[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.

                          ____________________