[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1355-H1362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4596, SMALL BUSINESS BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3797,
SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 640 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 640
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4596) to
ensure that small business providers of broadband Internet
access service can devote resources to broadband deployment
rather than compliance with cumbersome regulatory
requirements. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further 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 Energy and Commerce; (2) the
further amendment printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered
by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. 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.
3797) to establish the bases by which the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement,
and enforce certain emission limitations and allocations for
existing electric utility steam generating units that convert
coal refuse into energy. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment
to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part B
of 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. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. STIVERS. 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 Ohio?
[[Page H1356]]
There was no objection.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Committee on Rules met and
reported out a rule for H.R. 4596, the Small Business Broadband
Deployment Act, and H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving
the Environment Act. House Resolution 640 provides a structured rule
for consideration of H.R. 4596 and H.R. 3797.
The resolution provides each bill 1 hour of debate equally divided
between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Additionally, the resolution provides for the consideration of five
amendments offered to H.R. 3797, as well as one amendment offered to
H.R. 4596.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for a motion to
recommit for each bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution and the
underlying legislation. The SENSE Act would modify the EPA's Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards as they
apply to coal refuse-to-energy power plants, while still requiring
those facilities to reduce their emissions.
There are only 19 coal refuse-to-energy facilities in the United
States, but they provide an estimated 1,200 direct and 4,000 indirect
jobs, many of them in economically depressed areas.
In addition to providing well-paying jobs and generating affordable
energy, these power plants also address issues presented by coal refuse
at no cost to the taxpayer.
Coal refuse is a waste product of coal mining found near many
abandoned coal mines, and they present environmental and safety hazards
to communities around the country.
They are a source of major fires. They pollute waters. They are
eyesores that threaten economic development in the surrounding areas.
In Pennsylvania alone, the cost of addressing coal refuse is estimated
to be $2 billion.
Coal refuse-to-energy plants use coal refuse as an energy to generate
affordable and reliable electricity, and it is estimated that these
facilities have removed 214 million tons of coal refuse from the
environment, again, at no cost to the taxpayer, and they also generate
electricity, in addition to removing this coal refuse.
However, only a few of the most recently built coal refuse-to-energy
plants can comply with the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and
their Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, neither of which took the
unique characteristics of these facilities into account.
Because coal refuse is a waste product containing varying levels of
sulfur and other regulated contaminants, the plants using it need rules
that reflect this variability. The EPA refused to provide any
flexibility, placing the continued operation of these coal refuse-to-
energy plants in doubt.
One way the SENSE Act would correct this is by making adjustments to
sulfur dioxide allowances for these plants, without lowering the
overall cap on emissions.
Forcing these plants to close would harm our communities, it would
actually hurt jobs, it would make our environmental problems worse, not
better, and it would cost our taxpayers more money.
The other bill under consideration is the Small Business Broadband
Deployment Act, and it would exempt Internet service providers with
250,000 subscribers or fewer from having to implement the FCC's
enhanced transparency requirements under the 2015 Open Internet Order.
Under this legislation, the exemption would remain in effect for 5
years, enabling these small Internet service providers to focus on
expanding their networks and improving connectivity.
This is a major issue for my congressional district, which includes a
lot of rural communities, and they are in need of faster Internet. Many
of the communities I serve in rural southeast and southwest Ohio do not
have a 4G-like connection.
I know that this is an issue that is shared by many districts across
the country, many Members across the country, from both sides of the
aisle. So I am hopeful that this measure will pass with strong
bipartisan support.
It is also important to note that the Small Business Broadband
Deployment Act does not prevent consumers from accessing information,
as the disclosure requirements from the 2010 Open Internet Order remain
in effect.
I look forward to debating these bills with my colleagues. I urge
support for the rule and the underlying pieces of legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the first of the
two underlying bills. The second one is largely uncontroversial. The
first, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment bill--so-
called Saving the Environment bill--the SENSE Act, actually leads to
greater risks and more contaminations I will discuss; and then the
second, the noncontroversial bill, is called the Small Business
Broadband Deployment Act.
I'm a little curious as to why we are going through this particular
rule process. This could be scheduled for a suspension vote. We could
have possibly even done it with unanimous consent and probably finished
it yesterday. But apparently the Republicans don't find that there is
anything important that America wants Congress to address, so they have
us debating bills that are largely not controversial that we could get
done in a matter of minutes and, instead, are spending several hours
debating these bills, one of which will go nowhere, the other of which
we could have done very quickly to avoid this Congress having the real
discussions that I believe the American people want us to undertake.
When I go back home and have townhalls and hear from constituents, I
hear people crying out for a Congress that will do something about our
Federal budget deficit and that will actually pass a budget. You will
see later in my remarks I will mention that our previous question
motion will be one that would require Congress to stay in session until
we pass a budget, because there has been discussion--I hope it is not
true--that the Republicans are thinking of giving up on passing a
budget in the House and simply sending all of Congress home for a
vacation.
I think, already, Congress is scheduled to finish Wednesday of next
week. Most Americans have to work Thursday and Friday of next week. I
don't know why Congress only has to work 2\1/2\ days. But that is what
they are telling us. If we can't even accomplish a budget during those
2\1/2\ days, I don't know what we expect the American people to think
we are doing.
So we should be talking about the tough decisions we need to make:
How do we reduce the deficit and make the necessary investments in
growth? How do we pass a budget? How do we fix our broken immigration
system with one that works, one that secures our borders, unites
families, and has a pathway to citizenship for those who work hard and
contribute to our country? How do we make sure that we can improve and
build upon the successes of the Affordable Care Act, recognize its
shortcomings, and make the improvements necessary to move it forward?
But, no, instead, we are not doing that. We are taking up a
controversial bill, the SENSE Act, that won't become law. It has a
misleading title. It won't do anything to satisfy American energy needs
and certainly will not help the environment, which is why it is opposed
by many environmental groups. The SENSE Act makes anything but sense.
What would make sense, of course, is discussing and voting on a
budget. What would make sense is passing immigration reform. What would
make sense is making progress towards balancing our budget. What would
make sense is investing in research to cure cancer. What would make
sense is doing our best to make America secure.
But, no, instead, we are discussing something that the Republicans
have given the title the SENSE bill to, perhaps to overcompensate for
the fact that it simply doesn't make sense.
Now, Republicans know the SENSE Act won't become law. Instead, we are
spending, I don't know, half a day, three-quarters of a day bringing up
yet another partisan attack on the Environmental Protection Agency,
whose job it is to protect our air. We all breathe the air. Democrats,
Republicans, Independents, animals, and
[[Page H1357]]
plants all breathe the air. What we need is common sense to improve our
air quality and move forward. What we need are solutions to break
through congressional gridlock.
Again, this set of rules in this bill--which I call upon my
colleagues to vote down--is clear that the Republicans are not serious.
They are either unable or unwilling to bring forward fresh ideas or
address the issues that our constituents are crying out that we need to
deal with. This bill is simply another form of pandering when we should
be taking advantage of the few remaining weeks we have of session to
address the real problems of our Nation.
Now, these two bills under one rule are completely unrelated. When
the Speaker came into office, he promised we would move bills with
regular order. I don't understand why we can't pass the
noncontroversial one. I would have gotten it done already and then had
more of an open process. We did an amendment in Rules Committee to
allow for an open amendment process on the SENSE Act, but it was voted
down on a partisan vote. Unfortunately, the two were combined under one
rule, and I am very disappointed it is not an open rule.
We need to move forward on FAA reform, making sure that we
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration to keep our skies that
we rely on for commerce and tourism safe and open. We face an imminent
expiration of that. We need to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, the
Higher Education Act, find a solution to the affordable housing crisis.
And, yes, we need to pass a budget. All of those things should be done
before Congress gives itself another vacation. I think that is common
sense.
We wonder why, in poll after poll, Congress has an approval rating of
12 percent or 14 percent. I sometimes wonder who those 12 percent are.
I wonder who those 12 percent are, because I haven't met any of my
constituents that have said: ``Congress is doing great. Keep on doing
what you are doing.'' I think they misunderstand the question and they
are probably answering in the negative, because I don't understand how
any American could be satisfied with a United States Congress that
punts and punts and punts on issue after issue and instead spends its
entire days and weeks, on the rare occasion when it is in session,
debating bills that won't go anywhere and won't be signed into law and
then promptly give themselves additional vacation time as an extra
bonus while patting themselves on the back. That is not the Congress
that the American people want.
First, let me talk about the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act.
Again, it is a bipartisan bill. I think we could have done it on
suspension or unanimous consent on Monday. We could have finished it.
I come from the private sector. I operated several businesses, grew
them over time and played various roles. Do you know what? In the
private sector, when you can get something done quickly, the last thing
you want to do is draw it out, to spend a couple of days on it. So if
we have something that Congress could have finished Monday evening so
that we could get moving and discussing and debating the important
issues that the American people are crying out for Congress to address,
why didn't we do it then? Why didn't we do it then? If they are drawing
out something and having us spend half a day on something, then I
think, because of the hard work of many Members who collaborated on
this, we could probably complete it in 10 or 15 minutes.
This legislation is important, of course. I think we can pass it. The
bill would make the temporary exemption that the FCC granted to ISPs
with 100,000 or fewer subscribers and extend and expand the cap to ISPs
with 250,000 or fewer subscribers that addresses bipartisan concerns
about speeds and costs and gives regulatory certainty to Internet
service providers, keeps the exemption level at a level that protects
consumers, keeps the Internet free and open, doesn't allow large
Internet service providers to act as gatekeepers that favor some
content over others; and Congress should take notice of the
administration's statement on this legislation, which cautions about
bills that move towards threatening the open Internet. But on this
exemption, specifically, I don't think we have enough information to
know whether it needs to be made permanent, so I support the efforts of
this bill to spur the FCC to provide needed information.
Again, I think there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans who have
worked hard on this bill. We probably could have dispensed with it on
Monday. But, hey, here we are. We are dealing with it under this rule.
I thought, if we are going through the rulemaking process, we should at
least offer an open rule. Every piece of legislation, even if it is
passable, ought to encourage ideas from Democrats and Republicans in
amendments to make it better. But, no, under this rule, the Rules
Committee shut down the open amendment process and is not allowing
Democrats or Republicans to offer germane, relevant amendments on the
floor to the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act.
Now, moving on to the SENSE Act--or the non-SENSE act, as I like to
call it--it won't become law. We spend a lot of time debating bills
that won't become law. In fact, this House, apparently for lack of
anything more important to do, has voted to repeal the Affordable Care
Act over 60 times. The good news is we are not doing that again today.
I thank the Speaker for not having us repeal the Affordable Care Act
for the 65th time this week. That would have been a waste of time.
Instead, the Republicans are being creative about how we are going to
waste our time. This is a new way to waste our time. Rather than
discussing the budget or the FAA reauthorization or childhood nutrition
or balancing our budget or fixing our broken immigration system, rather
than doing any of those important things, we found a new and clever way
to waste the time of the United States Congress in debate of a bill
that will not become law.
Now, thank goodness it won't become law because the non-SENSE act is
bad for Americans and poor for our health. It is a convoluted,
senseless manner going after the Environmental Protection Agency's
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which is called CSAPR, and going after
the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which is called MATS.
Specifically, this bill would change the requirements for plants that
use coal refuse.
Now, there are about 20 of these coal refuse plants in the entire
country. What this bill would do is it would abandon the market-based
approach for sulfur dioxide emission allowances in favor of a one-size-
fits-all Federal Government approach. So this bill is effectively a
Federal takeover of the regulatory structure around our coal refuse
plants.
Again, it is a particularly creative way to waste Congress' time, and
it is ironic because the Republicans often attack efforts to take away
control from the States. They say: How dare you Democrats suggest that
anything can be done better at the national level. How dare you suggest
that. How dare you suggest something that contravenes the 10th
Amendment.
Do you know what? In this bill, the Republicans are proposing taking
away State authority and a Federal takeover, because currently States
have control over the incentives and work with coal refuse plants, but
this simply says the Federal Government should override that work.
Now, that seems hypocritical. It seems against the philosophy that
many Republicans have come here arguing, and it leads me to believe
that many proponents of this bill seem to value their special interest
pork over their philosophical integrity.
Now, this bill would create a system that the government picks
winners and losers rather than markets. CSAPR has a trading program
that allows plants to conform to emissions standards in different ways,
like trading emission allowances; and that program, that market-based
program, would be thrown out of the window with this legislation and
the keys would be handed over to the Federal Government. Even more
astonishing is allowing coal refuse plants to slip through loopholes in
order to balance our credits actually makes it harder for regular coal
plants to meet their pollution reduction goals.
I honestly don't know if the Republicans have thought about the
impact of this bill or what it would do.
Now, again, knowing that it won't become law is simply a creative way
[[Page H1358]]
for Congress to waste its time as congressional approval sinks even
lower. I know that the Republicans have often accused some Democrats of
engaging in a war on coal, but with this particular bill, they are the
ones attacking the coal industry.
The Republicans claim that this legislation is needed to allow coal
refuse plants to be able to meet various air quality standards under
the MATS rule, yet throughout the entire rulemaking process there
hasn't been any evidence that they can't meet the standards that are
already in place. That was recently confirmed by the D.C. circuit
court.
Now, it is apparent that both CSAPR and MATS are workable, smart
rules that approximately 20 coal refuse plants in our country can abide
by in flexible, market-oriented ways. I want to be clear. Leaving coal
refuse to spontaneously combust or seep into the ground via acid rain
is simply unacceptable, and we need to be cleaning it up; but allowing
the plants that are processing it to do so with a weak compliance
system is harmful to our health, our homes, our communities, and the
environment.
Simply put, this bill is an unnecessary, imprudent bill that does
nothing to help our environment or put our country on the right track.
I oppose the rule, in addition to H.R. 3797.
Today we could have shown the American people that Congress can come
together and do something to solve important issues in a bipartisan
manner, to keep our skies safe and open, protecting commerce, by
reauthorizing the FAA to pass a bipartisan budget which balances our
budget and deals with our deficit; to improve the Child Nutrition Act,
the Higher Education Act, any of the myriad challenges that I hear
about and, frankly, I believe my Republicans hear about in their
townhalls.
I don't think when we are home and hearing from our constituents--by
the way, I haven't received a single letter about this coal refuse
bill. I haven't heard it in any of my townhalls or gotten calls from
any of my constituents. They want us dealing with the pressing issues
facing the American people.
We have 84 days of session left in this Congress. By the way,
Congress works 84 days. Most Americans have at least 145 days that they
go to work. As an example of that, Congress is scheduled to leave town
next Wednesday, will have 2 days off that week, then 2 weeks off, then
another day off. So that is the type of schedule we are running here.
People wonder what Congress is doing. The answer is we are not doing
anything. When we are here, we are spending more time than necessary on
uncontroversial bills and we are debating bills that won't become law,
and then we all go home and take a vacation. That is the Republican
Congress. That is the image of what the Republican Congress is and how
they are running this institution. It spends a lot of time debating
something that you don't even need to. It spends other time debating
things that aren't going to become law, like repealing the Affordable
Care Act over 60 times and like this non-SENSE Act, and then gives
Congress much greater vacation time than the American people enjoy
because, apparently, Republicans think this Congress is doing so well
that we all deserve a lot of vacation.
Democrats want to stay here and work on the budget. That is going to
be our previous question. We believe we should get a budget done. We
would like it to be a bipartisan budget. It certainly is a governing
majority. We encourage Republicans to pass a budget, but if they don't
have the votes, then, by all means, let's do a bipartisan budget that
makes sense for our country.
{time} 1245
You will find us willing to roll up our sleeves and get to work, stay
here this weekend, stay here next Thursday and Friday, stay here the
following week. Let's get this done. This is the work the American
people want to see done.
They want to see a budget. They want to see competence. We need to
show people that Congress and competence are not mutually exclusive;
yet, we continue to do the exact opposite by this course under this
rule of debating a bill--and wasting a day--that won't even become law.
Now, look, we have an opportunity here. A vote on this rule is an
important vote for that reason. If we defeat this rule--and I call upon
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so--we can truly send
the message that we want to spend time debating the issues that the
American people care about.
We want to fix the budget, the deficit, immigration, health care.
Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work rather than continue to blame
the President for this or that or blame the Democrats for this or that.
I am honestly curious. If we can't blame the President because he was
on time with his budget and you can't blame the Democrats because we
are willing to roll up our sleeves and work with you on a budget deal,
who are the Republicans going to blame if they can't deliver a budget?
I remember the Republicans assailing the Democrats for not delivering
budgets. I am sure my colleague will remind me of that yet again. But,
again, that is something that you criticized us on.
If you can't deliver a budget yourself, what is the use of the
American people even having the Republicans here? What use was that
criticism of the Democrats for not delivering budgets on time if the
Republicans themselves don't have the ability to deliver a budget?
Now, look, we can deliver a budget with you. If the Republicans are
unable to because there is freedom this or liberty that or all these
different buzzwords out there for people who don't want to vote for a
budget, we are happy to work with the Republicans on a budget.
Ultimately, what comes out of this process between the House and the
Senate is usually some bipartisan buy-in into the budget, anyway.
We are happy to start here with you. The perfect time to do that is
now. The perfect time to do that is next Thursday and Friday and the
following week. I think we owe the American people a budget rather than
an enormous vacation, a paid vacation, for Members of Congress.
Look, we can do better by voting down this rule. I promise you we
will do better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the calendar, the
budget, the rule, and the SENSE Act.
With regard to the calendar, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the
gentleman from Colorado manages his calendar. But when I go home to my
district--and I won't speak for every Member of Congress--it is
certainly not a vacation.
I am home meeting with constituents, touring businesses, and letting
my constituents talk to me so that I know what they think so that I can
do my job of representing them. That is how most of the 435 Members of
this Chamber treat the district workweeks.
To assume that we are only working when we are in Washington, the
other side of the aisle might love Washington, but I prefer to be home
in my district working with people and then come back to Washington to
represent them.
With regard to things we have done, the gentleman talked about the
Affordable Care Act, but he ignored the fact that I believe--and I may
get this wrong, but I am close--seven of the changes to the Affordable
Care Act were signed into law.
The gentleman talked about a budget. He did finally acknowledge that,
when the Democrats were in charge, Mr. Speaker, they didn't pass a
budget.
I have been here since 2011, when we took over the majority, and we
have passed a budget every year and have passed a budget that balances.
I believe we are going to pass a budget this year. I hope not to be
proved wrong, Mr. Speaker, but we are working hard at it.
With regard to the rule, the gentleman seems to want to have it both
ways. He says that the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act should
have been done on suspension, on the one hand, and then he wants an
open rule that would eat up even more time, on the other hand. I am not
sure which it is he wants here, but let's have it one way or the other.
And then, finally, on the SENSE Act, the gentleman from Colorado
ignores the fact that this bill does not change
[[Page H1359]]
the overall emissions cap. He wants to talk about how it loosens the
overall emissions cap. It does not.
Let's be clear. It does not change the overall emissions cap. It
provides flexibility for only 19 refuse-to-power plants across this
country, and it saves money because it would cost $2 billion in
Pennsylvania alone just to clean up that refuse around these coal
mines.
It is dangerous and it is bad for the environment. Providing this
flexibility does not change our overall emissions, but it does help get
those reclamation sites cleaned up cheaper, not as a cost to the
taxpayer, and provides an additional benefit of jobs in energy. That
sounds pretty American to me.
I think it is time to end this war on coal that some people in this
administration and the other side of the aisle have. That is what the
SENSE Act would do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Ohio talked about what we do when we are back
home. Of course we tour businesses, meet with people, and do all of
those wonderful things. What I hear from them is: Why aren't you back
in Washington solving problems?
Look, I represent one of the most beautiful districts in the entire
country: Winter Park, Vail, the beautiful Flatirons near Boulder, Rocky
Mountain National Park, Estes Park, the great Arts Center in Loveland,
and Fort Collins. I love nothing more than going home.
But when we got elected to this position, Mr. Speaker, we promised
our constituents that we will make a sacrifice. Part of that sacrifice
is saying: You know what. We are going to take some time away, leave
our friends and family, to work for the good of the country, to roll up
our sleeves and actually solve problems.
As much as I would like to be back in Colorado, in my beautiful
district, right now and I would rather personally be hiking in the
hills above our home in north Boulder than I would be debating the
finer points of coal refuse policy with the gentleman from Ohio, that
is what I signed up for.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that that is what he signed up for, too. We
signed up to do work. We owe the American people a budget. We should
stay here until we complete that budget, even if it means canceling the
vacation that we have scheduled.
And, yes, that vacation--when we are back home, we can't do
legislative work. Sure, we can put on an apron and visit a local
kitchen. We do, and I do. And you know what, it is part of the job. I
am happy to do it.
But we can't pass a single law while we are back home. It is
impossible, Mr. Speaker, to pass a budget while we are all back home
and Congress is not in session. It is not possible if Congress is not
in session.
The gentleman asked: What is a better way to proceed with this
noncontroversial bill and the controversial bill? Look, either way is
fine if we had an open rulemaking process, an open rule.
At least there would be some point to these discussions on the floor.
There would be Republicans and Democrats who might have ideas to make
these bills better that would be bringing them forward. At least there
would be some point to it.
But, no, there is no point to it. Because we are debating it, we know
the outcome, and Republicans and Democrats can't even offer their bills
to enhance it.
We are prohibited during all of this time debating one bill that is
largely noncontroversial and one bill that isn't going anywhere and
won't become law.
We are spending the entire week debating these bills--or most of the
week. I know we will be back to discuss another court case relating to
immigration later this week.
But the bulk of the week is debating this rather than the budget,
securing our border, keeping the American people safe, growing the
economy, creating jobs, investing in infrastructure, FAA authorization,
any of those issues.
But when I am back home and visiting businesses, I hear about it from
my constituents. You would think that, with all the time we spend back
home that the gentleman from Ohio calls nonvacation time because we are
always listening to people, we would listen more and actually do what
the American people say.
Are the American people saying to address the miniscule aspects of
the coal refuse plant and CSAPR and MATS?
Let me be honest, Mr. Speaker. Until this debate, I thought CSAPR was
just a friendly ghost, because the American people back in my district
are not really about CSAPR and MATS.
In fact, once I understood them, I thought they sounded good. They
are market-based approaches. I don't think this Federal takeover that
the Republicans are proposing is a good idea.
Instead, if we are spending all this time listening back home, which
we certainly are because Congress is hardly working here, then at least
let's listen to what the American people say.
I believe they are speaking strongly with one voice, whether they are
Republican or Democratic. I hear the same things from my constituents,
the unaffiliated constituents, the Republicans, the Democrats, the
Greens, the Libertarians. What they all tend to say, what they all say,
is: Go do your job. Pass a budget. Pass a budget.
Democrats believe that. Republicans believe that. Unaffiliated voters
believe that. Greens, Libertarians, and the American Constitution Party
believe that. If I have left out any other parties, I am pretty sure in
saying that they also think that Americans should have a budget.
We have budgets for our households. I have a budget for my household.
We have budgets for our States. Doesn't the American Congress owe the
American people a budget?
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to prohibit the House from going on recess next
week until we do our job and pass a budget.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with the extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to remind the gentleman from Colorado that, when
the Democrats were in charge of Congress, they went on--I will use his
word--vacation 4 years in a row without passing a single budget, not a
single budget.
We have passed a budget every year, and I believe we are going to
pass a budget this year, just as a reminder to the gentleman of what
happened. I think he wants to have it both ways again, and I would just
like to remind him, Mr. Speaker.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus),
who listened to his constituents to deal with an issue that is very
important to him. I will let him address it.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In addition to listening to my constituents, I have been listening to
my good friend from Colorado about wanting to come here to solve
problems. Well, the SENSE Act is about solving a problem.
I, too, have a beautiful district. I consider it the most beautiful
district in the country. You get on top of some of those mountain
vistas and it is breathtaking.
But unlike the gentleman from Colorado, there are some scars when you
look up at some of those vistas. The scars are a vestige of ages-ago
mining.
That is why the SENSE Act, Mr. Speaker, is a smart and important
legislative fix to ensure that the coal refuse-to-energy facilities can
be held to strict, but achievable, standards.
Coal refuse, as some of you may know--and perhaps this is an
educational moment for people in this country to learn more about what
we have up there in Pennsylvania--is a byproduct of historic coal-
mining operations. Anyone who has driven through coal country has seen
the towering black mounds of this material that loom beside cities and
towns and countrysides.
These mounds catch fire, burning uncontrollably and sending hazardous
smoke into the air. Rainwater leaches terrible chemicals from those
mounds, polluting nearby rivers and streams.
[[Page H1360]]
The coal refuse-to-energy industry turns this material into energy
and uses the profits and beneficial residual material to remediate
these formerly polluted sites at no cost to the taxpayer. It is really
the only feasible solution to this massive environmental problem.
I have seen the tremendous work done by the hardworking men and women
in this industry firsthand. I have stood on coal refuse piles in the
process of remediation. I have walked on the restored sites. Parks and
meadows now are regarded as community assets rather than liabilities.
Despite all the good that this industry does for Pennsylvania, coal
refuse-to-energy facilities are under attack from the EPA. The people
of my State and other coal States expect us to stand up for them as
their environment and livelihoods come under threat from Washington.
As we debate the rule for this legislation and prepare for general
and amendment debate, I want to share a few stories from the people in
this industry. These are people who are proud of the great work they
have done for their communities. Unfortunately, their way of life is
currently endangered.
Bill Turner is a shift supervisor at the A/C Colver coal refuse
facility in Cambria County. Bill has served at Colver for 22 years. He
is a long-term resident of western Pennsylvania and has lived alongside
coal refuse piles for many years.
Bill and his colleagues are proud of the reclamation work that his
plant and others in the area have been able to complete over the years.
He was able to put three kids through college, thanks to his job at
Colver, and I should mention that these kids grew up playing soccer on
a field reclaimed from a coal refuse site.
{time} 1300
When I asked him about the prospect that his industry might be
destroyed by the EPA, he remarked, ``To see it disappear would be a
travesty.''
Tim is an operations shift supervisor--a younger man, in his early
thirties, with a wife and two small kids. Wages at his plant are well
above the area average, and he is planning on building a new house near
the plant for his young family.
Again, Mr. Speaker, these plants are in economically challenged
areas. These jobs that these individuals have are not replaceable.
Allowing inflexible EPA orthodoxy to shutter his plant, a plant that
supports family-sustaining jobs and that repairs the local environment,
would be a disaster for Tim and his family.
At least 5,200 jobs are at stake, and each one of those jobs is more
than just a number. Each job lost is a Tim or a Bill. Each job lost
represents a major hardship for an American family.
As we debate the SENSE Act, please keep in mind what the bill's
supporters are fighting for. The SENSE Act is about protecting family-
sustaining jobs and is about ensuring the continuation of the
environmental success story of the coal refuse-to-energy industry.
I urge all Members to support this rule and the SENSE Act today so
that we can begin to solve problems.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would, of course, like to remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania
that my mountains are higher than his mountains. I also want to let the
gentleman know that my district is no stranger to coal mining as well.
Coal mines in northern Colorado existed throughout my district and near
my district in Marshall, Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, Erie, Dacono,
Frederick, and Firestone. The mines employ thousands of people.
Just 2 years ago, we observed the 100th anniversary of the Ludlow
Massacre, which was an attack by the Colorado National Guard and the
Colorado Fuel and Iron Company guards on a tent colony of 1,200
striking coal miners and their families in Ludlow, Colorado, on April
20, 1914.
Unfortunately, in that tragedy, two-dozen people were killed in that
black mark on our Nation's labor history. I would like to think how far
the United Mine Workers have come and how far we have come in
protecting workers' rights.
Certainly we understand the legacy of not just coal mining in my
district. The gentleman mentioned abandoned mines in the mountain
territory of our district. We have many abandoned silver and gold
mines. We have an active molybdenum mine right near my district. Many
workers live in my district and, of course, mining remains an important
part of the West and, of course, of the East as well.
Again, I would certainly advance the argument that even coming from a
mining district, Congress spending an entire week, basically, debating
these two bills is not something that justifies our time here.
The gentleman from Ohio rightly mentioned that Democrats did not
produce a budget, and yes, that might have been one of the reasons the
American people said, ``Okay. Republicans, we will give you a chance.
You guys produce a budget.''
Do you know what?
If you guys don't produce a budget, you guys are blowing that
opportunity, Mr. Speaker. If the Republicans can't deliver a budget, I
think the Democrats have learned from experience.
I certainly will go out and campaign on--and I think many of my
colleagues will say--``Look. The Republicans could not deliver a
budget.''
Most Democrats have learned our lesson. We are going to get back in
the majority and we are going to deliver a budget to the American
people. I certainly will work very hard to do that.
I am proud to be one of about 16 Democrats and a similar number of
Republicans who voted for a bipartisan budget in the last Congress. It
didn't pass. It was the only budget that had Democrats and Republicans
supporting it. Of course, it also had Democrats and Republicans
opposing it in greater numbers, unfortunately; but that is at least the
spark--the kind of idea we need to pursue--to be able to work together
to govern this country.
Rather than spinning our wheels and spending a lot of time debating a
bill that isn't controversial and a lot of time debating a bill that
isn't going anywhere, we should take up important legislation. We
should address comprehensive immigration reform; securing our borders,
making sure that workers who are important to our country have a way
out of the shadows; uniting families; and protecting the security of
the American people rather than wasting time in trying to change
commonsense rules for 20 coal refuse plants--rules that are working and
that have been affirmed by the district court.
We could be addressing the Nation's pressing issues like climate
change and carbon emissions and out-of-control student debt or how we
can improve opportunities for the struggling middle class.
Rather than wasting the American people's time and taxpayer dollars
on debating a special interest provision, we could take up the Email
Privacy Act, which would protect the American people's privacy and
which has 312 cosponsors--more than any other bill in this Congress and
which has a solid veto-proof majority.
We could take up criminal justice reform, which I know many people on
both sides of the aisle feel very strongly about and which I strongly
support, which could improve our economy, reduce crime, reduce costs,
and is a moral imperative; or as I mentioned, we could take up our
budget, as is the duty and responsibility of Congress, rather than all
go back to our districts and put on aprons and serve lattes and meet
people in our local diners.
I urge the House majority to take up these important pieces of
legislation, which are supported by a majority of Americans, that are
critical to our economy and align with our values rather than to debate
stale, unnecessary miner bills that won't even become law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to remind the gentleman from Colorado that it is
not a ``minor'' bill for the 5,200 people whose jobs are on the line
every day right now.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. It is a ``miner'' bill. I was spelling ``miner'' a
different way than you.
Mr. STIVERS. Okay. That kind of ``miner'' I am good with. I thank the
gentleman.
[[Page H1361]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), an esteemed member of both the Rules and
Budget Committees.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on coming down here. I know we are on
a clock and we are trying to get some things done, but I heard the
passionate words of my friend from Colorado--and he is my friend from
Colorado.
I think about what is, sadly, the sometimes short list of folks who
are on the other side of the aisle with whom you can grapple with the
really difficult issues of the day in this institution.
Mr. Polis is one of those folks to whom you can always go and have a
very candid and serious conversation about things, even those things on
which you disagree, which I think is why it has so distressed me to
hear some of the words that he had to share today.
Now, I confess that this is sometimes part of the show down here on
Rules Committee day, and sometimes folks have the talking points, and
they are obligated to go through those talking points. Yet, as a member
of the Budget Committee and as a relatively young Member in this
institution, I would say to my friend from Colorado that the reason
approval ratings in this institution are so low is that you and I stand
up here and we tell our constituents that they are supposed to be so
low.
Instead of telling our constituents that we have been working on a
budget the way we are supposed to work on a budget--line by line, word
by word because it is a serious challenge that deserves a serious
solution--we tell folks we have just thrown up our hands and quit. Not
true.
I sit on the Budget Committee. Tomorrow, from dawn until dusk, we
will be in that hearing room doing nothing but budgeting. We will hear
every single idea, every single alternative. Every choice that can be
made, we are going to make tomorrow. Now, that is not just one day of
budgeting; that is the culmination of days, weeks, and months of
working together, trying to get this budget done.
My friend is right. When I hear constructive criticism about how
Republicans ought to work to pass budgets, I know that doesn't come
from this decade, because Democrats have not passed a budget this
decade. This House has. Together we have, and I am very proud of that.
Every year since I have come to this institution--5 years ago--we
have come together and we have passed a budget. Last year, we came
together and we passed a budget for the entire United States of
America. For the first time in a long time, we got the Senate to move.
This is a cooperative exercise, and I am proud to be in it; but we
can't tell people that we are letting them down when, in fact, we are
delivering.
I look at my friend from Pennsylvania who is delivering on the SENSE
Act. I think the non-SENSE Act is a clever term, but the truth is the
``nonsense'' is suggesting that he is doing anything except the job his
constituents sent him to do. He has facilities in his district that are
closing down. He has families in his district who are losing their
jobs. He has people who are depending on him, his bosses back home in
the district depending on him to come and make a difference for them.
I get it. Folks over here might not like it, folks over here might
not like it, folks over there might not like it, but it is what he gets
paid to do. To suggest that bringing his ideas down here is a waste of
time is something I reject in the most forceful terms. He is doing what
he is supposed to do.
I would tell you that, if we all spent less time being focused on
being good Republicans and less time on being good Democrats and more
on being good servants to the people who sent us here, those approval
ratings would take care of themselves.
These campaign seasons drive me crazy. Folks spend 18 months not
doing their jobs and 6 months raising money, trying to convince people
they were. I believe if we do our jobs, we are going to get rewarded
for it; and if we don't do our jobs, we are going to be punished for
it; but we have got to be clear about what our job is.
Keith Rothfus' job is not to make anybody in the great State of
Georgia happy or anybody in the great State of Colorado happy. His job
is to stand up for families who can't stand up for themselves in
Pennsylvania, and I applaud him for it. His job is to do the things
that nobody else in this institution is going to do, because he works
for them.
This is not a waste of time today. This is exactly what we are
supposed to be doing. Don't you worry about that budget. Your Budget
Committee is going to deliver for you, and you are going to be proud of
the work product that we do; but we have got to tell folks that
representative government still works. We have got to tell folks that
Congress still works. We have got to tell folks that they are still the
boss of the United States of America.
You look at this Bernie Sanders phenomenon and this Donald Trump
phenomenon. Folks think they are no longer the boss. I look at Keith
Rothfus' State, and I know of the good men and women of Pennsylvania
who sent him here to stand up in the face of attacks from all sides. He
is delivering for his people back home. Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' It
is your voting card--do what you want to with it--but let's never
impugn one of our colleagues for doing exactly what he was sent here to
do, and that is to stand up for the men and women we represent back
home.
Again, I say to my friend from Colorado, when it comes to the really
hard issues of the day, there is no one who I am more comfortable
working with. There is no one who is more willing to reach across the
aisle, and I admire that vote on the bipartisan budget that he took.
That was the very first year that I arrived here. Yet we can't let
these political seasons turn into telling each other why everybody up
here is a scoundrel and a cheat. There are some good men and women up
here. The gentleman from Colorado is one, the gentleman from Ohio is
one, and the gentleman who brings the SENSE Act here before us today is
absolutely one. I am proud to serve with each of you.
Mr. POLIS. Does the gentleman from Ohio have any remaining speakers?
Mr. STIVERS. I am prepared to close.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his thoughtful remarks.
Certainly there is no one in this debate who has called anybody a
scoundrel or anything of the sort.
The specific concerns of Mr. Rothfus would best be addressed in
Harrisburg. For the Republicans, that is the capital of Pennsylvania.
Don't worry. I had to ask as well. That is where this could best be
addressed. The Republicans have talked a lot about empowering the
States to solve problems rather than always coming to Washington to
solve our problems for us.
Guess what?
Harrisburg is empowered to deal with this issue today, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania would be best served in spending time with
his Governor, the State regulators, and the State legislature to
address the very issues for which he is trying to do this end run in
coming to Congress to spend our time here, debating.
The gentleman from Georgia also mentioned that they are hard at work
on the Budget Committee. I hope so. I mean, I trust the gentleman. I am
sure they are. They are working. I hope that this Congress will stay in
session long enough to see the results of that and to pass a budget.
That is what our ``previous question'' motion would do. It would simply
say that we prohibit the House from going into recess until we do our
job and pass a budget. It is entirely consistent with the work that the
Budget Committee is doing that will ultimately have to then be
reflected in the rank-and-file membership on both sides being a part of
that process as well, and we owe it to the American people to let that
process be completed and to pass a budget.
I urge the Republicans to take up these important pieces of
legislation that I have talked about--a budget, the FAA
reauthorization, the Child Nutrition Act, securing our border and
fixing our broken immigration system, balancing our budget, investing
in infrastructure, tax reform. These are actions that I hear about back
home every day I am back, and I think it is important that we act on
them. They are important to our economy and they
[[Page H1362]]
are important to our values as Americans--rather than debating bills
that might feel good but won't become law and ultimately are not the
right way to solve our problems.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to urge my
colleague from Colorado to use his 5 legislative days to ensure the
Congressional Record does appropriately say it is a miner act--M-I-N-E-
R instead of M-I-N-O-R act--where he said it was a minor act. I think
that is a very important distinction, and it is a distinction with a
difference. He made the statement earlier, so I hope he does use his 5
legislative days to correct the Record on that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 640 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. It shall not be in order to consider a motion that
the House adjourn on the legislative day of March 23, 2016,
unless the House has adopted a concurrent resolution
establishing the budget for the United States government for
fiscal year 2017.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________