[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H297-H308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1644, SUPPORTING TRANSPARENT 
   REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS IN MINING ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 22, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL 
  OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
   PROTECTION AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3662, IRAN 
 TERROR FINANCE TRANSPARENCY ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING 
       THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 14, 2016, THROUGH JANUARY 22, 2016

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 583 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 583

       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. 1644) to amend the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977 to ensure transparency in the 
     development of environmental regulations, 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 
     Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 22) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency relating to the definition of ``waters of 
     the United States'' under the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act. All points of order against consideration of the joint 
     resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 
     amendment 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 
     Transportation and Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to 
     commit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3662) to 
     enhance congressional oversight over the administration of 
     sanctions against certain Iranian terrorism financiers, 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 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 Foreign Affairs; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     January 14, 2016, through January 22, 2016--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

[[Page H298]]

  


                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 583, providing for consideration of 
three important pieces of legislation. Those are H.R. 1644, the STREAM 
Act; H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act; and S.J. Res. 
22, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the 
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers' rule relating to the definition of 
waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1644 under a structured 
rule, making four amendments in order, three from the Democrats and one 
from the Republicans, H.R. 3662 under a closed rule and S.J. Res 22 
also under a closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I have grave concerns about the 
administration's nuclear agreement with Iran. Since the agreement's 
adoption in July, Iran has shown no goodwill or intention of improving 
its relationship with the West. In many ways, the Iranian regime has 
increased its aggressive attitude toward the United States and our 
allies.
  Against U.N. Security Council resolutions, the rogue nation has 
expanded its ballistic missile program, testing two missiles as 
recently as last fall. Just on December 26 an Iranian military ship 
fired a rocket near U.S. and French military vessels in the Persian 
Gulf. These incidents occurred just months before crippling 
international sanctions against the country are scheduled to be lifted.
  Further, Iran continues to be a state sponsor of terrorism, a direct 
threat to our closest ally in the region, Israel, continues rampant 
human rights abuses, and continues the wrongful imprisonment of five 
American citizens.
  President Obama and senior administration officials have claimed that 
the nuclear agreement and lifting of economic sanctions, which could 
return as much as $100 billion in frozen assets to Tehran, will help 
Iran down a more moderate path. However, reality appears to show the 
contrary is occurring.
  Just weeks after the deal was signed, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali 
Khamenei stated that: We won't allow American political, economic, or 
cultural influence in Iran.
  And just last week the Supreme Leader told a gathering of prayer 
leaders that: Americans have set their eyes covetously on elections, 
but the great and vigilant nation of Iran will act contrary to the 
enemies' will, whether it be in elections or on other issues, and, as 
before, will punch them in the mouth.
  While President Obama may find something positive in Iran's actions 
and statements, I believe Congress owes it to the American people to 
view Iran with skepticism and concern.
  H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act, requires the 
President to certify that those individuals and entities receiving 
sanctions relief under the Iranian nuclear deal are not involved in 
Iran's support for terrorism, its human rights abuses, or its ballistic 
missile program.
  By passing this legislation, Mr. Speaker, Congress can help ensure 
that the U.S. will continue to sanction and deter terrorism and illegal 
ballistic missile tests within the state of Iran.
  In arguing for the nuclear deal's adoption, the President committed 
to Congress and to the American people that our ``sanctions on Iran for 
its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic 
missile program, will continue to be fully enforced.''
  This legislation gives us the opportunity to hold the President to 
his word and conduct the necessary oversight to ensure that sanctions 
are enforced.
  Additionally, this rule will provide for consideration of two other 
very critical measures that will help protect American businesses and 
families from the administration's regulatory overreach.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1644, 
legislation that was drafted in response to the Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's ongoing rulemaking process that 
seeks to govern the interaction between surface mining operations and 
streams. It is commonly referred to as the stream buffer zone rule.
  In December 2008, the outgoing Bush administration published its 
final stream buffer zone rule. This rule was the product of over 5 
years of deliberation, extensive scientific research, environmental 
analyses, public comment, and a concurrence from the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  Put simply, this rule was developed the right way, with transparency, 
unbiased research, scientific integrity, stakeholder engagement, and, 
most importantly, public involvement.
  However, shortly after the final 2008 rule was released, several 
environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the OSM, ultimately 
leading to a settlement agreement between OSM and the environmental 
groups.
  After numerous missed deadlines, the environmental organizations 
renewed the litigation, the administration agreed with the complaint. 
As a result, the court vacated the 2008 rule and OSM subsequently 
restarted the rulemaking process.
  Since that time, the entire process has lacked transparency. 
Oversight conducted by the House Committee on Natural Resources, of 
which I am a member, revealed that the settlement agreement's expedited 
timeframe, coupled with an inexperienced contractor and gross 
mismanagement of the rulemaking process, resulted in major issues with 
the administration's rule.
  Now, this may sound just a little familiar. It is the very same sue 
and settle practice that the House addressed just last week with the 
passage of H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and 
Settlements Act.
  The outcome is another example of why sue and settle leads to poor 
rulemakings and onerous regulations that significantly harm the people, 
businesses, and jobs they are supposed to be supporting.
  Backroom deals between environmental groups and Federal agencies do 
not lead to sound regulations, but instead circumvent the rulemaking 
process to serve the interest of a select few, namely, special 
interests and environmental groups.
  For 6 years, OSM has been rewriting this rule, and the ongoing 
process has now cost the taxpayers over $10 million, though this is 
only a small fraction of the cost it will have on businesses and 
hardworking American families.
  The stream protection rule will drastically reduce our access to 
coal, which accounts for nearly half of our country's electricity, 
leading to higher electricity costs and significant job losses.

  According to a study from the National Mining Association, the number 
of direct mining jobs that could be lost is between 40,000 and 77,000 
and the total job losses is between 112,000 and 280,000, a fact that is 
underscored by the Nation's second largest oil company, Arch Coal, 
filing for bankruptcy, largely due to the increased cost of Federal 
regulations. That happened just this week, Mr. Speaker.
  For these reasons, it is imperative that we pass H.R. 1644, 
legislation that delays the rule's implementation, increases scientific 
transparency for rulemakings affecting mining, directs a transparent 
third party to evaluate the existing stream buffer zone rule, and 
reduces duplicative regulation.
  This rule also makes in order legislation dealing with an issue that 
I hear about very often in my congressional district. It strikes the 
controversial waters of the United States, or WOTUS rule.
  S.J. Res. 22 is a resolution of disapproval of the President's WOTUS 
rule that was passed by the Senate in bipartisan fashion, and it is now 
time for the House to consider and pass this important measure.

[[Page H299]]

  This legislation was crafted in response to the WOTUS rule 
promulgated by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, which redefines 
and vastly expands the scope of water subject to Federal jurisdiction 
under the Clean Water Act. By issuing this rule, these agencies have 
given themselves broad new power over water and land across the United 
States.
  Like many of my constituents, I am very concerned with this massive 
Federal overreach. It goes far beyond the agencies' statutory authority 
and could impose significant costs not only on American farmers and 
small businesses, but on States and local governments. The rule is 
another Federal power grab that has more to do with controlling land 
use decisions than protecting access to clean water.
  Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 22 utilizes the Congressional Review Act to 
block this harmful regulation, and it is time to send this critical 
measure to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to support this 
commonsense legislation and the rule providing for its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule we consider here today provides for the 
consideration of three bills that are critically important for the 
future of this country.

                              {time}  1300

  We must pass H.R. 1644 and S.J. Res. 22 to protect American families 
and businesses from the rampant executive overreach that will be the 
defining achievement of the Obama administration.
  Furthermore, the United States must stand with our allies in the 
Middle East, as well as around the world, in the face of growing 
Iranian aggression, which threatens not only the stability of the 
region, but the strength of U.S. alliances and standing in the world.
  I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to ensure that the Obama administration's shortsighted nuclear 
agreement does not unravel decades of work by the U.S. and our allies 
to impose meaningful sanctions on the country of Iran. These sanctions 
have restricted Iran's ability to spread its radical beliefs and 
inflict unknown damage on its neighbors in the region, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule and the 
underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of three 
pieces of legislation, and two of these bills are under a completely 
closed process. In fact, these are the 49th and 50th closed rules in 
this Congress.
  Last year was the most closed session in the history of our country, 
and I think this year will probably beat last year. I don't think that 
is anything to be proud of.
  This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, 
but the problem is, we don't deliberate very much anymore. We don't 
pass legislation. Instead, we pass sound bites, and that is what we are 
doing here today.
  This Chamber has become an echo chamber, if you will, for the 
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and its priorities, and the 
people's business gets tossed to the side.
  When Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised openness and a return 
to serious legislating. And my colleagues on the Rules Committee, we 
give them many opportunities to be more generous with granting more 
opportunities for Members of both sides to be able to offer amendments. 
And every time we do that, they vote ``no.'' And every time we bring up 
an open rule, they vote ``no.''
  Here we are, with two more bills that will be debated under a 
completely closed process this week. Things have to change here, and I 
hope my colleagues in the leadership on the other side will reflect on 
what the purpose of all of us being here is supposed to be.
  I would say it is about trying to find ways to come together and to 
pass things that will help improve the quality of life for all the 
people of this country, as well as to ensure our security in this 
dangerous world.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror 
Finance Transparency Act. My Republican friends would have us believe 
that this bill is a serious effort to increase congressional oversight 
of sanctions relief under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action, commonly known as the Iran deal.
  I wish that were true, Mr. Speaker. Such a bill could bring together 
a substantial number of Members from both parties. I would be even more 
confident about such a bill if it were crafted with input from the 
administration about how Congress could be most helpful and effective 
in monitoring the Iran nuclear deal.
  Regrettably, what is coming before the House is another ultra-
partisan bill that would shut down the ability of the United States to 
carry out its own obligations under the Iran deal.
  Rather than the world closely monitoring Iran's compliance, this bill 
would make the United States a target of condemnation for failing to 
fulfill its commitments. In fact, it would be the United States that is 
the nation in noncompliance with the Iran nuclear deal.
  Now, many of my colleagues who are critics of the Iran nuclear deal 
have already signaled that they cannot support this bill. House 
Republicans made no attempt whatsoever to make this bill a bipartisan 
bill. They made no attempt to draft a bill that might actually be 
signed by the President and worth the American taxpayers' time. This is 
political theater at its worst, plain and simple.
  This latest House Republican bill is even more dangerous because it 
plays politics with our national security.
  No one here wants to see Iran freed from its commitment not to 
develop a nuclear weapon, but that is exactly what this bill would do 
if it ever became law. It would make sure that the United States could 
not fulfill its part of the bargain, thus killing the nuclear 
agreement, and Iran would once again be free to pursue building nuclear 
weapons. That is insane.
  How can my Republican friends possibly think that this is a good 
idea?
  I believe that there are Members of Congress in both parties who want 
to work together with the administration in a bipartisan manner to 
build on the progress that they have made to prevent Iran from 
obtaining a nuclear weapon.
  I do believe there are Democrats and Republicans in Congress who 
genuinely want to strengthen the ability of the U.S. and the 
international community to respond effectively to Iran's recent testing 
of ballistic missiles, hold Iran accountable for their support of 
militant and terrorist organizations in the Middle East, and secure the 
freedom of Americans currently imprisoned in Iran.
  I also believe that achieving these goals may not require 
legislation, but strong bipartisan actions that increase U.S. leverage 
with our international partners and with Iran.
  But playing dangerous political games with our national security by 
bringing legislation like this to the floor, legislation that would 
undermine and perhaps even kill the nuclear deal with Iran, is not the 
answer.
  Now, luckily for the American people, this bill is not going to go 
anywhere. Even if it were actually passed by both Chambers of Congress 
and made its way to the President's desk, it would be vetoed, and I 
strongly doubt that the Congress would be able to overturn a 
Presidential veto in support of such a clearly partisan bill.
  Last week, Congress voted for the 62nd time to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act, and soon afterward, that bill was vetoed by the President. 
That is 62 times that Republicans wasted the American people's time and 
taxpayer dollars trying to take health care away from millions of 
families, all to make a political point.
  Congress has already voted on the Iran deal. My colleagues who 
opposed the deal tried to kill it, and they failed. It is now official 
policy. Are House Republicans going to take us down the same path they 
did with the Affordable Care Act? Are we also going to vote on this 
bill 62 times, a bill that we know the President will veto, just so the 
Republicans can make a political point?

[[Page H300]]

  Let's stop wasting the American people's time on such bills. Let's 
put politics aside and actually work together to responsibly monitor 
implementation of the Iran deal and find ways to strengthen U.S. 
leverage in other areas of concern on Iran.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3662 and reject this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the House is also taking up two Republican bills 
that would have devastating effects on the environment and our Nation's 
public health. The first piece of legislation, S.J. Res. 22, is the 
Republican majority's fifth attempt to get rid of the Clean Water Rule. 
Here we are, having the same discussion once again, wasting the 
American taxpayers' time and money.
  The Clean Water Rule was created in response to the Supreme Court 
declaring that the Clean Water Act needed to be narrowed and more 
clearly defined. So the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers did just 
that--they narrowed the scope and provided for much-needed 
clarification.
  With the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers doing exactly what they were 
supposed to do, you would think that would be the end of it. The EPA's 
ability to protect our water from pollution has been narrowed and the 
industry received the clarification that they wanted.
  Unfortunately, my Republican friends are pushing new legislation to 
further weaken vital environmental protections.
  The final bill before us, H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act, is a bill that 
is going nowhere and is the same bill that Republicans brought up last 
year, with the only difference being--and this is a major difference, I 
guess--but the only difference is that they changed the name. 
Otherwise, it is the same thing.
  Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this Republican bill is to reverse 
the rule that the Department of the Interior released last year that 
regulates the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining.
  It has long been known that mountaintop removal mining heavily 
pollutes drinking water, destroys wildlife habitats, and puts local 
communities at greater risk of contracting life-threatening diseases.
  Keeping the American people healthy and safe should always be our 
first priority in Congress. Yet, this bill is more focused on making it 
easier for big energy companies to continue the destructive and 
dangerous practice of mountaintop removal and gives no thought 
whatsoever to the risks it poses to the American families nearby.
  Before the recent rule released by the Department of the Interior in 
July 2015, parts of the regulations for mountaintop mining were more 
than 30 years old. Updates were clearly long overdue, and the fact that 
House Republicans are now actively working against the safeguards 
established by the rule is astounding.
  Are Republicans so beholden to big coal companies that they would put 
the health and safety of our country's families at risk? This bill 
clearly suggests that the answer is yes.
  Mr. Speaker, we are only 2 weeks into the new year, and instead of 
House Republicans starting the year by working in a bipartisan way to 
bring serious legislation to the floor, we are, once again, debating 
political messaging bills that fail to address the most pressing issues 
we face in a constructive way.
  There is so much we need to do, and I believe that there is so much 
that we can agree on and actually move forward that will get through 
both Chambers and go to the White House and be signed and become law 
and actually improve things for the people of this country. That is 
what we are supposed to be doing here.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a lot better than this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have got several colleagues here that would like to 
weigh in on all three of these issues. But before I turn the floor over 
to them, I just wanted to make a comment about the fact that there are 
two closed rule bills in this.
  All of these issues before us today have been thoroughly vetted. They 
have been through the committee process. They have had ample 
opportunity for people to weigh in.
  In fact, one of the bills is in a structured rule. Actually, we are 
allowing four amendments. Three of those amendments are from the 
Democratic side. So I think that there is ample opportunity for all 
people to make their feelings known on this legislation in front of us.
  I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that transparency, public 
involvement, and anything that the administration, that this government 
does, is not a waste of time. In fact, it is our duty to make sure that 
the public has the ability to see what its government is doing, to make 
sure it is done in the light of day.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Smith), my good friend.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and, certainly, the 
underlying legislation.
  Despite abundantly clear congressional intent to limit Federal 
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to only navigable waters, the 
waters of the United States rule will expand EPA's jurisdiction to 
nearly all areas with any hydrological connection to navigable waters.
  This rule relied on--and I want to quote here General Peabody of the 
Army Corps of Engineers--``inappropriate assumptions with no connection 
to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical deficiencies, and 
logical inconsistencies.''
  In fact, the Army Corps, the joint author of the rule, was so 
concerned about the EPA's methods, they wanted their name and logo 
removed from EPA documents.
  Furthermore, it has now come to light that the EPA broke Federal law 
by engaging in a propaganda campaign to carry out this agenda behind 
their rule.
  Congress has a responsibility to guard against these bureaucratic 
power grabs by executive agencies. This is why I introduced the 
companion bill to the underlying legislation immediately after the rule 
was finalized. The resolution has gained more than 70 cosponsors, with 
supporters from both sides of the aisle.
  Thanks to the expedited procedures established under the 
Congressional Review Act, when we vote on this legislation tomorrow, 
the bill will proceed directly to the President's desk.
  Tomorrow's vote will also mark the second time legislation has passed 
out of the House of Representatives to repeal the waters of the U.S. 
rule with bipartisan support.
  My hope is the President will listen to the American people, listen 
to their concerns, local officials, small-business men and women, and 
begin pursuing policies which expand economic opportunity, and not 
stifle innovation with one regulation after another.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to something the gentleman from 
Washington said when he basically made the statement that as long as 
committees take action, we don't need open rules. That is a whole new 
approach to the way this place is being run. I thought the Speaker of 
the House made it very clear he wanted more open rules. The previous 
Speaker of the House did, too. He didn't do that.
  The bottom line is just because a committee took action on it, there 
are 435 Members of this House, and not everybody is on the same 
committee. We ought to be able to have a free-flowing debate, and 
people ought to be able to offer amendments. We ought to deliberate.
  I am going to make a prediction that, if we did have an opportunity 
to truly be a deliberative body, you might get better legislation, and 
you might get legislation that gets lots of bipartisan support and 
actually gets signed into law and we get things done. Instead, we are 
stuck in this pattern where we really don't have regular order. We have 
order enforced with an iron fist where people are just locked out. It 
is not just Democrats that are locked out of the process; it is 
Republicans as well. When you close a rule down completely, it means 
nobody--nobody--has an opportunity to offer anything.

[[Page H301]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on 
Asia and the Pacific.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the portion of the rule 
that deals with the Iran terrorism bill.
  I have voted for every Iran sanctions bill to come to this floor. I 
helped draft many of them, and I am ready to draft, work on, and vote 
for Iran sanctions bills in the future even if they are opposed by the 
administration. Keep in mind, nearly every Iran sanctions bill, which 
has passed this House floor, became law, and gave us at least some 
leverage over Iran, was opposed by the then-George W. Bush 
administration and by this administration.
  We need a good process to draft good legislation that will do what 
President Obama promised we would do, and that is adopt new sanctions 
designed to change Iran's behavior with regard to its nonnuclear 
wrongdoing, its support for terrorism, its missile test in violation of 
U.N. Security Council resolutions, its human rights record, and its 
seizure of American hostages.
  Unfortunately, this is a flawed bill which is the product of a flawed 
process. Look at the process: 100 cosponsors, all from one party, with 
no Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee invited to help draft the 
bill or even invited to cosponsor it.
  Now this process is epitomized by a closed rule. The gentleman from 
Washington offers a new definition of an open rule. An open rule is a 
closed rule on a bill that has been considered by a committee. That is 
the new definition of ``open rule.'' I suggest we keep the old 
definition.
  This is a closed rule that prevents people from offering amendments 
that might have had a better chance of passing on the floor than they 
would have in committee. A Member should be free to offer amendments 
both on the floor and in committee if they are a member of the 
committee; but this is a closed rule, and this process of a closed rule 
prevents amendments to fix flaws in the bill.
  There are at least two. The first is that the bill deprives the 
President of the authority to delist some 489 entities. It locks them 
on to the SDN list, but it leaves out 269 other entities, creating two 
classes of wrongdoing companies and other entities that sponsor and 
facilitate terrorism for no apparent reason. An entity stays on the 
list until the President issues a certification, a certification that 
no President could ever certify. You have to certify that we know that 
from the beginning of time the entity has not had any dealing with any 
of dozens of different terrorist organizations. That is a certification 
designed to be impossible and designed to lock entities in.
  I look forward to a bipartisan process. For example, I have a bill 
that has been cosponsored by the current and immediate prior chair of 
the Foreign Affairs Committee. There are other bills subject to a 
bipartisan process because we do need new sanctions on Iran to change 
its nonnuclear wrongdoing. Those sanctions are warranted because Iran 
has engaged in the missile test in violation of the U.N. Security 
Council resolution, because its support for terrorism is responsible 
for the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Syria and Yemen, and 
because it used to hold four but now holds five American hostages, not 
to mention its other human rights records. It is consistent with 
administration policy that we have sanctions on Iran's nonnuclear 
behavior.
  The negotiations in Vienna, the negotiations on this deal, left out 
all of Iran's nonnuclear behavior, not because it was intended to give 
them carte blanche, not because we were accepting their support for 
terrorism, but because these were to be the subject of other sanctions 
and other efforts to force a change in Iran's behavior.
  Finally, the question is, well, do sanctions work? That is the one 
thing the opponents and proponents of the deal agreed on. The 
proponents of the deal said that the sanctions have brought us a very 
good deal. The opponents of the deal said that more sanctions will get 
us a better deal. So in a House that was divided on almost every aspect 
of Iran policy, the one thing we agreed on was that sanctions have the 
capacity to change Iran's behavior.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. SHERMAN. So the President promised that we would not abandon our 
efforts with regard to Iran's terrorism and with regard to Iran's 
hostage taking, and that we would not abandon the four hostages they 
had then or the additional hostage that they have taken since the deal, 
and that we would not turn a blind eye to the fact that Iran is the 
single most important ally of the butcher Assad, who has killed over 
200,000 of his own people, not to mention Iran's support for terrorism 
in Yemen.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not fail to do so simply because we have a 
deal that was exclusively, strictly, and explicitly limited to dealing 
with Iran's nuclear program. That said, the bill before this House 
today is a flawed bill that cannot be corrected because of a flawed 
process. We need a bipartisan process that crafts a policy toward 
Iran's nonnuclear wrongdoing that unites, if not all of this House, a 
large majority of this House.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make the point that 
it is customary, whether Republicans are in control or whether 
Democrats control, that the CRAs, the Congressional Review Acts, come 
to the floor under a closed rule. I might also say that, regarding the 
STREAM Act, all amendments that were germane were made in order. As it 
comes to the bill pertaining to Iran, that bill was marked up in 
committee last week. No amendments were offered, and the bill passed on 
voice vote.
  Having made those points, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
good gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule.
  Tonight President Obama will deliver his final State of the Union, 
where I expect he will celebrate his supposed achievements over the 
last 7 years. Outside the beltway, and especially in western 
Pennsylvania, there is little to celebrate about the Obama Presidency. 
The war on coal has been a central feature of Washington's misguided 
efforts over the past several years, and it has caused the loss of over 
40,000 jobs in the coal industry across the country and economic 
hardship in coal country.
  Later today we will vote on the STREAM Act, which challenges OSM's 
so-called stream protection rule. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, 
and I look forward to its passage.
  The stream protection rule is yet another block in the wall of 
regulation that President Obama has been building the last 7 years. It 
will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, and it will reduce coal 
reserves by 41 percent. That amounts to a $20 billion loss to the 
economy.
  Just yesterday we learned of the bankruptcy of yet another coal 
company. The job losses, firm closures, and disruptions to our 
communities are real, and they cannot be ignored any longer. This is an 
attack on cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, and it will result in 
more control from Washington of the economy and the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to support the passage of this 
rule and the associated bills.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I again continue to be amazed that the gentleman from 
Washington defends this process. I don't know how anybody can defend 
this process, it is so flawed. The end result is, again, bringing bills 
to the floor that are going nowhere and that are sound bites. They are 
not serious legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration 
Policy on all three bills in which the White House says they will veto 
these bills.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


                         h.r. 1644--stream act

         (Rep. Mooney, R-WV, and 34 cosponsors, Jan. 11, 2016)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1644, which would 
     delay for at least three years updated regulations, known as 
     the Stream Protection Rule, to protect streams

[[Page H302]]

     from the effects of destructive surface coal mining 
     practices. Such a needless delay of these important 
     safeguards would impact the communities and economies that 
     depend on clean water and a healthy environment.
       The current stream protection requirements governing 
     surface mining activities are more than 30 years old and do 
     not incorporate significant advances in scientific knowledge 
     and mining and reclamation techniques. An arbitrary three 
     year restriction to block the updated modern, science-based 
     regulations would significantly impair the ability of the 
     Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) 
     to accomplish the mission and responsibilities the Congress 
     laid out in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 
     1977, including preserving clean water, human health, and the 
     environment.
       H.R. 1644 would prevent the restoration of hundreds of 
     streams, result in deterioration of water quality for 
     thousands of stream miles, and create sustained regulatory 
     uncertainty, as well as public health impacts for downstream 
     communities. In addition, the bill would impose arbitrary 
     requirements and unnecessary processes that would seriously 
     impede OSMRE's ability to use the best available science to 
     protect public health and the environment.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 1644, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


s.j. res. 22--disapproving epa/army rule on waters of the united states

          (Sen. Ernst, R-IA, and 49 cosponsors, Nov. 3, 2015)

       The Administration strongly opposes S.J. Res. 22, which 
     would nullify a specified Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) final rule 
     clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries of the Clean Water 
     Act (CWA). The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science and 
     the law, is essential to ensure clean water for future 
     generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking from 
     the Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as 
     decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The final rule has been 
     through an extensive public engagement process.
       Clean water is vital for the success of the Nation's 
     businesses, agriculture, energy development, and the health 
     of our communities. More than one in three Americans get 
     their drinking water from rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that 
     are at risk of pollution from upstream sources. The 
     protection of wetlands is also vital for hunting and fishing. 
     When Congress passed the CWA in 1972 to restore the Nation's 
     waters, it recognized that to have healthy communities 
     downstream, we need to protect the smaller streams and 
     wetlands upstream.
       Clarifying the scope of the CWA helps to protect clean 
     water, safeguard public health, and strengthen the economy. 
     Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 focused on specific 
     jurisdictional determinations and rejected the analytical 
     approach that the Army Corps of Engineers used for those 
     determinations, but did not invalidate the underlying 
     regulation. This has created ongoing questions and 
     uncertainty about how the regulation is applied consistent 
     with the Court's decisions. The final rule was developed to 
     address this uncertainty and it should remain in place.
       If enacted, S.J. Res. 22 would nullify years of work and 
     deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty 
     needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water. EPA 
     and Army have sought the views of and listened carefully to 
     the public throughout the extensive public engagement process 
     for this rule.
       Simply put, S.J. Res. 22 is not an act of good governance. 
     It would sow confusion and invite conflict at a time when our 
     communities and businesses need clarity and certainty around 
     clean water regulation.
       If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 22, his 
     senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


            H.R. 3662--iran terror finance transparency act

         (Rep. Russell, R-OK, and 62 cosponsors, Jan. 11, 2016)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3662, the Iran 
     Terror Finance Transparency Act, which would prevent the 
     United States from implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan 
     of Action (JCPOA) by tying the Administration's ability to 
     fulfill U.S. commitments under the deal to unrelated, non-
     nuclear issues.
       H.R. 3662 includes provisions that connect the United 
     States' JCPOA commitment to provide sanctions relief by 
     delisting certain Iran-related individuals and entities, 
     including banks, to non-nuclear issues outside of the scope 
     of the JCPOA. In addition, certain provisions would 
     effectively preclude delisting of individuals or entities on 
     Implementation Day of the JCPOA--the day on which the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that Iran has 
     completed key nuclear-related steps that significantly 
     dismantle and constrain its nuclear program--based on 
     activity that may have taken place and ended long before 
     Implementation Day and involving persons or activity that 
     will no longer be sanctioned post-Implementation Day. By 
     preventing the United States from fulfilling its JCPOA 
     commitments, H.R. 3662 could result in the collapse of a 
     comprehensive diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and 
     verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. 
     Such a collapse would remove the unprecedented constraints on 
     Iran's nuclear program that we achieved in the JCPOA, lead to 
     the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against 
     Iran, and deal a devastating blow to America's credibility as 
     a leader of international diplomacy. This would have ripple 
     effects, jeopardizing the hard work of sustaining a unified 
     coalition to combat Iran's destabilizing activities in the 
     region, calling into question the effectiveness of our 
     sanctions regime and our ability to lead the world on nuclear 
     non-proliferation.
       The Administration has consistently made clear that the 
     purpose of the nuclear negotiations, and ultimately the 
     JCPOA, was to address one issue only--the international 
     community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program and to 
     verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The 
     JCPOA is the mechanism through which the United States was 
     able to garner international support for our sanctions and 
     achieve a diplomatic resolution.
       As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program 
     through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration 
     remains clear-eyed and shares the deep concerns of the 
     Congress and the American people about Iran's support for 
     terrorism. Powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for 
     terrorism, its ballistic missile activities, its human rights 
     abuses, and its destabilizing activities in the region remain 
     in effect. Anyone worldwide who transacts with or supports 
     individuals or entities sanctioned in connection with Iran's 
     support for terrorism or development of WMD and their means 
     of delivery, including missiles--or who does the same with 
     any Iranian individual or entity who remains on Treasury's 
     Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List--puts 
     themselves at risk of being sanctioned.
       The President has made it clear that he will veto any 
     legislation that prevents the successful implementation of 
     the JCPOA. If the President were presented with H.R. 3662, he 
     would veto the bill.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from 
the Win Without War coalition, 11 million activists across the country 
in opposition to H.R. 3662.

A Statement From Drew Proctor, Advocacy Director of ``Win Without War''

       The Win Without War coalition, on behalf of our 11 million 
     activists, urges your office to stand strong against all 
     attempts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 
     in Congress.
       In particular, we urge Representative McGovern to OPPOSE 
     H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act.
       H.R. 3662, which would prohibit President Obama from 
     delivering on sanctions relief, has the potential to damage 
     the leadership and credibility of the United States at this 
     critical moment just before the historic agreement is 
     implemented. Furthermore, the timing of the House's vote--
     between President Obama's State of the Union speech and the 
     deal's implementation date later this month--appears to be a 
     deliberately partisan act designed to undermine the President 
     and weaken his legacy. At a time when much of the Middle East 
     is engulfed in war, the US has rightfully seized this 
     opportunity to solve one of our most pressing national 
     security threats without dropping a single bomb. We must not 
     let political interests trump our national security goals. 
     Huge progress has been made since the Iran deal was announced 
     last July. Just yesterday, Iran reportedly took steps to 
     remove the core of its plutonium reactor and fill it with 
     concrete.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Drew Proctor,

                                                Advocacy Director,
                                                  Win Without War.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 65 
environmental organizations representing millions of members in 
opposition to H.J. Res. 22.

                                                 January 12, 2016.
       Representative: The undersigned organizations, and our 
     millions of members and supporters, oppose the Dirty Water 
     Resolution (S.J. Res. 22). The ``Resolution of Disapproval'' 
     under the Congressional Review Act attacks the Clean Water 
     Rule, the Obama administration's landmark initiative to 
     restore safeguards against pollution and destruction for 
     lakes, streams, wetlands and other water bodies.
       The Clean Water Rule restores important safeguards that 
     once existed for a variety of water bodies. Those safeguards 
     were eroded after a pair of Supreme Court decisions and by 
     policies the Bush administration adopted, which left many 
     water bodies inadequately protected or lacking the pollution 
     control requirements of the Clean Water Act. The rule 
     restores prior protections for many critical wetlands, which 
     curb flooding, filter pollution, and provide habitat for a 
     wide variety of wildlife, including endangered species and 
     wildfowl and fish prized by hunters and anglers.
       The Dirty Water Resolution is an extreme action that seeks 
     to kill the Clean Water Rule using the Congressional Review 
     Act, which goes far beyond stopping a disapproved 
     administrative action. The Congressional Review Act says that 
     an agency may not adopt ``a new rule that is substantially 
     the same'' as the disapproved rule, and the breadth of that 
     requirement is very unclear.

[[Page H303]]

       In the context of the Clean Water Rule, it could be read to 
     prohibit EPA and the Army Corps from issuing any rule that 
     establishes protections for waters that the Clean Water Rule 
     covers, like lakes, streams, and wetlands. The Dirty Water 
     Resolution radically undermines the agencies' ability to 
     clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act--despite 
     urging from industry associations, conservation groups, 
     members of Congress, state and local leaders, and Supreme 
     Court justices for such a clarification.
       By pursuing this anti-clean water resolution, pro-polluter 
     members of the House of Representatives are seeking to kill a 
     commonsense and modest rule containing scientifically-sound 
     and legally-valid protections for the nation's waters, 
     including critical drinlcing water supplies.
       Restored clean water protections enjoy broad support. In 
     polling for the American Sustainable Business Council, eighty 
     percent of small business owners--including 91% of Democrats, 
     73% of Independents and 78% of Republicans--said they 
     supported the then-proposed Clean Water Rule. A strong 
     majority, 71%, also said that clean water protections are 
     necessary to ensure economic growth; only six percent said 
     they were bad for growth. Similarly, a bipartisan research 
     team polled hunters and anglers nationwide and discovered 
     that 83% surveyed thought that the Environmental Protection 
     Agency should apply the rules and standards of the Clean 
     Water Act to smaller, headwater streams and wetlands. Support 
     for this policy was strong across the political spectrum, 
     with 77% of Republicans, 79% of Independents and 97% of 
     Democrats in favor.
       We ask that you oppose the Dirty Water Resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 22) because it will undermine protections for our 
     drinking water supplies, flood buffers, and fish and wildlife 
     habitat. This attack on clean water is not only a waste of 
     the House's time but also an excessive and dangerous act that 
     jeopardizes clean water for generations to come.
           Sincerely,
       Alliance for the Great Lakes, American Rivers, American 
     Whitewater, Amigos Bravos, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, 
     BlueGreen Alliance, Central Minnesota Chapter of Audubon, 
     Clean Water Action, Conservation Minnesota, Earthjustice, 
     Endangered Habitats League, Environment America, Environment 
     California, Environment Colorado, Environment Connecticut, 
     Environment Florida, Environment Georgia, Environment 
     Illinois, Environment Iowa, Environment Maine, Environment 
     Maryland, Environment Massachusetts.
       Environment Michigan, Environment Minnesota, Environment 
     Montana, Environment New Hampshire, Environment New Jersey, 
     Environment New Mexico, Environment New York, Environment 
     North Carolina, Environment Oregon, Environment Texas, 
     Environment Virginia, Environment Washington, Freshwater 
     Future, Friends of the Cloquet Valley State Park, Friends of 
     the Mississippi River, Great Lakes Committee--the Izaak 
     Walton League, GreenLatinos, Greenpeace, Gulf Restoration 
     Network, Hoosier Environmental Council, Iowa Environmental 
     Council, Kentucky Waterways Alliance.
       League of Conservation Voters, Michigan Wildlife 
     Conservancy, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Minnesota 
     Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota Conservation 
     Federation, Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Missouri 
     Coalition for the Environment, Natural Resources Defense 
     Council, Nature Abounds, Ohio Wetlands Association, 
     PennEnvironment, Prairie Rivers Network, Religious Coalition 
     for the Great Lakes, River Network, Save the Dunes, Shaker 
     Lakes Garden Club, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law 
     Center, Surfrider Foundation, Tennessee Clean Water Network, 
     Wisconsin Environment, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 
eight sportsmen and conservation organizations in strong opposition to 
S.J. Res. 22.

                                                 January 11, 2016.
     Re Hunters and Anglers Strongly Oppose S.J. Res. 22 
         Invalidating the Final Clean Water Rule

       Dear Representative: The undersigned sportsmen and 
     conservation organizations strongly oppose Senate Joint 
     Resolution 22, which the House of Representatives may vote on 
     this week and would invalidate the final Clean Water Rule. 
     This important rule clarifies Clean Water Act jurisdiction in 
     a manner that is both legally and scientifically sound.
       This joint resolution is an extraordinary and radical 
     action to overturn a fundamental, once-in-a-generation final 
     rule that is critical to the effective implementation of the 
     1972 Clean Water Act, and that was adopted following an 
     exhaustive public rulemaking process. The resolution would 
     overturn a rule that finally resolves longstanding confusion 
     and debate, promotes clarity and efficiency for regulatory 
     programs promoting river health, and preserves longstanding 
     protections for farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
       By using the Congressional Review Act, this joint 
     resolution not only wipes out the final Clean Water Rule but 
     also prohibits any substantially similar rule in the future. 
     It locks in the current state of jurisdictional confusion and 
     offers no constructive path forward for regulatory clarity or 
     clean water. America's hunters and anglers cannot afford to 
     have Congress undermine effective Clean Water Act safeguards, 
     leaving communities and valuable fish and wildlife habitat at 
     risk indefinitely.
       This joint resolution dismisses the voices of the millions 
     of Americans, including businesses that depend on clean 
     water, who support the new rule and are eager to reap its 
     benefits. The agencies engaged in a very transparent and 
     thorough multi-year rulemaking process that included over 400 
     stakeholder meetings and an extended public comment period 
     that produced over one million comments. Nearly 900,000 
     members of the public commented in support of the Clean Water 
     Rule. A recent poll found that 83 percent of sportsmen and 
     women think the Clean Water Act should apply to smaller 
     streams and wetlands, as the new rule directs.
       The Clean Water Rule clearly restores longstanding 
     protections for millions of wetlands and headwater streams 
     that contribute to the drinking water of 1 in 3 Americans, 
     protect communities from flooding, and provide essential fish 
     and wildlife habitat that supports a robust outdoor 
     recreation economy. The sport fishing industry alone accounts 
     for 828,000 jobs, nearly $50 billion annually in retail 
     sales, and an economic impact of about $115 billion every 
     year that relies on access to clean water. The Clean Water 
     Rule will translate directly to an improved bottom line for 
     America's outdoor industry.
       Opponents claiming the rule goes too far and protects water 
     too much have filed a barrage of nearly identical legal 
     challenges in numerous district and appellate courts across 
     the country. On October 9, 2015, the 6th Circuit Court of 
     Appeals temporarily stayed the Clean Water Rule nationwide. 
     The Clean Water Rule and those who oppose it will have their 
     day in court.
       Meanwhile, we want Congress to know that despite these 
     legal challenges, conservationists across the nation are 
     steadfast in our support for the Clean Water Rule. After 
     nearly 15 years of Clean Water Act confusion, further delay 
     is unacceptable to the millions of hunters and anglers eager 
     to have their local waters fully protected again. We are 
     confident that, when the dust settles in the courts, the 
     Clean Water Rule will withstand challenges saying it protects 
     our water too much.
       The Clean Water Act has always been about restoring and 
     maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 
     of the Nation's waters. It is bedrock support for America's 
     more than 40 million hunters and anglers and for the 117 
     million Americans whose drinking water depends on healthy 
     headwater streams.
       We thank all of the members of Congress who stand with 
     America's sportsmen and women to block attempts to derail the 
     rule, and ask you to reject S.J. Res. 22 and any other 
     legislative action against the rule that may follow this 
     year.
           Sincerely,
       American Fisheries Society, American Fly Fishing Trade 
     Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, International 
     Federation of Fly Fishers, Izaak Walton League of America, 
     National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
     Partnership, Trout Unlimited.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from nine 
public interest, environmental, and labor organizations strongly 
opposing H.R. 1644.

                                                 January 11, 2016.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the stream 
     pollution bill, H.R. 1644, a bill expected on the House floor 
     the week of January 11, 2016. This bill would put costly and 
     unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in the already overburdened 
     regulatory process with the sole intent of ensuring that coal 
     companies can continue to destroy streams with coal wastes.
       The present rules protecting such streams date to 1983. 
     After the Department of Interior took several years to 
     develop the proposed Stream Protection Rule, this bill 
     requires a new study, this time by the National Academy of 
     Sciences, on the effectiveness of the current decades-old 
     surface mining regulation. The bill carves out two years for 
     the completion of that study and then bars DOI from updating 
     the rule for an additional year after that. In the meantime, 
     communities will continue to shoulder the burden of water 
     pollution and mining abuses. The intent of these new delays 
     is clear: let the mining companies continue unimpeded with 
     sacrificing the streams and health of the communities that 
     surround their mines.
       Another section of the bill adds new procedural hurdles 
     before DOI can act under the surface mining law. Today, the 
     Secretary and the heads of all rulemaking agencies regularly 
     make available all the information relied upon concurrently 
     with the proposed or final rule. Doing so enables 
     stakeholders to weigh in during the public comment period on 
     the basis for the proposal. This bill requires DOI to publish 
     all scientific data used in a proposed rule 90 days before 
     publication. It is unclear what the intent of this redundant 
     provision is other than to congest the regulatory system with 
     even more process and delay. If the Agency fails to meet this 
     new paperwork burden, the goal of the authors is met--the 
     protections must be delayed even further.
       Unfortunately, these types of delay tactics are becoming 
     increasingly common across

[[Page H304]]

     the regulatory spectrum as polluters attempt to dodge their 
     responsibilities. Thus, H.R. 1644 continues a dangerous trend 
     of undermining public health and environmental protections 
     under the guise of transparency. We urge you to vote against 
     this legislation, both to protect mining communities and to 
     our reject attempts to delay and frustrate improved 
     regulatory protections.
           Sincerely,
       Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Effective 
     Government, Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of 
     Concerned Scientists, Economic Policy Institute, Institute 
     for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Natural Resources Defense 
     Council, Public Citizen, United Auto Workers, United States 
     Public Interest Research Group.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Union of Concerned Scientists in strong opposition to H.R. 1644.

                                Union of Concerned Scientists,

                                                September 9, 2015.
       Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists, 
     with 450,000 members and supporters throughout the country, 
     strongly opposes The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
     to H.R. 1644, the STREAM ACT. H.R. 1644, as amended, would 
     require the public disclosure of any and all information used 
     to promulgate rules, and even policy guidance, relating to 
     the Surface Mining and Control Act.
       As we highlighted in Science, this proposal is just another 
     example of what's becoming an old and tired song: an attempt 
     to cloak an effort to block common-sense regulation in the 
     guise of transparency. Furthermore, as we noted in a letter 
     sent to the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year 
     opposing H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act, this type 
     of proposal represents a solution in search of a problem and 
     greatly impedes the agency's responsibility to protect public 
     health and the environment.
       The amended version improves the original bill by exempting 
     certain types of data from public disclosure. However, the 
     language is so vague, it will make it very difficult for 
     scientists doing federally-funded research to know whether or 
     not the data they have spent years collecting may be 
     prematurely disclosed before they can publish their own 
     studies. At the very least, this discourages scientists from 
     doing any crucial research that may be required to be 
     publicly disclosed.
       Worse, by linking agency rulemaking to public disclosure, 
     this bill risks the timely implementation of regulations and 
     guidance documents that protect the public health and safety 
     and our environment. Agency rules will be delayed if any 
     piece of underlying data used to inform rules or guidance 
     documents is not publicly disclosed 90 days before the 
     proposed rule or guidance is published. This is flawed 
     because the data is not owned by the Department of Interior 
     and the release of the data is under the researcher's 
     control. For each day the data is delayed, the comment period 
     is extended by a day. If the delay lasts longer than six 
     months, the rule must be withdrawn.
       These restrictions apply even to emergency rules, unless a 
     delay ``will pose an imminent and severe threat to human 
     life.'' Notably missing here however is the environment. For 
     example, if a stream is polluted at a level that doesn't pose 
     an immediate risk but may pose a long-term risk, under this 
     proposal, the environmental pollution could not be stopped 
     until it might be too late.
       This proposal offers special interests a new way to game 
     the system, by challenging the comprehensiveness of any data 
     that the Department of Interior submits to fulfill the bill's 
     requirements. Who decides when the data includes ``all the 
     data?'' How much data, for example, must be released to 
     justify an economic assessment, or an environmental analysis 
     or a guidance document?
       Unanswered, too, is the question whether a regulation or 
     guidance document based on exempt information is considered 
     valid for purposes of this bill. Could the use of exempt 
     information itself be grounds for a challenge?
       This bill would also expend taxpayer dollars by requiring 
     the Department of Interior to spend $2 million on a study to 
     evaluate the ``effectiveness'' of 1983 regulation to protect 
     perennial and intermittent streams through the use of stream 
     buffer zones. But the goal of the study is not to actually 
     help the Department of Interior become a better custodian of 
     our environment.
       The real goal is to impose a sweeping moratorium on all 
     regulations related to stream buffer zones for the time it 
     takes the National Academy of Sciences to complete the 
     ``comprehensive study'' plus another year for review. Since 
     the bill anticipates funding for the NAS in both 2016 and 
     2017, Interior regulations would be blocked for at least 
     three years. If the study is never funded though, the rules 
     would be indefinitely delayed.
       We recommend that you oppose Representative Mooney's 
     amendment to H.R. 1644, as well as the underlying bill. The 
     proposal would inhibit the Department of Interior's ability 
     to carry out its science and evidence-based responsibility to 
     protect human health and the environment. We strongly urge 
     you not to report this proposal out of committee.
           Sincerely,
                                       Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,
                                  Director, Center for Science and
                         Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the great State of Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Speaker, for 20 years, Republican and 
Democratic administrations, alike, have effectively regulated navigable 
waters--which is the official term--under the Clean Water Act to 
protect both our environment and private property, but the Obama 
administration is trying to change all of that. The Obama 
Administration's new definition will give the EPA authority over every 
pond or seasonal stream, drainage ditch, or puddle in the United 
States--every single one. Every piece of land where water falls from 
the heavens, the EPA is claiming control over.
  What does that mean if you want to put a deck on your house or move 
your driveway or build a shed or something similar? It means you are 
going to have to apply to the Federal Government for a permit.
  What do those permits look like? They take upwards of 788 days to 
obtain, and they cost upwards of $270,000 to get per permit, per 
puddle, per ditch, or per stream that you want to amend.
  So I hope you are either really rich and have a ton of time on your 
hands or you don't want to ever change anything because this is almost 
impossible.
  I would call this new change a solution in search of a problem, but 
it is a solution that is going to create a problem. There is no 
evidence that this is going to give us stronger environmental 
protections, that we are going to have cleaner water, or that we are 
even going to have a benefit. What is really going to happen is the EPA 
is going to be kingmaker; and you and I, as Americans, are going to be 
forced to grovel at their feet, begging for permits on our own land.
  This really impacts those of us in the West tremendously. Every 
American should sit up and pay attention because this impacts 
everybody, including cities and counties.
  I hope you don't need a new hospital in your area or you don't need a 
grocery store or perhaps your city needs to expand or grow or change, 
because this effectively says that one agency, headed by very political 
and liberal--at this point, very liberal--ideologues will get to make 
that decision, and they are not going to give us the benefit. That is 
the scary thing here.
  So I look forward to joining with Republicans and commonsense 
Democrats, because believe it or not, just like in years past, 
Republicans and Democrats are both opposed to this, to put this block 
in place and to move forward.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that there is a difference 
between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the environment, 
protecting the health and well-being of the people of this country, 
especially from industry. I think we, on the Democratic side, have 
consistently been on the side of protecting people, and my friends on 
the other side have been consistently on the side of industry, no 
matter what it means to people.
  We see what is going on in Flint, Michigan, right now and the 
terrible water crisis that is happening there and the Republican 
Governor who is part of what appears to be a coverup at the expense of 
those citizens. It really is quite astonishing.

                              {time}  1330

  Again, this bill is going nowhere. It is going to be vetoed by the 
White House. So we can go through this charade.
  I would just conclude right now, at least this portion of my speech 
here, by saying that, as I said in the beginning, if, in fact, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle want to get serious about 
legislating, there are areas of agreement on these environmental 
issues, and certainly on this issue regarding Iran, where Democrats and 
Republicans can come together. But for whatever reason, I think my 
Republican friends have no interest in serious legislating. I think 
that is regrettable because what we are doing here is wasting taxpayer 
money and wasting the people's time here in this Congress. We could be 
doing other things that could actually be moving this country forward.

[[Page H305]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse) for yielding.
  In my capacity as a member of the House Committee on Financial 
Services' Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing and as a 
businessperson with over three decades of experience in both 
international affairs and banking, I have carefully considered the 
testimony of leading foreign policy experts cautioning against America 
blindly putting its faith in a country that has never done anything to 
make them worthy of that trust.
  The nuclear agreement has only emboldened the Iranian regime. And why 
wouldn't it? When one sees the recent results of President Clinton's 
agreement with North Korea and this administration's lack of resolve 
and realism, why not?
  I remind this body, Secretary Kerry, and the President of the warning 
issued to the House of Commons by Winston Churchill: ``An appeaser is 
one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.''
  The Iranians have kidnapped another American, taken deliveries of 
missile technology from Russia, conducted missile tests in violation of 
U.N. Security Council resolutions, and ramped up the actions and 
rhetoric against our Arab allies. All of this is disturbing. This is 
all before Iran has even received a dime of up to $100 billion in 
expected sanctions relief.
  When he announced the nuclear agreement, the President said: 
``American sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human 
rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, will continue to be fully 
enforced.''
  The bill discussed in this rule, H.R. 3662, guarantees that. This 
bill removes the politicization of the listed entities in the nuclear 
agreement and forces this President to live up to his own rhetoric.
  I am proud to support this critical piece of legislation. I call on 
all Members to support the rule and final passage of the bill and help 
guarantee the safety of the American people and our allies around the 
world from one of our most credible threats to our national security.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say to the gentleman that, if this were a serious effort 
to do something in response to Iran's behavior, this would be a 
bipartisan effort, but it isn't. It is clear what this is. This is a 
way to basically try to embarrass the President, I guess. That seems to 
be the motivation behind almost everything that is brought to this 
House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we ought to be doing serious business 
here, and we are not. One of the things that we have been trying to do 
on our side is to bring to the floor legislation and amendments to deal 
with the terrible situation with regard to gun violence in our country. 
We are rebuffed at every moment. We can't bring anything to this floor 
with regard to guns, I guess because the Republican Congressional 
Campaign Committee doesn't want to tick off the National Rifle 
Association.
  Be that as it may, I want to urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to 
bring up bipartisan legislation--this is actually Democrats and 
Republicans who support this--that would close a glaring loophole in 
our gun laws allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms. 
This bill would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the 
FBI's terrorist watch list.
  Mr. Speaker, amidst gun violence in communities across our country 
and global acts of terrorism, it is time for Congress to act and keep 
guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.
  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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't understand why 
somehow it is okay to bar suspected terrorists from flying on 
airplanes, but somehow it is this terrible infringement on their rights 
to say that they can't go out and buy a firearm. It makes absolutely no 
sense. I don't think the American people--whether you are Democrat or 
Republican or Independent--can figure out why people are so resistant 
to that here in this Congress.
  Here is a novel idea. bring it to the floor. Allow us to have an up-
or-down vote, not just a procedural vote, but a real up-or-down vote on 
this, and I am willing to bet that it will probably pass with a 
bipartisan vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, if it embarrasses the President to be held 
accountable for the very words that come out of his mouth, I guess 
there is not much we can do about that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for 
yielding me the time.
  I guess if we want to advance policy around here, the rhetoric coming 
from across the aisle about it being a waste of time to legislate and 
put these ideas out in front of the American people and hold the 
President accountable for the runaway efforts by his administration and 
his agencies, then we are just not hearing an honest effort on the 
other side.
  We have half-baked regulations that will damage sectors of our 
economy in this 262 pages of revised rules that are coming down from 
the Department of the Interior. Since 1983, the stream buffer zone rule 
has been a rule that has struck a pretty good balance between 
protecting water resources and mining. Adding 262 new pages effectively 
bans all mining within 100 feet of anything that they might define as a 
stream, which is going to have very detrimental effects on energy and 
our ability to conduct business in this Nation.
  The new rule would lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, damage our 
Nation's ability to produce critical minerals, construction materials, 
and domestic energy, something that we have had an advantage on up 
until recently.
  While Interior claims to have spent 6 years studying this rule, it 
managed to completely ignore the views of the States impacted by the 
rule. I think we need to have more local input and support to H.R. 1644 
and hold the administration accountable for what it does.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and passage of S.J. 
Res. 22, which provides congressional disapproval on EPA's extreme 
overreach with their waters of the U.S. rule.
  Last June, the EPA published its final orders of the U.S. rule that 
would virtually give them authority over any place water flows or 
accumulates. This would include driveways, ditches, manmade ponds, and 
even our watered lawns.
  Currently, private and public entities spend an average of $271,000 
and wait an average of 788 days to obtain permits from the EPA for 
projects currently under its jurisdiction. Expanding EPA's authority in 
this unprecedented way would be extremely devastating to landowners, 
especially farmers, and make devastating statistics even worse.
  With this bill, Congress would nullify this ridiculous rule and 
continue to provide Americans with personal control over their 
property. Property is not an asset that can be taken control of on the 
whim of a government agency. Property rights are an essential natural 
right of every American, and this fact has been embedded in our 
country's DNA since its beginning.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and S.J. Res. 22 so we can 
prevent this terrible law from infringing on the natural rights of all 
Americans.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have heard a couple of speakers now talk on this, and I think some 
of the confusion might be cleared up if they actually read the rule.
  The gentlewoman from Washington who spoke earlier talked about that 
this would regulate puddles. Well, the

[[Page H306]]

clean water rule does not regulate puddles. In fact, numerous comments 
were submitted to EPA asking the Agency specifically to exclude 
puddles. I have got good news for you: the final rules does just that, 
and the clean water rule does not regulate most ditches either. We 
might as well get those facts on the table.
  I would urge my colleagues on the other side that maybe they ought to 
read the rule before they come up with a bill like the one they came up 
with.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say, other than the fact that 
this process stinks. Again, two closed rules and a structured rule on 
the third bill.
  We have a controversial bill on Iran that is one of the most partisan 
pieces of legislation on foreign policy that has been brought to this 
floor by my Republican friends. It is really frustrating because I 
think there is a lot of common ground on holding Iran accountable where 
Democrats and Republicans could come together and actually craft 
something that had, if not unanimous support, almost unanimous support. 
I think that would be a powerful signal to send not only to Iran, but 
to the rest of the world. But instead of going down that road, my 
Republican friends decided to squander that opportunity and come up 
with a political sound bite.
  The same goes for the two environmental bills that are being brought 
before this House. They are going nowhere, but they are nice sound 
bites, and they may please a particular special interest, but this is 
not serious legislating.
  I am going to say to my colleagues again, I know you are going on 
your retreat this week, and maybe there ought to be a side meeting that 
some of my friends have about what it is that they think we ought to be 
doing here in this Chamber and what it is that they think that their 
job ought to be. I would suggest that it has to be about more than just 
political sound bites and messaging bills.
  There is a lot that we need to get done. That requires us working 
together. I won't get everything I want and you may not get everything 
you want, but we need to figure out a way to make this place work 
because it is not working. There is a reason why the approval rating of 
Congress is like in the negative numbers. It is because people see 
consistently nothing but political sound bites and messaging bills come 
to the floor and get voted on and we debate them passionately, but they 
go nowhere. I think people would like us all better, Democrats and 
Republicans, if we actually accomplished something.
  I hope you go on your retreat and you kind of reflect on that, and 
maybe you will come back the week after with a new outlook. Maybe all 
of these promises from the Speaker of the House and the previous 
Speaker of the House about a more open process about regular order will 
be more than words when you come back.
  I would finally say again that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question so we can bring up this commonsense bipartisan 
bill to basically prevent those who are on the terrorist watch list 
from being sold guns.
  Again, I, for the life of me, don't understand why it is so 
controversial, but in this House of Representatives it is.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this closed 
rule, and reject this closed process.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the good gentleman's wishes for a good retreat for the 
Republicans this coming next few days, and I look forward to finding 
opportunities to work together with his side of the aisle on many 
important things facing our Nation.
  I just would remind them, too, that there have been plenty of 
opportunities for all Members of this body to have input on these 
pieces of legislation before us through committee, here on the floor, 
in Rules. I think following regular order is proving exactly what we 
wanted it to do to give people that opportunity. I am very happy that 
we have been able to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule that we are 
considering today allowing for consideration of three very important 
pieces of legislation that I think will protect our national security 
interests abroad and hold the administration accountable for sanctions 
lifted under the Iran nuclear agreement. It will ensure that mining 
communities and hardworking families are not crushed by another 
crippling Federal regulation, and it will help protect our rural 
western communities by providing much-needed relief from the burdensome 
waters of the United States rule.

                              {time}  1345

  Although we may have different viewpoints and differences of opinion, 
I believe this rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that 
are important to our country's future.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 583 as well as the 
underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 583 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. 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. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. 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. 
     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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page H307]]

     [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. NEWHOUSE. 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. McGOVERN. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 173, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 36]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--173

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Barletta
     Bost
     Bridenstine
     Cardenas
     Comstock
     Culberson
     Delaney
     Duncan (SC)
     Eshoo
     Grayson
     Hinojosa
     Hurt (VA)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Messer
     Palazzo
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrader
     Smith (WA)
     Stutzman
     Thompson (MS)
     Weber (TX)
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1406

  Mr. MacARTHUR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 36, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call 
vote No. 36 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 583--The 
combined rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1644, H.R. 3662, and 
S.J. Res. 22. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during rollcall vote number 
36 on January 12, 2016. I would like to reflect that on rollcall vote 
number 36, 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. McGOVERN. 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 239, 
noes 183, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 37]

                               AYES--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis

[[Page H308]]


     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barletta
     Conyers
     Delaney
     Duncan (SC)
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Meadows
     Palazzo
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland
     Williams


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1429

  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.

                          ____________________