[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5005-H5013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1873, ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY AND
FOREST PROTECTION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1654,
WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING COORDINATION ACT
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 392
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. 1873) to amend the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 to enhance the reliability of the
electricity grid and reduce the threat of wildfires to and
from electric transmission and distribution facilities on
Federal lands by facilitating vegetation management on such
lands. 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 part A 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. 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. 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.
1654) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
coordinate Federal and State permitting processes related to
the construction of new surface water storage projects on
lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the Bureau
of Reclamation as the lead agency for permit processing, 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 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. 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.
{time} 1230
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 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. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may 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, before I begin the rule on the two
measures that are before us today, let me just make a couple of
comments that have come to mind in light of the events over the last
week.
Mr. Speaker, you may know that this is the first formal debate that
we have had as a legislative body since last Wednesday morning's
shooting. I think
[[Page H5006]]
it is appropriate that we take a minute to reflect and remember those
who were injured and are still struggling to recover from their
injuries as well as those who did not receive physical injuries on last
Wednesday morning but who are still recovering.
Let me also say, if I could be so presumptuous, Mr. Speaker, I
believe that perhaps some people in the United States look to us here
in Congress--their Representatives--and look and see how we act towards
one another and how we conduct ourselves in our interaction with each
other. Let me just say that if we are disrespectful to each other,
others may see that and think that it is okay; that if Congress can be
that way to themselves, maybe we can act that way, too. They may not
even realize that. It may be just a subconscious thing.
I ask how can we expect others to have a high opinion of us if we
don't even show each other the respect that we should and that we
deserve?
I believe that we must all remember that we are--before we are
Republicans, before we are Democrats or Independents--all Americans. We
are all here trying to do what is right, what is right for our country,
certainly what is right for our constituents, and we shouldn't say that
someone is not here for those purposes.
I don't know your district, Mr. Speaker, and I might say that you
don't know mine. So let's argue, which is what we are here for. As ugly
as sometimes it can be, that is our job, to debate on the merits of
ideas. But it is not our job to win a debate by degrading the ones who
are making the arguments against. I think we all have this obligation
to win debates or to argue debates on the merits of the issue. Last
Wednesday reminded me that it is up to us, if we want changes, to make
them and to begin them here in this body.
I was heartened in our meeting as a Congress in the auditorium over
at the Capitol Visitor Center that there were several Members asking
for a change in tone--a change in tone in how we interact with each
other. It is important that we act civilly, that we be polite, and that
we be respectful--kind of like how we treat each other on the journey
over here from our offices in the elevators and in the hallways.
I would assert that this is also something that is the responsibility
of our President, our country's leader, someone who can set the tone
for our country, someone who can describe our hopes and our dreams and
help us aspire to reach those things. It is also the responsibility of
our media and for those advocacy groups that we all have and that we
all work with. It is up to our parties. I think it is up to every
single American.
We need to rediscover the faith that we should have in each other,
our respect for each other and those bonds that make us one nation
under God.
Now, it is simple to state, but how do we accomplish this?
It can start right here on this floor. Say something positive. We all
call each other lady and gentleman. We all start off that way, and then
sometimes the gloves come off.
I can assert to you that not every idea that is presented here is all
good or all bad.
What is the risk of acknowledging a good part of a larger idea even
if you may disagree with that larger idea?
I believe we have some very articulate people in this body who can
figure out quite easily how we can accomplish that.
We shouldn't impugn the motives of others. We don't assign blame. We
don't get personal. In fact, if you look in the rules that were adopted
by this Congress, in section 363 of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary
Practice, it says: ``The consequences of a measure may be reprobated in
strong terms; but to arraign the motives of those who propose to
advocate it is a personality, and against order.''
So it says in no uncertain terms that we should not make this
personal. We can object without being objectionable, and maybe--just
maybe--others will see this and discover a tone that we need and a
change in America. I believe that we can start this right here, today,
with our very first debate right now.
Will we agree on everything?
Absolutely not. In fact, this is where our disagreements should show
the most. We are duty-bound to shape legislation by pointing out
weaknesses but also by accentuating strengths. Mr. Speaker, every
debate, every speech on the floor or in committee, our interactions
with the media, in townhalls, or press releases, we are being listened
to and being watched. I hope that we can change our tone and begin to
change the tone in the United States of America.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that, on Tuesday,
the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 392,
providing for consideration of two important bills: H.R. 1873, which is
the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act; and H.R. 1654,
the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.
This combined rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1873 under a
structured rule, making three amendments in order, all of which were
submitted by Democratic Members of our Chamber. H.R. 1654 will also be
considered under a structured rule, with one Democratic and one
Republican amendment made in order.
H.R. 1873 will help ensure reliable electric service and reduced
wildfire hazards, which can result from inadequate vegetation
management near power line rights-of-way on Federally owned and
operated lands.
Mr. Speaker, over the past several decades there have been numerous
electricity outages as well as incidents of wildfires due to contact
between power lines and trees on Federal lands.
In 1996, my home State of Washington was impacted when three power
lines in the Pacific Northwest sagged onto overgrown trees, leading to
a massive electricity blackout that impacted 7.5 million people across
14 Western States, two Canadian provinces, and even parts of Mexico.
Then, in August of 2003, an outage left 50 million electricity
customers without power when a falling tree came into contact with
transmission lines.
These are not isolated incidents. According to the U.S. Forest
Service, in 2012 and 2013, contact between power lines and trees on
Forest Service lands led to the outbreak of 113 and 232 wildfires,
respectively. This legislation would reduce such wildfires in part by
promoting Federal consistency, accountability, and timely
decisionmaking to protect electricity transmission, grid reliability,
and distribution lines on Federal lands from overgrown and under-
maintained trees and vegetation.
H.R. 1873 will cut red tape to create a streamlined and consistent
process for removing hazardous trees and vegetation without wasting
time and money before they cause a wildfire or an outage. Preventing
forest fires and maintaining a reliable electrical grid for our
communities is an obvious priority for all of us here in Congress,
which is why I was pleased to see this bill pass through the House
Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support.
I have seen countless catastrophic wildfires devastate Western
communities just in the past several years, which is why this issue
must be addressed and resolved. However, due to existing regulations,
it is extremely difficult for utility companies to remove hazardous
vegetation or trees that have the potential of falling on these power
lines.
The scope of this problem is evident when considering the U.S. Forest
Service manages 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands--
encompassing over 192 million acres--that include 2,700 authorized
electric transmission and distribution facilities.
{time} 1245
Similarly, the Bureau of Land Management administers 245 million
acres, including over 71,000 miles of electrical transmission and
distribution lines on its Federal lands.
In order to perform infrastructure inspections and operate and
maintain power lines on these lands, electric utilities must seek
permission and approval from the appropriate Federal land management
agency, which typically use processes under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 to assess whether the proposed vegetative management
measures comply with Federal environmental laws.
This often leads to delays and cumbersome bureaucratic requirements,
which often prevent utilities from carrying out important vegetative
management activities on a consistent and
[[Page H5007]]
timely basis. Yet the costs of operating, maintaining, and repairing
these electric lines on Federal lands fall to the utility companies and
their customers, which can lead to higher electricity costs for
ratepayers.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1654,
the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act. This legislation will
streamline the permitting process for new surface water storage
projects, which is critically important for many Western and rural
communities that have endured severe droughts in recent years.
Currently, the regulatory process for constructing new surface water
storage projects often involves applying for a host of Federal, State,
and local permits, as well as approvals from various agencies, which
can be a very cumbersome, costly, and time-consuming undertaking.
Additionally, conflicting permit requirements and agency reviews can
add time to the project, the planning, and implementation process while
also increasing the potential for last-minute surprises that could
endanger the success of a project or require significant additional
work.
In order to address this problem, H.R. 1654 creates what is seen as a
one-stop-shop permitting process to expedite construction of both new
and expanded non-Federal surface water storage projects. The measure
establishes the Bureau of Reclamation as the lead agency for purposes
of coordinating all reviews, analyses, permits, licenses, or other
Federal approvals as required by law, which will streamline the current
multiagency permitting process and eliminate unnecessary delays for
job-creating construction projects that directly benefit local
communities and economies.
As the lead agency, Reclamation will be required to coordinate and
prepare the unified environmental documentation that will serve as the
basis for Federal decisions authorizing the use of Federal lands, as
well as to coordinate project development and the construction of
qualifying projects.
Additionally, H.R. 1654 will allow the Secretary of the Interior to
expedite the evaluation of permits for qualifying projects through the
use of funds contributed by a non-Federal public entity.
Mr. Speaker, the rule we consider here today provides for the
consideration of two bills that will have positive and lasting impacts
for the American people, ratepayers, rural communities, and many
Western States, as well as our entire country's economy.
H.R. 1654 will provide the type of coordination and streamlining that
is essential to the development and construction of much-needed water
storage projects, certainly benefiting my home State of Washington, as
well as water-stricken communities across the country.
H.R. 1873 will create a framework for vegetation management near
transmission and distribution lines on Federal lands while also
providing electric companies with much-needed clarity and defined
authority to remove hazardous trees that pose a risk of falling into
power lines. Managing this vegetation is a critical component in
ensuring the safety and reliability of the electrical grid, which will
benefit all of our constituents.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this rule as well
as the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
First, I want to rise in agreement with my friend from Washington's
statement about civility in this Chamber and beyond. I think that,
while it is extremely important that those of us who are elected to
represent 700,000 to 800,000 people reflect the passions that we bring
to our service, at the same time, we need to make sure that nothing
that we say in these walls or outside is used to incite those who hear
those words in a different way than they are intended.
That is the fine line that we walk as elected Representatives who are
passionate about our ideals and our values, and it is one that I
encourage the President to walk, as well as other opinion leaders who
we often see on the cable talk shows hurling inciteful phrases back and
forth that could be used to further incite the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the two underlying
bills: H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection
Act; and H.R. 1654, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.
Frankly, both of these bills are trying to address real problems that
have bipartisan solutions that I support, but neither of these bills
solve the problems in a thoughtful, effective way without creating
collateral damage that, in many ways, is as damaging as the problem
that they are designed to solve.
The majority will claim that similar bills received hearings last
Congress, but I want to point out from a procedural perspective that
neither of these bills have had hearings. These bills have not gone
through the committee process. But what they won't say is there are
dozens of new Members of Congress. New members of the Natural Resources
Committee didn't have hearings at all, but it was rushed through a
markup in committee and to the floor without any hearings in this
session, without the new members of the National Resources Committee
having a chance to ask questions about these bills.
There is a reason we have regular order. It is so that we elected
Representatives can use the passion we bring to service to ask the
difficult questions to find out how to get at these very real problems
that we are trying to solve.
Unfortunately, this secrecy, lack of hearings, and lack of
participation appears to be the norm, and, in fact, the standard that
Republicans are setting in both Chambers of Congress right now. It is
how the Republicans handled the healthcare bill in the House. It is how
the Republicans are handling the secret healthcare bill behind a closed
door somewhere over in the Senate.
We know some things about the Republican healthcare bill. We know it
will increase healthcare costs, throw people off their insurance,
reduce access for the American people. We know it will burden small
businesses and the middle class. We know it will hand hundreds of
billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. But
there is also a lot we don't know because the process has been closed.
This type of secret backroom deal is, unfortunately, becoming the norm
of the way Republicans are running their agenda in Washington.
The rule for this bill is another example. It blocked at least three
amendments from being considered on the floor.
Why can't we discuss the ideas of all Members, especially since there
was no hearing on this bill?
Representative McEachin from Virginia, Representative Schneider from
Illinois, and Representative Torres from California all offered
amendments, all had good ideas and were not even allowed to discuss
those on the floor for 10 minutes, 5 minutes, not even for 1 minute, to
offer or discuss any of those amendments.
If my colleagues on the Republican side don't think they are good
ideas, let's at least have a vote. They can vote against them. If they
defeat them, that is the process. But they are not even allowing a vote
on these amendments.
Unfortunately, the process of this bill is typical of the Republican
process on healthcare and the way they have approached so many other
issues. Republicans are working in secret and limiting debates so the
American people won't see the horrible things they are trying to do,
like throwing tens of millions of Americans off of healthcare.
Now, getting to these bills.
First, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act has the
goal of preventing forest fires and disruptions to power distribution;
something that I strongly agree with.
I represent a district that has over 60 percent public land and a
number of rural power districts. It is an admirable goal. We are a
district that is at risk for forest fires. We had several devastating
fires in the last several years alone. In fact, I am representing a
State that is getting even more ravaged by fire, in light of the
changing climate.
We need to take action to prevent them and allow additional work with
[[Page H5008]]
regard to preventing the forest fire risk. Unfortunately, this bill is
not a positive step, but I am glad to say there is an alternative out
there.
Representative Cramer from North Dakota and I, along with five of my
Colorado delegation colleagues, recently introduced bipartisan
legislation that will decrease these types of fires and protect power
lines and transformers the right way--a way that Democrats and
Republicans can agree on; a way that we can probably run the bill as a
suspension and get 410 votes; a way that the stakeholders are involved
and utilities, fire prevention experts and firefighters,
environmentalists all agree on.
My legislation, known as the National Forest System Vegetation
Management Pilot Program Act of 2017, gives power and electricity
companies the ability to remove dead trees, but without the
recklessness included in the bill that we are considering today.
It is a stark contrast. We can actually solve this problem in a way
that would bring the country together, or there can be a divisive
bill--maybe against one Democrat, maybe against five; I don't know, but
it is not a broadly bipartisan bill. It is not one that has the support
of the communities that are most affected by forest fires in my
district. It is not even a bill that has the support of our main
utility company in Colorado that actually sought the ability to reduce
forest fire risks, which is done by Representative Cramer's and my
bill.
This bill we are considering today simply lacks the protections that
we need to have confidence. In this bill, the company can come up with
a plan to remove vegetation, and then it can be accepted with no
questions asked. They can't require them to fix obvious problems, like
the power company cutting down trees for no reason other than to sell
it for timber. They can't even deny an application.
Frankly, I think this legislation's real goal is to take a small step
toward turning management of public lands over to private industry.
Once this plan that they would submit under this bill is approved--
because the plans have to be approved--the utility companies would be
able to do massive devegetation and clearing work without any reason
related to fires and without any risk of liability.
On the other hand, the bipartisan legislation I introduced with Mr.
Cramer gives that liability waiver that the utility companies need to
do the additional work, but only if there is no gross negligence by the
utility company and has something to do with actually reducing the risk
of fires, as well as putting reasonable limits on the distance that the
work can be done from the power lines or transformers themselves.
Mr. Cramer's and my bill has some of the most conservative and some
of the most liberal Members of this body as cosponsors. So I just
wonder and I ask the majority leader why we aren't bringing that bill
to the floor--a bill that lacks controversy, that helps prevent forest
fires, that saves American people time and money, a bill that this body
could be proud of advancing with, if not all, almost near unanimity.
I would suggest that, instead of bringing the bill we are considering
today to the floor, we should have been focused on fixing something
that we know needs to be fixed: the Forest Service's problem with fire
borrowing.
Fire borrowing means the Forest Service has to spend all their money
fighting fires and little money to reduce the risk of forest fires,
deal with climate change, or clear the extensive backlog of
maintenance. We can do that today by bringing to the floor the
bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act that Representative Simpson
and I introduced, along with my colleague, Mr. Schrader.
These are the types of commonsense measures that would actually
reduce the risk of forest fires, put the right parameters around
utility companies doing additional work, and free up additional
resources to prevent forest fires from occurring, rather than simply
doing the cleanup after they occur.
H.R. 1654, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act, also is an
admirable and needed goal, one that there is potential for bipartisan
cooperation to speed up the process of approval of water projects and
hydro dams.
There truly is a problem with the speed of which some of these
problems are approved. I represent a district and a State where we
understand how difficult and important water is, and we also believe in
the new renewable energy economy.
Unfortunately, this bill also does it the wrong way. It circumvents
and undermines important input from experts and scientists that
actually understand the reviews that are being made by the Clean Water
Act. It even circumvents tribal sovereignty in the Native American
Tribes and their sacred lands by overriding their input.
That is why a wide spectrum of organizations are opposed, from
conservation groups like Oceana and League of Conservation Voters to
sportsmen's groups like Trout Unlimited and The Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Dozens are opposed to this
reckless bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of opposition.
July 20, 2017.
Please Oppose H.R. 1654
Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned
organizations, we write to urge you to oppose H.R. 1654
(McClintock, R-CA), a bill that would significantly limit
meaningful public and environmental review of new dams and
other surface storage projects throughout the west. H.R. 1654
would likely reduce protections for fish and wildlife, and
could lead to further damming and destruction of western
waterways. Similar provisions were included in H.R. 2898 and
H.R. 23--anti-environmental bills from 2015 and 2017,
respectively--and the Department of Interior has previously
expressed opposition to these efforts.
H.R. 1654 would undermine existing laws by making the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (``Reclamation'') the lead agency for
all environmental reviews, including reviews under the
Endangered Species Act. Giving Reclamation this unprecedented
power over project permitting could undermine the ability of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and N.O.A.A. Fisheries to
share expertise and inform the development of major
infrastructure investments, placing imperiled fish species at
risk. H.R. 1654 also establishes strict project-review
timelines, including provisions that could require expedited
review under the National Environmental Policy Act. These
fast-tracking provisions could make it difficult for
responsible agencies to meaningfully analyze proposed
projects, and could limit the public's ability to weigh in on
infrastructure that could affect communities for decades.
Further, the bill permits non-federal public entities to
contribute funds to expedite project permitting, raising
questions about the fairness of the federal review process.
This damaging bill would affect states throughout the west,
and could even impact how state agencies are able review
proposed projects within their jurisdictions. H.R. 1654
allows states to subject state agencies to the bill's
procedures, thereby requiring those agencies to cede control
to Reclamation and comply with Reclamation's timelines.
Consolidating project review in this manner could weaken the
essential role that states play in reviewing water
infrastructure projects within their jurisdictions.
As we recently learned from the emergency at Oroville Dam
in California, careful planning and design for major
infrastructure projects is critical for ensuring public
safety and protecting the environment. Environmental review
of surface storage projects is also essential for protecting
endangered and commercially important salmon runs and the
thousands of jobs that depend on healthy salmon populations.
With so much at stake, the streamlining provisions in H.R.
1654 are unwise and irresponsible. Instead of fast tracking
dam projects in the West, we should be investing in fiscally
sound, environmentally friendly water supply solutions like
conservation, water use efficiency, wastewater recycling, and
stormwater capture.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote no on
H.R. 1654.
Sincerely,
American Rivers
Audubon California
California Trout
Cascadia Wildlands
Center for Biological Diversity
Clean Water Action
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
Endangered Species Coalition
Environmental Protection Information Center
Friends of the Earth
Friends of the River
Grand Canyon Trust
Klamath Forest Alliance
League of Conservation Voters
Living With Wolves
Native Plant Conservation Campaign
Natural Resources Defense Council
Oceana
Sierra Club
The Bay Institute
Western Environmental Law Center
Western Watersheds Project
WildEarth Guardians
Wilderness Workshop
Wildlands Network.
[[Page H5009]]
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the letter is signed by a number of sportsmen
and environmental organizations, the very groups that we should seek to
work with, the very groups that actually support, as I do, hydropower,
facilitated permitting of hydropower, the right way.
We need to speed up the process. In Colorado, we have had water
projects that have been waiting on a decision for far too long.
{time} 1300
But instead of going around experts, rolling over tribal sovereignty,
why don't we fund the agencies doing the reviews so that they have the
manpower and time to look at an application, give feedback, and make a
decision quickly?
Again and again we have underfunded the Fish and Wildlife Service and
NOAA, not acknowledging that that is what is causing and contributing
to this very slowdown.
We can solve these issues that we are facing. We can expedite
permitting for water projects and hydropower. We can allow utilities to
do additional work to reduce the risk of forest fires.
I call upon this body, please, let's do it in a way that brings
Democrats and Republicans together, proudly gets a bill to President
Trump's desk in a fast and effective way involving input from Democrats
and Republicans, not just Republicans.
Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentleman a couple
questions to underline a couple of the really important points you made
about the context in which this bill is considered, because while I
think every Democrat agrees with our colleague from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse) about the importance of civility and the importance of us
each taking responsibility for the tone here and certainly condemning
violence, condemning anyone who would suggest that if you come to the
rally and you protest that you ought to be beaten up by the people that
are there, the kind of thing that happened, unfortunately, last year,
that we should condemn all of that. Does the gentleman agree that the
House exercising vigorous oversight of the Administration when it
breaks its promises, when it mixes personal business with public
business, that this remains an important aspect of our job and no way
suggests a breach of civility?
Mr. POLIS. Absolutely. I agree with the gentleman from Texas. This
House and the institution of Congress, as a separate agency of
government in Article I, section 1 of our Constitution has the
responsibility to exercise oversight of the executive branch.
Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman would further yield, I heard a rather
bizarre comment last week in the aftermath of these shootings
suggesting that, in the aftermath of them, Democrats would be reaching
out to Republicans on healthcare, and I couldn't quite understand how
that could occur. Indeed, your comments about this particular set of
bills and the healthcare bill, isn't it a part of civility that we have
respect for one another and don't try to force through a bill with an
all-night, unnecessary session, not force through here a bill that
Republican Members say they didn't have time to read but then leave it
up there on the Speaker's desk for a month before even sending it to
the Senate? And if you have a legislative process where the majority
leader in the Senate says he won't even guarantee 10 hours to see a
huge bill that affects this much of the economy and the lives and the
livelihoods of millions of Americans, that that in itself is a breach
of the respect and the civility that we need to have in this Congress?
Mr. POLIS. It absolutely is.
Sometimes the American people in the back-and-forth say: Hey, why
aren't Democrats participating in the healthcare debate? And the
reason, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) articulated, is we
have never been invited into this room.
I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett): Have you seen the
Republican healthcare bill in the Senate?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DOGGETT. No. I served on the Ways and Means Committee. We could
not see the Republican House bill until hours before it came up.
Mr. POLIS. Isn't that too short a period of time to even come up with
a thoughtful amendment?
Mr. DOGGETT. It was under police guard downstairs so that even
Republicans, like Senator Rand Paul, couldn't get in and see the bill.
Then we have an all-night session without a single member of the
Trump Administration coming to respond to questions about it, while
every healthcare professional group that I have heard of opposed the
bill, not letting any of those people come to a hearing. I just suggest
that this is a breach of civility. That is a breach of respect. It is a
breach of the democratic process which we are all about. That needs to
be on the table and is as important as whether someone uses strong
language here in the House.
Mr. POLIS. I have one more question on that.
I am a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, one of
the three committees that had original jurisdiction over the Affordable
Care Act. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is a member of the
Ways and Means Committee, one of the two committees with jurisdiction
under the budget reconciliation for this healthcare bill. I want to
ask: Have you ever been invited by President Trump to discuss your
ideas for healthcare reform?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DOGGETT. No. I think he has only wanted to listen to one side,
and I don't begin to think that even the Republican Members of this
House can contain President Trump. They seem to have sealed their lips
about it, and I wish they would speak out more.
But I think they can effect the processes in this House, and when
they pass a bill that President Trump says is ``mean, mean, mean,''
they need to go back and look at that process. And I see the same thing
happening, from what you have told us, about the two bills that are up
here.
Why is it that we have a process that is designed to exclude almost
half of the people in this House, to exclude their amendments, to give
them no opportunity to be heard at a markup, to bring in no witnesses
to defend the bill or to allow discussion of that bill? That is not
only not civil, not the democratic process, but it leads to worse
public policy.
Even if they have a majority to pass it, their ideas need to be
tested, and it allows them to perfect their legislation. That is the
way the democratic process is supposed to work. But with all the
secrecy, all the forced action, the tight timetables that are applying
here, they thwart our democratic process in a way that hurts all sides
and certainly impairs civility.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and would
just add, look, fire prevention, expediting water projects and
hydropower, these are not partisan issues; and to prove that point,
there are bipartisan bills sponsored by conservative Republicans and
liberal Democrats that would solve these issues. Rather than moving
either of those bills through the floor, they are moving a divisive
ideological bill with unintended consequences--or, perhaps, intended
consequences--that would devastate a lot of our natural resources that
sportsmen and recreationists rely on for our quality of life in the
mountain West and across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the beauty of having a diverse membership
in this body is that we have people from all over the country who live
and breathe the issues that are before us. We are privileged today to
have the young lady from Wilson, Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) here to speak on
these bills. I appreciate her offering to help in these arguments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms.
Cheney), my young colleague.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank very much my colleague
from Washington particularly for calling me ``young.'' I appreciate
that always.
Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the colloquy taking place
among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We see this
repeatedly now day
[[Page H5010]]
in and day out as we work hard in the majority to continue the progress
that we have made so far in this Congress, really record-breaking
progress of passing legislation, putting bills on the President's desk,
having those bills signed into law. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are now
at the point where we have presented more bills to the President and
had more bills signed than in any Congress in the first term of any
Presidency since Harry Truman. It is a record we are very proud of over
here.
It is clear that as we continue to put commonsense reform legislation
forward that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
sometimes like to distract and talk about other things. In terms of the
healthcare conversation that is going on and the talk of unintended
consequences, I would just point out, Mr. Speaker, that we now know the
consequences of ObamaCare. We have had to live under ObamaCare now for
many years. We are in a situation where the system is absolutely
failing the people of this country, and we have an obligation as a
body, an obligation we take seriously here in the House, to make sure
that we do what is right for the people of this country, that we
provide them relief, that we provide them the kind of healthcare reform
that is going to lower their costs, that is going to provide better
access to care and put people back in charge.
We have tried the Democrats' way now for the last 7 years and
fundamentally seen that the government cannot mandate effectively what
people need. It doesn't have the consequences that many on the other
side of the aisle thought it would, and the consequences have been
devastating.
Mr. Speaker, the same is true in terms of the challenge that we are
here dealing with today with these two bills. As my colleague from
Washington (Mr. Newhouse) so eloquently put it, those of us across the
West--and Mr. Polis knows this well, too--have had to live under this
situation of absolutely devastating forest fires, forest fires that
have been caused in too many instances by mismanagement by the Forest
Service, mismanagement by the Federal Government.
These bills--and in particular, H.R. 1873, which is a bill that I am
honored to cosponsor with Representative LaMalfa--will begin to impose
the kind of commonsense reforms that we need so that our power grid is
no longer threatened by mismanagement of our Federal Forest Service, of
our Federal forestlands.
On our federally managed forest in Wyoming, when we have overgrowth
around a power line, it is a direct risk to the people, the property,
and the power grid, as well as to the wildlife that those on the other
side of the aisle claim to care so much about.
Our local leaders understand this. Our local leaders are in the very
best position to do something about this and to do it quickly. That is
why we put in place these provisions in these bills that will allow the
local utilities, allow local officials, to make the kinds of decisions
that have to be made quickly.
H.R. 1873 will allow our utilities to submit their own management
facility inspection plans, their own operation and maintenance plans,
and it will also ensure that our Federal land managers have consistent
and accountable policies to reduce hazards in electricity rights-of-
way, including they, themselves, will be held accountable for managing
the land. The bill does adjust the liability framework for these
rights-of-way to ensure that the utilities and the Federal Government
have the incentive to respond quickly and effectively to these hazards.
Nobody in Wyoming or in any other State ought to feel that they have
to go without affordable, reliable power, ought to feel that the power
grid is threatened simply because the Federal Government fails to do
its job. We have simply seen that too much. Our local co-ops are
willing and able to step up to the plate.
Solving this problem is crucial to those who live in Wyoming, where
bark beetle-killed trees and poorly managed overgrowth of Federal
forests pose true threats to the safety and health of our communities
and to our power reliability. Mr. Speaker, that is why H.R. 1873 is
supported by the Wyoming Rural Electric Association, the Tri-State
Generation and Transmission Association, the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association, Black Hills Energy, the Edison Electric
Institute, the American Public Power Association, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the Western Governors Association, and many others who care
so much about our lands out West.
Wyoming supports this bill. Wyoming utility co-ops know best how to
manage the provision of electricity and how to handle these rights-of-
way and also how to provide healthy and sustainable forest management
as they do so.
Mr. Speaker, I request immediate passage of this bill. It is hugely
important that we get back on track, that we stop the kind of
mismanagement from Washington that has been so damaging for so many
years, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to act quickly on its
passage.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on a promise to
bring, somehow, jobs back home. He said he was going to overhaul the
Tax Code, introduce an infrastructure package, and remove barriers to
job creation. Unfortunately, we have yet to hear specifics on any of
the administration's plans to accomplish that.
My colleagues will be happy to hear that in my hand I have an
amendment that will help to accomplish this goal by providing tax
incentives to companies that bring overseas jobs back home. What a
great idea.
Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pascrell's Bring Jobs
Home Act, H.R. 685. This bill closes a tax loophole that actually
rewards companies for moving jobs overseas while providing a tax credit
to companies that move jobs back home to our country, the United States
of America.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with 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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
Here we are again. We are debating a bill to roll back regulations
that protect the public, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker. I think we
are a little bit tone deaf.
Here is a news flash: The whole country is focused on defending blue-
collar jobs, bolstering our industrial manufacturing base. Americans
broadly agree that keeping United States jobs from moving overseas is a
top priority. Yet despite campaign promises, the administration has
awarded government contracts to companies that continue to offshore.
{time} 1315
You can't make this up. So we say one thing and then we do another.
Now, look, both parties do it. Neither party is privy to virtue. But
let me tell you something, there is a plethora of these before us on
saying one thing when you are campaigning and not following through.
That is not good.
The flow of jobs overseas is not stopping. Just this week, it was
announced that Ford is canceling plans to build the Ford Focus in
Mexico, ending North American production entirely and making the model
almost completely in China beginning next year, as soon as its output
ends at a plant in Michigan.
Yet, right now, when companies move overseas, as the gentleman from
Colorado just said, we actually give them a reward. We give them a tax
break for the cost of moving. Do you think that is going to impede or
help people deciding whether they should stay or go? A tax break for
leaving. The average citizen never gets that kind of a break. I mean,
that is the law. I am not making it up. I will stand corrected, if need
be, Mr. Speaker.
We need to stop offshoring these jobs. And this Congress should start
by defeating the previous question and bringing up the Bring Jobs Home
Act.
Around 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1994.
Just ask folks in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania who have seen steel
mills and rubber factories shipped overseas.
[[Page H5011]]
Come to my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, formerly the hub of the
textile manufacturing industry.
My bill eliminates this tax deduction to those companies and those
corporations who want to bring their jobs overseas, and it gives a tax
credit of up to 20 percent of the cost to U.S. businesses that bring
jobs back to the United States of America. The companies would have to
add jobs to claim the tax benefit.
So let's stop subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas and start
bringing jobs back to our shores.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't get much simpler than that.
This is not a new idea. President Obama and Democrats in Congress
have raised this bill for years, and the Republican Congress has
blocked our bill at every turn. Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads this
bill in the Senate, where it cleared a procedural vote 93-7 in 2014.
I challenge you, today, to take up and pass this bill to stand up for
American manufacturing and the workers here at home. Talk only goes so
far. Let's act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, isn't it good to hear good news? I just
got this on my electronic device here.
The MedStar: ``Congressman Steve Scalise continues to make good
progress. He is now listed in fair condition and is beginning an
extended period of healing and rehabilitation.''
Isn't that good news?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it is good news that
our brother from Louisiana is in fair condition. I appreciate that news
report.
And I also want to take up the previous speaker's offer to work with
us on tax reform. We look forward to his assistance in moving that
issue forward.
I might say that he is mistaken. The bill that we are talking about
today is about protecting public interests. The last time I checked,
people who I know like green trees, not black ones; they like their
electricity to be there when they turn their light switch on; and they
like water. These are three issues that we are looking to protect and
make sure that people in the United States can enjoy all of these
attributes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Buck) to talk about exactly that.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse), my colleague on the Rules Committee, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in the West, water is life. Coloradans must wisely
steward the precious water flowing through our lands. That is why we
are so focused on water storage projects.
Unfortunately, many water storage projects in my State face
significant setbacks in permitting due to a long list of regulatory
checkboxes. Local, State, and Federal agencies all have their own
requirements.
For the past several years, I have followed multiple important water
storage projects on the front range of Colorado that deeply impact
Coloradans. Year after year, the shovels remain untouched as the water
projects inched their way through the regulatory permitting process.
Water projects should not take over 10 years to permit and then only a
few years to build.
Much of this delay occurs because each level of government--local,
State, and Federal--requires their own studies and permitting
checklists, even though many of those requirements are the same or only
slightly different.
H.R. 1654 makes this process more efficient, allowing the Bureau of
Reclamation to coordinate the Federal and State permitting processes,
so that we can avoid unnecessary duplication and so that we can better
unify the approval requirements.
H.R. 1654 offers a more streamlined approval process for our water
projects but still empowers State and Federal governments to fulfill
our duties to protect communities and the environment.
This is a good government bill. We are simply asking different levels
of government to work together so that our water projects can earn the
permits they rightfully qualify for.
No water project should take 10 years to gain approval, but too many
have. H.R. 1654 ensures that projects on Federal lands will have a
clear, more efficient permit application process.
We owe this bill to the people of Colorado; we owe this bill to the
people of the West. We owe this bill to everyone in this country who
relies on fresh, clean drinking water. We owe it to the farmers who
need water for their crops, to the ranchers who need water for their
livestock, to the anglers who need water for their recreation.
I am supporting H.R. 1654 for these people. I ask my colleagues to
support this important legislation as well.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), my
friend, that there is a problem here we are trying to solve.
Unfortunately, these are not the bipartisan bills that Democrats and
Republicans from both sides of the aisle have worked hard to put
together to do.
Of course, Democrats, myself, and so many others want to expedite
water projects permitting for hydro renewable energy projects. Of
course, we want to free up utilities to do extra mitigation work around
power lines to reduce the risk of fires. We have solid bipartisan bills
that would do that. We could put them on the floor today or tomorrow,
and they would have over 400 votes. There are liberal Democrats,
conservative Republicans, and firefighters who support them. Utilities,
Democrats, Republicans, and sportsmen support them.
That is a route we could go. We could get those bills to President
Trump's desk by next week and actually start preventing forest fires
and facilitate the permitting process around hydro projects. But, no,
instead, we are doing a very divisive bill, one that has a lot of
problems that it creates, in addition to solving some of the problems
that it sets out to address.
I encourage my Republican friends--they are in charge; they control
the agenda--to take a look at pragmatic, smart, and thoughtful ways to
reduce forest fire risk, speed up water project approval, such as the
bipartisan National Forest System Vegetation Management Pilot Program
Act, which is a bipartisan bill.
Look, this bill around the expedited water projects would circumvent
a lot of the public input process that is actually so important to the
success of these projects. My colleague from Colorado was referring to
several water projects. One that we both care deeply about, the
Northern Integrated Supply Project, NISP, is currently with the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
I strongly supported extending the public comment period from 30 to
60 days--a very reasonable time to allow people more input, which
actually changed how the project was done and planned. It was a very
meaningful form of input to build additional public support for the
project; and, when the project is completed, will lead to a better,
more meaningful project, serving the water needs of our communities, as
well as the impact on the lives of those who live in and near it.
So, look, whether it is fixing fire borrowing, giving utilities a
liability waiver while not giving them a free pass, making sure that
our agencies doing water project reviews have the men and women power
they need to actually get them done quickly, these are reasonable, good
ideas that I think we could pass with unanimity, or near unanimity.
I promise the Republicans, if you would just work with us and have an
open process, we could find common ground. Let's start with these small
things. Let's start with preventing forest fires around electrical
fires. We will get to healthcare. We can find common ground with you on
that, too.
But let's start on finding common ground around reducing forest fire
risk around electrical wires, Mr. Speaker. There is a path to do that.
Let's solve our small problems, and let's build a pathway to work
together on the big problems our country faces.
I urge everyone to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule, this rule
that goes to the floor with no hearing, this rule
[[Page H5012]]
that rules out Democratic amendments, doesn't even allow discussion of
them, and has a controversial piece of underlying legislation, when
there is no need for controversy around such an important aspect of
life in the American West, and, nationally, reducing forest fire risk
and facilitating water projects and hydroelectric projects. Please join
me in voting ``no,'' so we can get this House back to working on
commonsense legislation that is bipartisan, with the full support of
the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the time of my colleagues, who have joined me on the
floor today, to speak in support of these underlying bills, as well as
for the hard work of the House Natural Resources Committee.
First of all, H.R. 1873 is a bipartisan bill by any measure--five
Democratic cosponsors, passed bipartisanly through the committee.
This will reduce the threat of electricity outages caused by contact
between overgrown trees and power lines. It is that simple.
Existing Federal regulations and red tape can make it extremely
difficult for utilities to gain the access that they need to their
rights of way in order to perform needed maintenance. Before taking
this action, they must receive approval from Federal agencies. They
have been criticized for not allowing these utilities to carry out
vegetative management policies on a consistent and timely basis.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, just one down tree on a transmission line
can have devastating impacts, causing blackouts for thousands or
millions of homes as well as businesses, or it can ignite fires that
consume entire forests. Yet it can take months to remove one single
tree, due to our outdated Federal regulations and cumbersome
bureaucracy.
H.R. 1654 streamlines the current multiagency permitting system,
which creates significant delays for project construction and
completion, by creating a one-stop shop, a permitting process at the
Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. Speaker, the Bureau was created to oversee water resource
management in the West and to prevent water shortages by building dams
and conveyance systems. Yet, over the past 40 years, Federal
regulations and policies have slowly made it increasingly difficult to
build dams and reservoirs throughout the Western United States.
Presently, it is nearly impossible to even expand the storage capacity
at existing facilities.
The Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act establishes a framework
where the Federal agencies with jurisdiction over new surface water
storage projects must work together, coordinate their schedules, share
technical information and data, and publish their findings publicly.
This important measure will allow water providers to better manage
their systems to modernize and enhance their water storage
infrastructure and optimize water resource management in preparation
for future droughts and shortages, which we know will come.
{time} 1330
The Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act will prevent
wildfires and power outages while enabling utilities to safely supply
electricity to rural and Western communities.
H.R. 1873 will ensure that practical measures are taken to protect
power lines and conserve our public lands, which is especially
important in Western States where overgrown Federal forests are too
often the norm rather than the exception.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the rule provides for consideration of two
commonsense measures that will implement much needed improvements to
the Federal management of our water resources, our Federal lands and
forests, and electricity infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to
support this rule as well as the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 392 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 3. 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.
685) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage
domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 685.
____
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. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
[[Page H5013]]
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.
____________________