be
new, that voting down this rule, defeating the previous question is a
vote to open the Export-Import Bank.
Now, I know some of you will say: Well, it is a procedural vote. My
party makes me do this.
Well, if you have that answer, look in the eye those who are losing
their jobs and say: I had to do this for my party, not my country, not
the competitiveness of America, not for American jobs, not for American
businesses, but I voted for the previous question for my party.
Sometimes, my friends, party demands too much. When you raise your
hand, it is to defend the Constitution and laws thereof, but in a real
sense, it is to defend and make America better.
Let's refuse to engage in what Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue
today called a ``unilateral disarmament in the face of other
governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies.''
Let me repeat that. That is Tom Donohue, president of the Chamber of
Commerce. The Republican Party used to be a party of business, the
party that wanted to grow jobs. We talk about that all the time.
Well, my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, you have an
opportunity to do that on this upcoming vote. Don't do as Tom Donohue
today said you might do, a ``unilateral disarmament in the face of
other governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies.''
Last week, General Electric announced it would be moving 500 jobs
from New York, Texas, South Carolina, and Maine to Europe and China
because of the failure of this Congress to
[[Page H6094]]
pass the Export-Import Bank reauthorization. There are over 300 votes
for that on this floor.
The American people think we are dysfunctional. They are right. They
don't trust us because they don't think their board of directors is
doing the job they sent us here to do. They are right. They are angry.
They are anxious.
Let us for once, this day--we haven't funded the government yet;
hopefully, we will get that done--but at least this day, given the
opportunity on this previous question, say that we are going to make
America competitive and we are not going to unilaterally disarm.
This is something the Business Roundtable wants us to do. It is
something the Chamber of Commerce wants us to do. It is something the
National Association of Manufacturers wants us to do. It is something
that organized labor wants us to do.
In the face of unity of purpose, in the face of a majority of votes
on this floor, party regularity still says: Tough. Tough. Yes, there
may be 300 votes on this bill, but we are not going to allow it to come
to the floor.
Ladies and gentlemen in your offices or on this floor, America
expects you to do better. America expects you to be responsible.
America does not want you to be simply partisan. America does not want
you to be cowed by a small minority of this House and by radical groups
outside this House who threaten Members they will spend a million or $2
million or $3 million to defeat them in a primary.
America wants us to do the right thing. America wants us to have the
courage of our convictions. America expects this House to reflect the
majority opinion, not be dictated to by a small minority.
Mr. Speaker, allow your Members to vote against the previous
question. If you do so, we will bring to this floor the reauthorization
of the Export-Import Bank; and, ladies and gentlemen of this House--and
all Americans ought to know as well--it will pass.
Bring the Export-Import Bank bill reauthorization to this floor so
America can continue to be competitive and create jobs here in America.
That is what our constituents want us to do.
Vote against the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, we are about to take a vote on whether this house should
move to reopen the Export-Import Bank and save thousands of jobs that
even Speaker Boehner has admitted will be lost without our action.
The Export-Import Bank is a critical tool that supports job creation
here in America by helping American businesses compete in foreign
markets.
When the speaker and majority leader allowed the bank's authorization
to expire in June, they did so with the full knowledge that a
reauthorization has the votes to pass--and will pass with strong
bipartisan support--if brought to the floor.
Now we have a chance to defeat the previous question and bring that
bill to the floor today.
Let's end the uncertainty that has already caused businesses to hold
back investment in job creation and to move American jobs overseas.
Let's refuse to engage in what Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue
today called a ``unilateral disarmament in the face of other
governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies.''
Last week, general electric announced that it would be moving 500
jobs from New York, Texas, South Carolina, and Maine to Europe and
China because of the failure to keep the export-import bank open.
Congress has a responsibility to help grow jobs here--not send them
overseas.
It's time to reopen the export-import bank.
Defeat this previous question.
Bring the export-import bank up for a vote.
And let's complete the task that America's workers and their
employers have asked us to do for months.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend: Do
you have any more speakers? Or are you prepared to close?
Mr. POLIS. We have a lot of Democrats that want to talk about keeping
government open. I hear no Republicans here.
With good respect to my friend from Georgia, where are the Republican
ideas to keep government open?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, I am trying to get an answer to a
question. That means you do not have any more speakers on this. Are you
ready to close?
Mr. POLIS. We are ready to use all of our time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both
sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 23 minutes remaining.
Mr. POLIS. May I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia if he plans to
use his 23 minutes?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. That is why I was asking the gentleman from
Colorado if he is prepared to close. I have no other speakers.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I will use our 9 minutes. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will be offering an
amendment to the rule. The amendment will waive the two-thirds
requirement to consider a rule on the same day as reported from the
Rules Committee on the legislative days of September 24 and September
25, 2015.
This will provide the flexibility necessary during the Pope's visit
to ensure the House completes its business on behalf of the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, I think it is clear. We have had many Democrats coming to the
floor talking about what we should be doing. I think the gentleman from
Georgia might be the only Republican in the Chamber. Maybe there is one
other in the back. I don't have my glasses on.
We have a lot of ideas for keeping government open. Mainly, let's
pass a continuing resolution to do it now. Let's work more than 6 days
out of the next 14. Let's stay here until we can keep government open,
until we can reauthorize the transportation and infrastructure bill.
It sounds obvious to me; yet there just didn't seem to be any
interest from the other side. No Republicans have approached me about
keeping government open. I hope you do, Mr. Speaker. I hope you
encourage your colleagues to. There is no one here in the Chamber
talking about what we can do to avoid a job-crushing government
shutdown, which we are 14 days away from.
Instead, we are talking about unrelated bills. Now, I don't deny that
these bills deserve their day in the sun. I just question whether, when
we are 6 legislative days from a job-crushing shutdown, it is the time
to discuss whether we should amend requirements set out by the National
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, that would reduce the role of public
input and turn the idea of NEPA on its head by eliminating any illusion
of objective or scientific analysis by allowing private sponsors to
write parts of their own environmental reviews.
Now, look, we can discuss that. I am strongly for reforming the NEPA
process. As an example, if we can make it easier to site renewal energy
projects, I am a sponsor of a bill to expedite the NEPA process for
solar and wind infrastructure projects.
Look, there are people who support this terrible bill in its current
form; I completely understand that, but this bill does nothing to avert
a job-destroying government shutdown that we are only 6 legislative
days from reaching.
Now, the gentleman from Georgia mentioned this, what we call a
martial law amendment. With this amendment that he is proposing with
this rule--we just got notice of it last minute here on the floor--he
is offering an amendment that will allow any bill to be brought up
under martial law next week.
Now, in honor of Pope Francis' visit, I hope that they have a bill
that they plan to bring to the floor under martial law to reduce our
carbon emissions and finally do something to impact climate change,
which I hope that Pope Francis will be addressing.
I also hope that, under martial law, they will bring forward a bill
to replace our broken immigration system with a humane system, with a
pathway to citizenship that replaces the chaos we have, with the rule
of law, border security, and a pathway to normalization and citizenship
for hard-working, aspiring Americans who are already here.
Now, I am not going to bet the ship that that is what they are going
to do
[[Page H6095]]
with this martial law, but the fact of the matter is, from a process
perspective, we--myself, my colleagues, and I think most of the
Republican rank and file--simply don't know what they are going to do
with that authority.
This is going around the normal rules of the House to establish a
mechanism to avoid the normal process, avoid the normal process through
Rules Committee and, through martial law, bring some sort of bill. I
hope it is an immigration reform bill. I hope it is a climate change
bill. I don't think it is.
Based on what we are seeing this week, it will probably be some NEPA
bill or some--I don't know--some other bill that doesn't avoid a
government shutdown to the floor of the House.
Maybe it will be a bill that is a Republican funding bill that will
have a Presidential veto threat over it. That doesn't avoid a shutdown.
Remember, the only way we can avoid a shutdown is the House, the
Senate, and the President of the United States are on the same page for
legislation to avoid a government shutdown.
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and we will be back next
week, and I will hold my criticism. I hope it is an immigration reform
bill. I hope it is a climate change bill.
I hope we honor Pope Francis by bringing forward two of his top
priorities in a week that is appropriate, and if that is the case, I
will support martial law for those two efforts, and I hope that that is
what we will do.
I will withhold judgment until we see what the Republicans attempt to
do with this procedural bypass of our normal mechanisms that they have
scheduled for next week.
Look, these are bad bills under this rule. They are bad bills today.
They would be bad bills if they were appropriate to consider. I believe
they are inappropriate to consider in light of a job-crushing
government shutdown occurring in 6 legislative days.
The RAPID Act, which would turn the idea of NEPA on its head, is a
one-size-fits-all approach. It is not the right approach to NEPA
reform.
There are thoughtful, bipartisan ideas that we could put together
after we avoid a government shutdown. I am happy to do that.
The LARA Act is even worse. Our country tried a similar framework to
LARA in the eighties and early nineties, and there is broad consensus
that the experiment failed. Instead of reducing lawsuits, there was an
explosion of litigation, causing delays and wasting judicial resources.
Why on earth are we giving these failed ideas a second try?
The LARA Act would have prevented landmark decisions like the Brown
v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools; Griswold v.
Connecticut, which established constitutional protections for right to
privacy; and Loving v. Virginia, which ended bans on interracial
marriage.
Rather than ``preventing abuse,'' this bill would actually promote
civil rights abuses and weaken the courts' ability to crack down on
people who seek to discriminate illegally at work or school or at the
voting booth, and Congress should not pass this bill, now or ever.
I think it is particularly offensive, when a job-crushing government
shutdown is looming, to even be talking about these other items rather
than discussing how we can avoid a job-crushing government shutdown.
{time} 1315
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I am clear. These issues we should
discuss. Natural resources. The World Health Organization estimates
that 2 million people a year are killed because of air pollution. But
putting forth these bills now does nothing to eliminate or deal with a
job-crushing government shutdown.
Over just 16 days in 2013, our country lost $24 billion in economic
growth, hundreds of thousands of Federal workers were furloughed,
contractors and subcontractors were not paid. It is an avoidable
scenario. It is a crisis created by Congress. We wonder why people
don't like Congress. It is a crisis of our own making.
Why are we threatening the critical, everyday services Americans rely
on, the millions of people that work for contractors and subcontractors
of the Federal Government?
A small-R republic is a system of governance in which people exert
influence over their elected officials, and those representatives are
supposed to listen and act upon those requests.
We need to listen to the American people and take the responsible
course, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to join me on this
commonsense mission before it is too late.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying
legislation. We need to reinstate a legislative agenda that aligns with
the desires and wills and aspirations of the American people and
American businesses.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, just to clear up a couple of things
here. One, let me be clear that nothing in this rule or the amendment
waives the normal Rules Committee hearing process.
It simply provides us with the flexibility to consider bills on the
floor sooner while the Pope is here. It does nothing to waive the
normal committee process for bills that should go to Rules, just to
clear up that.
I do appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's concern about our
speakers and the fact that he was counting today. I was glad to see
that he had three people come to speak on the rule that had nothing to
do with the bills in the underlying rule. So that was pretty
impressive.
I will stand with one person speaking on the rules and the truth of
the fact that regulatory burden has a crushing role on business. I will
stand, one, by myself all day.
And then in just a few hours, when we discuss this in the debate
process, we will have plenty of people to discuss the actual bills
themselves.
So let me close up by talking about what we are here for. My friends
across the aisle want to portray House Republicans as being against
things and against people.
Yes, it is true we have said ``no'' to bad policies and priorities of
the administration. We have refused to turn a blind eye to those who
exploit our legal system.
We have said ``no'' to the Federal regulators who are indefinitely
delaying projects that would put Americans back to work.
We have said ``no'' to the tax more, spend more, save less, Big
Government, job-killing machine that is crushing the American spirit
and our economic growth.
But this majority says ``yes'' to solid, principled legislation that
protects Americans' personal and economic liberties. Later today, we
will say ``yes'' to life.
We will vote to protect the babies born alive despite the efforts to
abort them. Regardless of the circumstances in which a baby is born
alive, they are a person just like you or I. To fail to recognize their
humanity is to deny our own.
This House majority says ``yes'' to fiscal responsibility, ``yes'' to
the commonsense principle that our Nation should have a budget and
actually stick to it.
We say ``yes'' to responsible oversight efforts because we
understand, as our Founding Fathers did, that Americans' rights and
liberties are only safe while the Federal Government is held within the
bounds of the Constitution.
We say ``yes'' to free market principles because we recognize that
economic growth is rooted in the ingenuity of America's entrepreneurs,
not government programs.
We have replaced government with growth and regulations with reform.
We have restored transparency and trust. We have given our Nation
reason to believe that one day our children won't be looking for a job
because government has crushed them. They will be creating jobs.
House Republicans have heard the cries of the American people, and
today, tomorrow, and every day to come we will continue to fight for
them. We will fight so that they can realize their hopes, their dreams,
and their ambitions.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Add at the end the following:
Sec. 4. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a
[[Page H6096]]
report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is
presented to the House is waived with respect to any
resolution reported on the legislative day of September 24,
2015, or September 25, 2015.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, does this amendment to the rule mean that
Members of this body will have less than 24 hours to review any bill we
consider next week?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the meaning of
the pending proposition.
Mr. POLIS. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the meaning is very
straightforward. That is exactly what it means.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 420 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
1031) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, 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 and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services. 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 fmal 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1031.
____
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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
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 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________