[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5991-H5997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2910, PROMOTING INTERAGENCY
COORDINATION FOR REVIEW OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINES ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2883, PROMOTING CROSS-BORDER ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 218, KING COVE
ROAD LAND EXCHANGE ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 454 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 454
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. 2910) to provide for Federal and State agency
coordination in the approval of certain authorizations under
the Natural Gas Act, 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 Energy and Commerce.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
115-28. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. 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.
2883) to establish a more uniform, transparent, and modern
process to authorize the construction, connection, operation,
and maintenance of international border-crossing facilities
for
[[Page H5992]]
the import and export of oil and natural gas and the
transmission of electricity. 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. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
115-29. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. 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.
218) to provide for the exchange of Federal land and non-
Federal land in the State of Alaska for the construction of a
road between King Cove and Cold Bay. 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 an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-27. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part C 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 amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of July 20, 2017, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the bill (H.R. 2825)
to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to make certain
improvements in the laws administered by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
Sec. 5. The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time
before 5 p.m. on Friday, July 21, 2017, file privileged
reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2018.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentlewoman from
Wyoming is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. CHENEY. 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
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 454,
which provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2910,
the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas
Pipelines Act; H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy
Infrastructure Act; and H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act.
Mr. Speaker, our domestic energy industry has suffered greatly over
the last 8 years under outdated regulations and burdensome bureaucratic
red tape that have prohibited growth and innovation. Today's rule
allows for consideration of two very important bills that will provide
clear and transparent policies for our pipeline permitting processes,
making them more efficient and effective so that we can fully realize
the North American energy boom; create American jobs; grow our economy;
and strengthen our relations with our largest energy trading partners,
Canada and Mexico.
The first bill, H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for
Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, is sponsored by my colleague, Mr.
Flores of Texas.
{time} 1245
This bill reinforces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's role
as the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines by
directing it to identify and invite all agencies considering an aspect
of an application to establish a schedule for concurrent reviews, and
to impose deadlines for final decisions.
Recent advancements in energy exploration have allowed companies to
tap into previously inaccessible natural gas reserves, leading to a
dramatic increase in domestic production. The increased supply has
lowered energy costs and increased demand for natural gas.
As a result, current U.S. pipelines are now operating near capacity,
making new pipelines necessary to deliver gas to consumers across the
Nation, especially to those in the Northeast and Midwest, where demand
for energy is high, but where they lack the infrastructure to deliver
domestic natural gas. Additionally, due to its abundance and
affordability, many manufacturers are beginning to rely on natural gas
as a primary fuel.
Unfortunately, the permitting process for new pipelines is arduous
and unnecessarily burdensome. Currently, when siting a pipeline
project, multiple permits are required, including permits under the
Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act, for
example. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average
processing time from pre-filing to certification for interstate natural
gas pipelines has been 558 days. We cannot afford to wait that long,
Mr. Speaker.
It is critical that we expand and modernize our Nation's pipeline
infrastructure to ensure the access to affordable energy and affordable
prices for consumers across the country. In order to do this, we simply
must promote timely and efficient reviews as well as coordination among
Federal, State, and local regulators. This bill accomplishes these
goals, and I support its passage.
The rule we are discussing today also provides for consideration of
H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act,
sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). This bill
creates a uniform and transparent process to authorize the
construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of international
transfers of oil, natural gas, and electricity imports and exports.
The bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review
cross-border oil and natural gas pipelines and the Department of Energy
to review cross-border electric transmission facilities, requiring the
relevant official to issue a certificate of crossing, unless it is
found not to be in the public interest.
[[Page H5993]]
Recent advances in technology, Mr. Speaker, have dramatically
increased our ability to harness our vast natural resources, but the
current ad hoc permitting process has inhibited energy producers from
exporting American-made energy to our international trading partners
and has significantly delayed recent proposals, such as the Keystone XL
pipeline.
The value of energy traded between the United States and its North
American neighbors exceeded $140 billion in 2015, with $100 billion in
U.S. energy imports, and over $40 billion in exports. We simply cannot
afford to gamble our energy security and competitiveness on an
inefficient permitting process.
Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, also allows for consideration of H.R. 218,
the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act, sponsored by the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young). This bill authorizes an equal value land exchange
to facilitate the construction of an 11-mile road linking the remote
city of King Cove and the city of Cold Bay, which has a modern airport.
The State of Alaska will transfer approximately 43,000 acres to the
Department of the Interior to add to the Izembek National Wildlife
Refuge in return for 206 acres of Federal lands to build the road.
This road is critical, Mr. Speaker, because harsh winter conditions
make transporting individuals in the remote King Cove community of
nearly 1,000 people dangerous and sometimes fatal: gale-force winds
ground planes and prevent sea travel; evacuations can take days; and
the hovercraft terminal and medical facility that Congress temporarily
provided funds for, in lieu of land for the road, ceased operation in
2010.
The King Cove community has been denied proper hospital care and
access to essential emergency services since they began fighting for
this road 40 years ago, and that, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable.
Ensuring these folks have ground transportation options for accessing
the regional hub at Cold Bay, especially during harsh winters, is vital
to the safety of this community in emergency situations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage support for the rule for these
important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today would put some of our
most sensitive lands at risk and limit the voices of experts, all to
further construction of dangerous projects that could harm local
communities.
First, H.R. 2883 undermines the National Environmental Policy Act and
tips the scales in favor of massive, controversial oil and gas pipeline
and electric transmission projects. Transboundary projects like this
often travel for hundreds of miles, last for decades, and pass through
sensitive and Native lands and important aquifers. And, as we all know,
pipelines leak.
That is why there is currently a rigorous Federal review process that
takes into account the impact of these projects on the environment and
the communities along their route.
Today, in order to construct an oil pipeline, a natural gas pipeline,
or an electrical transmission line that crosses the U.S. border with
Canada or Mexico, a Presidential permit must first be obtained, as well
as additional approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--
FERC--the Department of Energy, or the Department of Defense, depending
on the type of pipeline.
This review process helps us to understand the environmental impact
of these projects and it allows communities and landowners along the
route to weigh in with their concerns. All of this helps to keep
communities safe from hazardous substances that, if spilled or ignited,
could have catastrophic consequences. Yet the majority is proposing
this measure to severely limit that rigorous review.
The bill effectively exempts these massive projects from
environmental and safety review under the National Environmental Policy
Act. It narrows the approval process and environmental review to just
the ``cross-border segment'' of projects that physically cross the
border with Canada or Mexico rather than, presently, the entire trans-
boundary project. So inside the United States, anything goes.
Instead of requiring an agency to affirmatively find a project is in
the public interest, the bill also places a burden of proof on the
opponents of the project to show that it is not in the public interest.
If that wasn't bad enough, the legislation would also give new life to
the controversial projects that have already been denied, for very good
reason, by allowing permits to be resubmitted under this sham process.
Second, H.R. 2910 would supercharge the natural gas pipeline approval
process, putting private property rights in jeopardy and hindering
important environmental reviews.
The bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission almost
complete authority and severely limits the input of expert entities
tasked with protecting the environment, our natural resources, and
public health.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind those watching today just how
streamlined the natural gas pipeline approval process already is. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is basically a rubber-stamp
entity. It almost never denies a pipeline project. On average, 88
percent of projects are approved within 1 year, and then we think about
the consequences later.
In fact, FERC officials have testified that what is mostly slowing
down the applications is that the applicants themselves fail to submit
the necessary information to perform congressionally mandated project
reviews. So this bill is a solution in search of a problem.
Third, H.R. 218 revives an ill-advised proposal to build a road to
the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and its world-class wetlands.
This proposal has been, as pointed out for a number of decades,
rejected by multiple State and Federal agencies on numerous occasions
over the past 30 years. It has been exhaustively studied time and time
again, and, every single time, the results have been clear. The road is
not the most viable option for the residents of King Cove and would do
irreparable damage to the refuge.
Yet the majority is ignoring three decades of expert analysis and
public input in an effort to green light this damaging road through a
congressionally designated wilderness area. More efficient and viable
options exist, including the addition of a heliport and construction of
a new airport, which we should be focusing on because a road is the
wrong approach.
Mr. Speaker, we all know this, but I think we do need to be reminded
from time to time that we are the stewards of our environment and this
planet and the land only while we are alive. None of us ever really own
it. We do, however, have an obligation to protect it, care for it, and
make sure that it exists for future generations. These bills fail that
test.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), my friend and colleague, and the sponsor of H.R.
218.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I listened to people on the other
side. This is a good rule. I want to compliment the Rules Committee.
It is crucially important to recognize that this is an issue that
means lives: 19 people have died out of that community of King Cove--
mothers, children, husbands, brothers, uncles, and aunts--because they
didn't have a road.
We passed legislation similar to this in 2009 that granted a land
exchange--and was a massive land exchange--of 43,000 acres for 260
acres from the State of Alaska to construct this road. I think that is
a fair exchange for an 11-mile road--single lane, gravel covered--just
so they have access to save lives.
Those who speak against it have never experienced the wind that howls
through that area when you try to land a plane or take off, you have a
sick person with you, and you crash. Or go across the bay when waves
are 30 feet high, and the evacuation of those ill people to an area
that is only 11 miles away on an unfinished road and they die. Human
beings, Alaskan constituents, that have medical aid only 600 miles away
and stopped by 11 miles that is not allowed because supposedly there is
a better way. And there is no
[[Page H5994]]
better way than a road in the weather condition I am speaking of.
When you think about it, I often listen to the other side of the
aisle in voting against something like this, yet they will defend the
right to save certain animals, but they don't want to save human life.
That is wrong.
This is a good project. It should be built. I am hoping this body
recognizes that lives are important and recognize the fact that this
road doesn't disturb any of the wildlife. It is ironic that they will
say it is going to disturb the geese that live off of eelgrass. The
closest road that comes to this one bay is 11 miles away--11 miles. And
the same area as this wildlife range has miles of road in it already,
miles of road already in place. One of those roads already in place
goes right by the lagoon where the tourists go watch the geese.
Now, why can't a tourist go by an area and watch the geese and it
doesn't disturb them, but if someone is sick, dying, in a bus,
ambulance, car, or truck, that is going to disturb the geese?
This is a nonsense argument by environmental communities around this
Nation that want to put a stop to anything that benefits mankind and
save the wildlife, say from New York or San Francisco, and don't know
what they are talking about.
{time} 1300
My job is to protect my people. This is not going to cost the
taxpayers a nickel. This is going to be a project that is well done,
and it will not disturb the wildlife they are so-called trying to
protect.
So I ask my colleagues on this floor to think about humanity. Think
about that person, be it your mother, your daughter, your son, your
aunt, your uncle, your brother, and you would want to see them die
because they are trying to protect a goose?
Shame on you. Shame on those who vote against this bill, saying: This
is more important--I live in New York or California. This goose is more
important than human life.
I think it is time we use a little sense in this body, a little
understanding. Let's build this road. Let's pass this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up Representative Pascrell of New Jersey's Bring Jobs
Home Act, H.R. 685. This bill will close the tax loophole that rewards
companies from moving jobs overseas, while providing a tax credit to
companies that move jobs back to the United States.
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. Mitchell). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and spokesman
for the other side.
Before I give my remarks, I don't think this is an either/or
proposition, Mr. Speaker. Some of the things that my friend from Alaska
just talked about make sense. There is nothing more essential than
life. But this is a bill that has been put in with other bills as well.
So I rise in opposition to the rule, Mr. Speaker.
This week, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade held our first
hearing of the year, which was on NAFTA. You would think, from the
President's rhetoric on trade, that many on the other side in Congress
would be focused on creating good-paying, middle-class jobs and
boosting our manufacturing base. You would think that. But, instead, we
are here debating a bill, a number of bills, that are an assault on
private property rights and the environment in the name of corporate
profit and expediency.
Lo, what happened in 1923 that led to a change in our Tax Code when
we tried to privatize public property and public resources. It was the
biggest scandal of the 20th century.
Where are the jobs that were supposed to be coming back from overseas
under this administration? Where are the higher middle class wages?
Where are the policies coming from this Congress that support workers
and their families?
The majority of Americans, Mr. Speaker, agree that keeping United
States jobs from moving overseas should be a top priority. Yet, despite
the empty promises made by this President, the flow of jobs overseas
has not stopped by any barometer.
This administration has awarded government contracts to companies
that continue to offshore our jobs. Think about that. Our tax money is
still going to corporate America that sends jobs overseas to help those
companies send jobs overseas. Now, if that makes any sense, I will
listen to the rationale.
We don't stop companies from offshoring American jobs by holding
rallies. We do it by making good policy, an exercise this
administration and this majority-led Congress have refused to engage
in. If they want to change that, they can start right now.
Under current law, when companies move overseas, we give them a tax
break for the cost--a tax break. That is the law.
We need to stop offshoring now. The Congress can defeat the previous
question and bring up the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill eliminates
this tax deduction and gives a tax credit of up to 20 percent of the
cost to United States businesses that bring jobs back to the United
States of America. The companies would have to add jobs to claim the
credit.
I have also introduced legislation, the Jobs and Trade
Competitiveness Act, that builds on the Bring Jobs Home Act and further
strengthens enforcement against countries that cheat our trade laws.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.
Mr. PASCRELL. I encourage my colleagues to look at it.
So let's stop subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas and start
bringing jobs back to our shores. It doesn't get much simpler than
that, Mr. Speaker.
This is not a new idea. President Obama and Democrats in Congress
have raised this bill for years. The Republican House has blocked our
bill at every turn. Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads this bill in the
Senate, where it cleared a procedural vote in 2014, 93-7.
President Trump has declared this week Made In America Week. I
challenge you today to stop the small talk and put your money where
your mouth is. Take up and pass this bill to stand up for American
manufacturing and the workers here at home who need it.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can bring up the
Bring Jobs Home Act and start bringing jobs back to the United States.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I share my colleague's dedication to job creation, and what we know
is that the kind of job creation we need in this Nation can only come
with access to reliable, affordable sources of energy. Our fossil fuels
in this country are a national treasure, and these bills that are being
considered under this rule today are bills that would help to
streamline the regulatory process.
We have been, Mr. Speaker, really facing a war on fossil fuels during
the course of the last 8 years. We have seen these industries targeted,
completely unfairly targeted, based on some notion that, by shutting
down our fossil fuel industry, we are somehow going to be able to
continue to have economic growth. We have seen the environmental
officials of the previous administration even admit before this body
that things like the Clean Power Plan would result, if fully
implemented, in a negligible impact on the environment.
So, again, I think that it is important to recognize that it is at
the center of the agenda that we are pushing forward, frankly, with
historic progress in this Congress to begin to generate the kind of
economic growth that we really need to get back on track.
We have been stagnant now for 8 years. We have seen overreach from
the Federal Government. We have seen a situation in which companies,
industry, individuals, and small businesses are strangled by regulatory
red tape.
[[Page H5995]]
No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be oversight. No one is
suggesting that there shouldn't be environmental review, but what we
know is we have got to streamline it.
We cannot be in a position where bureaucrats--and, frankly, it is
often unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.--impose absolutely
unattainable restrictions, impose rules that our industry can't meet
and prevent us from being able to have access to our own energy
sources. Again, it is that reliable, affordable energy that will allow
our economy to grow and bring back the jobs that the gentleman says,
and to which I agree, are so important for this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Williams).
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to speak on
behalf of H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of
Natural Gas Pipelines Act, and the potential impact it could have on
our Nation.
Right now, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is the
lead agency for coordinating required reviews and authorizations for
interstate natural gas pipelines. In order to start a pipeline project,
you need multiple permits from a variety of platforms as well as
coordination from Federal, State, and local governments.
As history has shown us time and time again, a multistep approval
process just does not work. Mixing three different levels of government
has and always will be a recipe for total disaster. It makes for
unnecessary delays that are caused by too many cooks in the kitchen.
I fully support my friend and colleague Representative Bill Flores'
bill that will promote more timely and efficient reviews. We need to
strengthen FERC's lead agency role that it was designed to create
accountability and transparency.
Overall, this bill will encourage more timely and efficient reviews
and keep energy prices affordable for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I
urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
In God we trust.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so that we can take up the legislation that has just
been outlined by Mr. Pascrell.
There is no more responsibility that we have than creating good-
paying jobs for the American people; and this is, after all, according
to President Trump, ``Make It in America'' Week, which, in fact, is a
centerpiece of the Democratic agenda. We have a number of bills that
are designed to help reinvigorate and strengthen American
manufacturing.
It is shocking for the American people to learn that we have a Tax
Code, as Mr. Pascrell outlined, that gives a tax break to companies
that ship American jobs overseas, exactly the opposite of what it
should be if we are really concerned about creating good-paying jobs
here in our own country. So defeating the previous question means we
could take up the stop offshoring now legislation, which would get rid
of this nonsensical provision in our Tax Code.
When you go out there and talk to constituents, you say: One of the
reasons we can't keep good manufacturing jobs here in America is
because we incentivize, we use some of your tax dollars to incentivize
companies to ship those jobs overseas. It makes no sense.
So how about, during ``Make It in America'' Week, rather than just
using that phrase, as the President has done, let's do something that
will actually help promote making things in this country--I know,
probably a challenging concept for the President, who does his
manufacturing overseas, not in the United States.
Let's take a bold step today. Remove that provision of the Tax Code,
and have a Tax Code provision that actually incentivizes creating jobs
in our own country and giving tax credits to companies that create jobs
in America. What a novel idea.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can
take this piece of legislation up, and perhaps it will then encourage
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to move forward on a
number of bills that are part of the Democratic Make It in America
agenda to help rebuild American manufacturing and put people back to
work in good-paying jobs.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't
want to talk about energy. They don't want to talk about fossil fuels.
They don't want to talk about how important these are to the economy.
I would propose, Mr. Speaker, maybe what we should do is turn out the
lights in this Chamber. Maybe we ought to turn off the air
conditioning, Mr. Speaker, and we could have the debate in the dark,
which is where we would be, frankly, if we followed the energy policies
in the approach of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
These bills are hugely important, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we are
able to continue to get access to the energy that we need; and it is
crucially important that we not skip over the burden that has been
caused by the Federal Government, by the regulatory burden we have been
feeling, and that we take action, as is our responsibility, to begin to
help to roll back that overreach, to begin to help to provide some
relief so that we can, in fact, get the jobs back that our colleagues
say they desire so much and that we know we need.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be recognized by
the gentlewoman from Wyoming, and I rise in support of this combined
rule that we have here.
I thought it was important that I speak to some of the provisions
that are in the underlying bill and also the provisions that are not in
the underlying bill.
{time} 1315
I would characterize this rule, that is the rule for the
reauthorization of the Department of Homeland Security--it is actually
the authorization. It has never been authorized in that fashion
before--the authorization of Homeland Security after 15 years. I think
that it does a lot of good things in that it lays out a definition and
frames the duties of the Department of Homeland Security broadly and
pretty closely in their entirety.
There are some things that are missing from this that I would like to
have plugged into this reauthorization language. However, I believe the
goal was, all along, to draft a piece of reauthorization language that
would be, I will say, compatible to both sides of the aisle and without
particular dissent.
Therefore, we have a piece of legislation that isn't as impactful as
I would like, and yet it is here on the floor under suspension with the
idea that we can move this along and frame the Department of Homeland
Security's duties in the fashion that is here.
I don't object to the provisions that are in the authorization
language that exists, but I would point out that it sets the stage, and
now there is an agreement that has been reached through a number of
entities, including the White House, the DOJ, the DHS, and I understand
from our leadership and others, that soon there will be the piece of
legislation that we refer to as Davis-Oliver.
In Davis-Oliver, we actually have the enforcement provisions that are
necessary to restore the respect for the rule of law, and especially
the domestic enforcement of our immigration laws.
We are setting the stage for that and clearing the path for that with
this rule on the legislation that will pass, I believe, under
suspension.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. CHENEY. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. KING of Iowa. The provisions that are necessary that I would
point out to the body, Mr. Speaker, are this:
The number one most important is this: We only have 5,000 ICE agents
for 50 States and territories. They are spread so thin they can't
possibly enforce immigration law. We need that number tripled. That is
10,000 ICE agents. That is the most important component of this to have
the officers to bring that enforcement.
[[Page H5996]]
Second thing is we need to make sure that the ICE detainer language
is there and in Davis-Oliver. That is something that had been
neutralized by an action of the Obama administration, and they need to
be certain that they have the full authority to carry firearms.
Mr. Speaker, I make these points so that the body can anticipate what
is coming down the pike. I intend to support the rule and the
underlying bills, and I intend to be here on the floor advocating all
of the components of Davis-Oliver, also including the components I have
articulated here today.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the American people may be scratching
their heads wondering why, with everything going on in the world, we
are prioritizing bills that put our environment at risk--bills the
Senate may never take up.
Let me remind them that the majority is just doing the bidding of an
administration that has shown a complete disregard for air, water, and
land. The administration has already proposed a budget that would slash
the Environmental Protection Agency by 32 percent. This would harm not
only conservation and climate efforts, but thousands of jobs
nationwide.
As a microbiologist, I know firsthand the importance of science in
our legislative process, yet the majority has refused to give science
and facts their rightful place in policy debates that we have.
From drastically reducing funding for the Environmental Protection
Agency, and by discrediting climate change, to attempting to eliminate
safeguards for our genetic privacy, the majority and this
administration have worked hand in hand to ruthlessly roll back the
scientific advancements that we have made.
It is shameful that we are here today considering bills that would
silence experts and risk the health and safety of our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on the
rule and the bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am proud to be here, and I am proud of the agenda that we have
taken up under the Republican leadership in this Congress. We are
indeed doing the important work that the people sent us here to do.
So far, just a list of some of the things that we have done in the
first few months of this Congress: We have taken the first step in our
obligation to repeal and replace ObamaCare, a system that is absolutely
failing, that is causing rising premiums. It is causing people to lose
their insurance all across the Nation, a system that will collapse if
we don't fix it. We, the House Republicans, have taken important steps
in order to begin the repeal and replace process of ObamaCare.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we have passed a bill to repeal and replace Dodd-
Frank, legislation that was strangling our local community banks across
the country. We have taken a step to begin to fix that and provide
relief.
We have also dealt with important immigration issues and taken
important action in terms of passing legislation to end human
trafficking.
I am very proud, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, of the
work that we have done to pass the National Defense Authorization Act
to begin to rebuild our military and get the military the resources it
needs so that it can defend us against a growing array of threats and a
very complex array of enemies across the Nation.
We have also, Mr. Speaker, taken important steps using the
congressional review action process to repeal regulations put in place
over the last 8 years that have been damaging to our industry, to
individuals, to small businesses all across the Nation.
We have been historically productive, and it may be that our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with the steps
that we have taken, but it is simply not accurate to say we aren't
focusing on what is important. We are focusing on those issues that
matter most to the men and women across this Nation that will begin to
make sure we can keep everybody safe, begin to make sure we can defend
ourselves, begin the process of reforming our outdated and burdensome
tax code, as well, Mr. Speaker, as ensuring we bring back the kind of
economic growth we know we need and fixing our healthcare system.
These bills that we are debating today, the rule for these bills, are
part of that process. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Flores, Mr.
Mullin, and Mr. Young, for their hard work on this legislation.
In Wyoming, which is one of our Nation's largest energy-producing
States, we know how important it is that we work to develop our
domestic energy resources. We know the technology that has been
available that has helped us do that, that has helped us begin to, for
the first time ever, have energy independence that has really helped us
begin to have the kind of economic growth we need.
We cannot depend just on that technology. We also have got to improve
the permitting process, Mr. Speaker. Improving the pipeline permitting
process by promoting the kind of timely review, supporting interagency
coordination, and creating a new and streamlined system for safety that
will help us to transport our energy exports and imports are all
crucial steps in our ability to ensure affordable energy and economic
growth.
The other bill that we are considering under this rule, Mr. Speaker,
H.R. 218, will provide a desperately needed road, as you heard my
colleague Mr. Young explain, to improve the safety and well-being of
the residents of King Cove, Alaska, and save lives, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, I urge adoption of both the rule and the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 454 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
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. 7. 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
[[Page H5997]]
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.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
____________________