[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8309-H8318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2936, RESILIENT FEDERAL FORESTS ACT
OF 2017
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 595
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. 2936) to expedite under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest
management activities on National Forest System lands, on
public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to
overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, 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 amendments
specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Agriculture and 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. In lieu of the
amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committees on Agriculture and Natural Resources 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 115-36. 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 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, just yesterday, the Rules
Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 595, providing for
consideration of an important piece of legislation, H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2936 under a structured
rule, with four Democratic amendments made in order and two bipartisan
amendments and one Republican-led amendment made in order.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, a bill that is critically
important to my district in central Washington State and to rural,
forested districts like it across the United States who continue to
face devastation from catastrophic wildfires as we have seen, just this
last year, a great example of.
This bipartisan, comprehensive legislation is aimed at addressing the
disastrous consequences of wildfires by utilizing the tools the Forest
Service and other agencies have to reduce the threats posed by these
wildfires, by insects, by disease infestation, and by dangerous old
forest overgrowth that serves as a literal tinderbox for wildfires.
This legislation will expedite and improve forest management activities
in Federal forests to counteract these threats.
This legislation, spearheaded by my friend and colleague from
Arkansas, Representative Bruce Westerman, who is a trained forester
himself, is comprised of a truly comprehensive effort developed here in
the people's House. It is bipartisan. This bipartisan support
demonstrates that the threat of catastrophic wildfires does not just
impact a red or a blue district, but, rather, it poses a threat to
communities across the United States.
[[Page H8310]]
{time} 1230
H.R. 2936 would provide Federal land management agencies immediate
tools to increase the pace and the scale of forest management projects
to dramatically improve the health and resiliency of our national
forests, ensuring robust protection of the environment. Active
management leads to healthier forests. It is that simple.
This legislation also allows expedited review for collaborative
projects in Federal forests and removes incentives for special interest
groups to file frivolous lawsuits. By requiring litigants opposing
active management projects to propose an alternative management option,
we can instill accountability into a system that is wrought with
litigation.
Additionally, the legislation bolsters locally led forest management
and hazardous fuel reduction projects to improve forest health.
By engaging local stakeholders, we can lessen the severity and the
costs of wildfires, while protecting the communities and the
environment.
Mr. Speaker, another major component of our Nation's wildfire crisis
is the broken system with which we fund firefighting suppression. When
these firefighting costs exceed the existing budget, the U.S. Forest
Service transfers funds from other vital forest management program
accounts in order to pay for wildfire suppression. I and a lot of other
people in this Chamber have been outspoken critics of this dangerous
broken cycle known as fire borrowing. That also is a very bipartisan
position that is taken. H.R. 2936 provides a major step forward in
ending this cycle. By raiding accounts that provide for forest
management programs which help prevent wildfires, we tie one hand
behind our back in an effort to both prevent and suppress these
catastrophic wildfires. This legislation will help to put an end to
this longstanding problem.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents know as well as anyone the immense
threat that wildfires pose to local communities. In just the past 4
years, the fourth district of my State, my district, has seen the two
largest fires in Washington State's history. We have lost hundreds of
homes and businesses and structures. My constituents are still
struggling to recover from the Carlton Complex Fire of 2014 and the
Okanogan Complex Fire of 2015. We lost three firefighters that year.
That truly is a high cost.
Active forest management is a matter of saving lives and livelihoods,
of protecting our communities, and ensuring our constituents' health
and safety, which is why I am proud to support this rule and the
underlying legislation that it represents today.
Mr. Speaker, as I have often said, we cannot continue to limp from
one devastating fire season to the next. We must take significant steps
toward reforestation, rehabilitation, and overall forest management.
This legislation will allow us to do just that. We must begin to
prevent, to suppress, to mitigate the threat of catastrophic wildfires,
and the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 will be a momentous
opportunity to turn around our diseased and overgrown Federal forests.
This legislation is essential and desperately needed to change the
current path of forest management on public lands. It is outdated,
unsustainable, and dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward rule allowing for
consideration of this critical piece of legislation that will help
protect our rural communities and ensure that we are prepared to
respond to devastating and catastrophic wildfires that have plagued
many areas of our country in the last few years.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption, I urge my colleagues to
support both the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague from Florida, I would
like to share one last note. Just a few weeks ago, the new chief of the
U.S. Forest Service, Tony Tooke, came to Capitol Hill and briefed some
of my colleagues, including me, regarding this year's devastating
wildfire season.
He reported to us that over 8 million acres, just this year, have
burned. We have also lost dozens of lives, thousands of homes. Chief
Tooke left us with the stark fact that while more than 8 million acres
burned this year, another 80 million acres across the United States are
at high risk of catching fire--80 million acres. Mr. Speaker, if that
does not show how dire this problem is, then I certainly can't tell you
what does.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks, I would offer condolences
to the grieving families who lost loved ones in yesterday's terrorist
attack in New York City, and to have the people of New York know--and I
know I speak for all of us, and there will be a more appropriate
recognition at a time in the future, I am sure, but to have them know
that all of us grieve with them and are concerned not only for those
who lost their lives, but to assist in preventing measures of this type
in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding to me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
This bill is a sweeping attack on responsible forest management
policy that upends key environmental safeguards, limits public
participation in land management decisions, and prioritizes commercial
timber harvest over transparent, science-based management. In other
words, this is business as usual for this Republican majority when it
comes to protecting our environment.
A footnote right there, my friend from the State of Washington does
highlight, rightly, concerns not only for his congressional district,
but areas throughout the country that have experienced wildfires.
Many of us have talked about this in conjunction with other disasters
and a need for this Congress to be able to address the shortfall in
funding for such important measures.
During this Congress alone, my Republican friends have brought to the
floor bills that undermine the ability of the Environmental Protection
Agency to issue independent and objective scientific conclusions,
weaken regulations of pesticides, and repeal rulemakings aimed at
effective, science-based management of public lands, just to name a few
things.
Repeatedly, my Republican friends ignore science and attack
environmental protections all in an all-too-obvious attempt to help
commercial interests over sound conservation policy. This focus not
only undermines our public lands, but it also harms the health and
safety of the American people.
This bill continues the assault on our Nation's environmental
protections, and it may be one of the most irresponsible examples yet.
Under the guise of responding to the recent tragic wildfires in
California and elsewhere in this Nation, this legislation attacks the
National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, which requires
Federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their actions.
The bill also attacks the Endangered Species Act by requiring
redundant and unnecessary reporting requirements. It blocks access to
the courts and limits recovery in environmental justice cases. Just for
good measure, this bill effectively overturns President Obama's
administration's monument expansion.
The bill does little to fix the true problem of wildfire management,
namely the chronic underfunding of wildfire management. Any serious
proposal must address the constant funding shortages at the U.S. Forest
Service by increasing the amount of Federal funding available for
wildfire suppression. A successful solution needs to provide advanced
access to emergency funding.
Unfortunately, today's legislation does no such thing. Yesterday, the
administration offered its statement of administration policy, and, at
best, it is tepid. It says, ``The administration appreciates the intent
of H.R. 2936 . . . and is supportive of land management reforms like
those outlined in the legislation,'' and then comes the however. ``The
administration, however, has concerns about the legislation's revisions
to the Stafford Act, which would force competition for funding between
wildfires on Federal land and other disasters already covered by the
Stafford Act, including hurricanes.''
It goes on to say, `` . . . the administration supports a separate,
annual cap
[[Page H8311]]
adjustment for wildfire suppression operations, which will resolve
concerns about the sufficiency of funds for wildfire suppression and
avoid unnecessary competition for Stafford Act funds.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy.
Statement Of Administration Policy
H.R. 2936--Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017--Rep. Westerman R-AR,
and cosponsors
The Administration strongly believes that funding for
wildland fire management must be addressed in order to enable
the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to
better manage the Nation's forests and other public lands.
The Administration's second disaster funding request,
submitted to Congress on October 4, 2017, underscored this
belief. The request also noted the Administration's belief
that land management reforms are critical to solving the
problem of ``fire borrowing''--taking funds from forest
management programs to cover fire costs that exceed
appropriations--in a comprehensive manner, rather than
through a funding-only appropriations approach.
The Administration appreciates the intent of H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, and is supportive of
land management reforms like those outlined in the
legislation. The Administration, however, has concerns about
the legislation's revisions to the Stafford Act, which would
force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal
land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act,
including hurricanes.
Wildland Fire Management Funding
Last year, Federal wildfire suppression spending reached
$2.9 billion, an amount that signals clearly the need for
Congress to address the rising cost of fire suppression
operations. The dependence on ``fire borrowing'' to cover
funding shortfalls in times of severe wildfire impedes the
missions of our land management agencies, including by taking
critical funding from programs that help reduce the risk of
catastrophic fire, restore and maintain healthy functioning
ecosystems, and yield timber production.
The Administration, however, has concerns with re-purposing
the Stafford Act to address wildfires. The purpose of the
Stafford Act is to assist State, local, tribal, and
territorial (SLTT) governments that become overwhelmed when
responding to and recovering from natural disasters affecting
their jurisdictions. H.R. 2936 would modify the Stafford Act
by creating a new type of disaster declaration to address the
cost of wildfire suppression on Federal land, thereby
changing long-standing principles governing Federal support
to SLTT governments. As we have seen in this year's historic
Atlantic hurricane season, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) must continue to be focused on its existing
mission, and the Stafford Act's Disaster Relief Fund must
remain dedicated solely to that mission.
Instead of the approach outlined in H.R. 2936, the
Administration supports a separate, annual cap adjustment for
wildfire suppression operations, which will resolve concerns
about the sufficiency of funds for wildfire suppression and
avoid unnecessary competition for Stafford Act funds.
Improving Forest Management
The Administration appreciates H.R. 2936's recognition that
fixing the funding component of fire borrowing will not, on
its own, stop the worsening trend of catastrophic wildfires.
Meaningful forest management reforms to strengthen our
ability to restore the Nation's forests and improve their
resilience to destructive wildfires must be a part of any
permanent solution. H.R. 2936's provisions that expedite
environmental approval for proactive forest management,
including hazardous fuel reduction and post-fire timber
salvage and reforestation actions, are important steps
forward. The Administration supports and will continue to
work with Congress on the details of the forest management
reform proposals.
Although the Administration has concerns with H.R. 2936's
modifications to the Stafford Act, the Administration will
continue working with Congress to enact a sustainable
solution to ``fire borrowing'' that does not adversely affect
FEMA's critical disaster relief funding and that recognizes
the need for a comprehensive solution to the problem of
wildfires.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the bill does little to
fix the true problem of wildfire management. Any serious proposal, as I
have said, must address the constant funding shortages, and that is
what, among other things, the administration suggested.
Mr. Speaker, this year has been a wake-up call. We must do more to
respond to the natural disasters that face our Nation. After three
major hurricanes and devastating wildfires in my friend from
Washington's State, in California, in Montana, and even in the
Everglades of Florida we have experienced some wildfires, albeit not at
the magnitude of loss of life or property as existed in some of the
others, our resources and agencies are stretched to the brink.
Weeks after the storms, millions of people across the Virgin Islands
and Puerto Rico are without power and without reliable access to clean
drinking water. FEMA Administrator Brock Long testified just yesterday
that the response to these storms and wildfires and other disasters--we
have had tornadoes that have come along as well--is costing the Federal
Government $200 million a day.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Office of Management and Budget is
currently working to send a proposal to Congress for a third
supplemental spending package to address the recovery needs in the
affected areas. I urge them and my colleagues here in Congress to act
swiftly to provide the resources that so many people desperately need.
In the meantime, what have we gotten from Republicans? Bipartisanship?
Sound science-based proposals? No. Instead, the Republican majority has
ignored bipartisanship, and, yesterday, in the Rules Committee, a
bipartisan measure was offered that was a thoughtful proposal on this
topic, and was rejected, and presented this bill that we have here now
that doesn't address the real issues facing public land and wildfire
management, but, rather, guts environmental protection and overturns
President Obama's monument expansion.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, this is business as usual for House Republicans. But if
we are going to seriously address natural disasters and how we respond
to them, I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to put
aside their partisanship, reconsider their denial of climate change and
its effects on our environment, and join Democrats in working together
to address this and other important issues faced by all Americans.
There were two amendments that were offered yesterday by my
colleagues from California. Both of those amendments were not made in
order. I don't think it is right when people offer legislation,
particularly those that have just been damaged, as our colleagues,
Congressmen Thompson and Matsui, and others in the northern California
region. They at least should have had an opportunity to offer up their
amendment and have it voted against if people felt so here in this
body.
I would hope, in the future, we would make a correction of that kind
of undertaking. I would hope all Members of this body would have an
opportunity to present their ideas on any legislation, and something as
important as this could have allowed for an open rule, rather than for
partisan activity to reign supreme.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the admonition of
my friend from Florida, that to bring bipartisan proposals forward,
this absolutely is a bipartisan bill; support from both sides of the
aisle, because, as I said in my opening comments, these kind of fires
know no political boundaries, know no political lines. So I am very
happy to report that we have a strong bipartisan effort right here in
front of us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Maine (Mr.
Poliquin).
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying bill, Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017.
I do thank the gentleman from Washington State for this time. I urge
all Members, Republicans and Democrats, to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my remarks on one specific and very
important section of the underlying bill. This pertains to allowing
young men and young women the opportunity to work and to learn the
family trade of logging.
Now, logging is a very big business in the State of Maine. About 90
percent of our State, Mr. Speaker, is forested, and we have generations
and traditions of logging in the State of Maine. Logging is often a
family-run business where the practice and the technique of harvesting
and then transporting saw logs to mills are passed down from one
generation to another.
Now, H.R. 2936 brings Federal regulations in line with this new
technology and new standards of safety by allowing family-owned logging
businesses
[[Page H8312]]
the ability to train 16- and 17-year-olds under very close supervision
of their parents.
We need to make certain, Mr. Speaker, that the next generation of
loggers are able to learn what they need to know, how to run these
family-run businesses, including the operation and maintenance of their
equipment. We do this, please, by supporting the Resilient Federal
Forests Act of 2017.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, will ensure that the long-term health of the
logging business industry is supported and can continue from one
generation to another.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment
to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan,
bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are
Americans in every way except on paper.
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. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I might add, attendant to this, on
yesterday, my colleagues, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Carlos Curbelo,
Frederica Wilson, and myself, introduced legislation calling for giving
300,000 migrants in this country, from a variety of countries, an
opportunity for permanent residence--those from El Salvador, Haiti,
Honduras, and Nicaragua.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), my good friend, to speak to the issue
that I just talked about, the Dream Act.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it has been 57
days since the President abruptly and irresponsibly terminated the DACA
program.
For 57 days, students have been panicked about how much longer they
can go to school. Brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters, are terrified
that they might lose their loved ones any minute. Parents are afraid to
take their children to the hospital or to school, and breadwinners
don't know whether they will be able to continue to earn a paycheck to
support themselves and their families.
For 57 days, the Republican-controlled Congress has been silent,
doing nothing to provide certainty for 800,000 American DREAMers who
are caught up in Congressional dysfunction. Without a permanent
legislative fix, these young Americans, like Maritza from Texas, will
be at risk of detention and deportation.
Maritza works part time to help her pay for college so she can pursue
her dream career in journalism after graduation. Over months, she and
her family saved up $1,000 to pay for an attorney and the DACA program
application fee. All she needed was her school to provide her records
so she could finish her application.
But then Hurricane Harvey hit and flooded her family's home in east
Houston and shut down school for 2 weeks. While Maritza and her mother
were recovering from Harvey's devastation, they were the victims
of another disaster, but this one was created by their own government.
They watched Attorney General Jeff Sessions announce on live TV that
the Trump administration was ending DACA and cutting off new
applications for young immigrants just like her. The devastating news
crushed Maritza and her family. Now they and countless others have
waited 57 days for us to fix it.
Today we have the opportunity to uphold our values and to pass the
Dream Act so that these young Americans aren't waiting in fear any
longer.
Mr. Speaker, there is a quote directly above your chair from Daniel
Webster imploring us to do ``something worthy to be remembered.''
So how will we be remembered? Will the Republican-controlled Congress
continue to sit here and passively accept the Trump administration's
cowardly decision to eliminate protections for countless DREAMers
across the country? Or do we want to do something about it?
We have an opportunity to protect our neighbors, coworkers,
classmates, friends, constituents, and members of our military who have
done everything to try to contribute to this great country. One vote
would change the lives of nearly 800,000 Americans forever. One vote
would allow them to pursue the American Dream, to go to school, to
continue to work, to buy a house, or to start a business.
Mr. Speaker, isn't that why we were sent here? Wouldn't that be
something worthy to be remembered?
I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we
can immediately bring the Dream Act to the floor and provide certainty
for Americans like Maritza, who want to continue to work, learn, and
live in the country that they love, the only country they have ever
known. We cannot afford to wait another day.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, we do deal with a lot of important issues
on this floor. Today we are talking about something that, in this
country, people are losing property, we are losing our natural
resources, and, certainly, people are losing their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx) to talk further on this important topic.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill for
which it was made, the Resilient Federal Forests Act. The rule makes in
order several needed amendments, but, more importantly, it allows for
much-needed debate and consideration of a bipartisan bill to address
the growing economic and environmental threats posed by catastrophic
wildfires.
This bill will give Federal agencies immediate tools to increase the
effectiveness of our forest management projects while preserving
environmental protections.
While of immense benefit to preserving our national parks, the bill
also supports the private sector by addressing obstructionist
litigation against management activity, and rewarding collaboration by
local governments and local stakeholders when they work together to
foster more effective management projects.
Mr. Speaker, North Carolina's Fifth District is home to pristine
national parks, including the scenic Blue Ridge Parkway, otherwise
known as America's favorite drive.
I am an unwavering supporter of our Nation's national parks, and I
look forward to equipping better our park managers to protect our
forests from wildfires and other threats to their environmental
integrity.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my good friend
from Washington that I have no further speakers and I will be prepared
to close whenever he is. Until such time, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the prime sponsor of the bill in question
today.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington
State for not only yielding me this time and for his good work on the
Rules Committee, but for his support of my bill, H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak right now not only as a Member of
the United States House of Representatives, but also as a forester,
educated at this country's first forestry school, licensed by my home
State by exam to practice forestry. If there is an issue that I
understand that comes before this Congress, it is our forests.
As I listen to accusations from across the aisle, I trust my
colleagues are not intentionally trying to mislead, but they seem to
know so much about just what isn't so. This is a bipartisan bill with
Democratic cosponsors and it is based on sound scientific management.
Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor today to debate a rule and, as you
know, this rule is part of the process of the House of Representatives
that will conclude later this afternoon with votes not only on this
rule, but eventually on the underlying legislation.
The process of moving this bill through the House began earlier this
year, as I and a number of Members representing multiple committees
talked about and debated different ideas and what we hoped for in a
final piece of legislation. After hundreds of meetings with
stakeholders on all sides of this issue, on both sides of the aisle,
[[Page H8313]]
and countless hours of work by Members and staff alike, I believe that
the House stands ready to vote to improve the condition of our national
forest land.
However, the hard work of everyone involved will be for naught if the
Senate fails to act. For that reason, I encourage our colleagues in the
Senate to take up this legislation, debate it, offer solutions, and act
to make a difference on our national forests and our rural communities.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Our national forests are in the poorest
condition this Nation has ever seen, and will continue to degrade if we
fail to act and complete the work that has started here. However, I
believe that we have reason to be encouraged. The Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee recently held a hearing on a discussion
draft that includes similar forest management provisions as H.R. 2936,
and I know the other committees of jurisdiction are working on forest
reform legislation as well.
{time} 1300
This is not only a forest health issue; it is a public health issue
that demands action. Shame on us if we continue to stand idly by and
watch our treasured national forests go up in smoke while people suffer
and die. I stand here today to encourage the House to adopt this rule
and pass this bill, therefore allowing the United States Senate to take
up the legislation, or, at the very least, something similar to it.
Pass it and allow us to meet at conference and work out the
differences. Let us present a workable solution to the President for
his signature.
This year, more than 8.8 million acres of wildfire burned, as has
been pointed out, and there is an additional 80 million acres on the
verge of spawning more catastrophic wildfires. How many more acres must
burn? How many more lives must be lost?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, how many more dreams will be ruined
before we come together to address this critical issue?
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Mr. Newhouse, from
the Rules Committee, as well as Mr. Westerman, for their work on this
bill.
I rise in support, Mr. Speaker, of the rule for consideration of H.R.
2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act, a bill that will help address
the wildfire crisis that is plaguing our Nation as well as begin the
very important process of restoring the health of our forests.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the largest wildfire
years in our Nation's history. We have seen livelihoods across the West
threatened and seen the lives of our brave firefighters put in harm's
way. These fires are deadly, and, tragically, more than 40 people lost
their lives when fast-moving wildfires swept through northern
California just a few weeks ago.
Mr. Speaker, we have particularly felt the effects in my State of
Wyoming, where we find ourselves in an absolutely indefensible
situation. Fires are being caused and worsened by Federal
mismanagement. Eight years of Federal policy opposing proven methods of
forest management and, instead, focusing on efforts to prevent all
human use of our forests have done significant damage.
This damage is not just to the forests that we have had to watch
burn, Mr. Speaker, but we have also seen tremendous damage to our water
in postfire situations where the water is contaminated with ash;
significant damage to wildlife habitat, the health of our forests, to
property, and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, to human life.
Under the bad policies and the mismanagement from the Federal
Government, we have seen our forests become overgrown, accumulating
unsafe levels of hazardous biofuels that have become an absolute
tinderbox for these fires. We must take action now.
This bill, as my colleagues have pointed out, is a bipartisan effort
to begin to take the steps we know will help reduce hazardous fuels and
improve the management of our forests. We must also act, Mr. Speaker,
as a Congress, to fix the fire-borrowing issue. The Resilient Federal
Forests Act takes a significant step toward ending the practice of fire
borrowing, and simplifies the process for implementing proper,
effective forest management strategies.
Mr. Speaker, I urge, therefore, the adoption of the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, to
demonstrate the importance of this particular piece of legislation to
the whole country.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. This bill is a commonsense,
thoughtful approach to restore our forests and minimize forest fire
risk.
First and foremost, I thank Representative Westerman for
understanding the need for these vital reforms. He has been a great
partner to work with and has a keen understanding of how to restore our
forests.
This bill contains a number of needed reforms, but, in particular,
H.R. 2936 will put an end to obstructionist litigation that has been
paralyzing the ability of the Forest Service to manage their own land
for years.
The legislation creates an arbitration pilot program that requires
anyone suing to block a forest management activity to produce an
alternative solution, providing effective resolutions to problems
rather than frivolous litigant activity. The bill also puts a limit on
the amount of taxpayer dollars that can go to pay legal fees of
obstructionist groups when they sue to stop management.
It seems that every year we have a longer, more devastating fire
season. In my home State of California this year, it has been
particularly devastating in both lives and land lost. These fires
demand that we act, and we need to act now, to fix our forest
management.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this
issue.
One last thing: Go Dodgers.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, most all Western States were impacted in
one way or another by catastrophic fires this summer. Particularly hard
hit was the great State of Oregon.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Rules
Committee, my colleague from across the river in Washington State. My
apologies to Washingtonians because one of our fires, the Eagle Creek
fire, actually spotted across the mighty Columbia River, set fire to
part of the forests in Washington State down near Stevenson.
Fortunately, that fire was extinguished. The one on the Oregon side was
terribly dangerous, man-caused, human-caused. It blew out 14 miles in
one night headed toward Portland.
These are monster fires. We lost 678,000 acres this year to forest
fires in my great State of Oregon. It is about two-thirds of the entire
size of the State of Rhode Island. It is enormous. This is happening
year after year, and the consequences are extraordinary.
Smoke chokes our airsheds. Schools literally had to shut down and
send kids home because it was too smoky to have them inside the school.
The 30th anniversary of Cycle Oregon was canceled. That is a major
annual bicycle ride that occurs; 30 years, the 30th anniversary,
canceled. They couldn't find a way to pull it off. The Shakespeare
Festival down in Ashland, nine performances had to be canceled;
$400,000, Mr. Speaker, just in ticket receipts that had to be foregone.
I am told they had to lay off people as a result.
When you think about not only the lost forests--this is what a forest
looks like after it is burned--the ground is often sterilized. You
can't even go back and replant for a year or two in some cases because
there is no soil left.
The impacts are enormous on our environment. Those of us who are
concerned about the environment, about carbon emissions into the
atmosphere,
[[Page H8314]]
in 2015, when a like amount was burned in Oregon, the Forest Service
estimated the blazes emitted more than 90,000 tons of fine particulates
and 14.2 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That is
equivalent to more than 3 million cars; 3 million cars.
The cause of these increasingly catastrophic fires, as Dr. John
Bailey of the Oregon State University's College of Forestry pointed out
during a hearing earlier this month in our Energy and Commerce
Committee, in some cases, the forest landscapes in my part of Oregon,
eastern Oregon that would have historically held about 20 trees per
acre, have more than 1,000 trees growing there today.
You see, we have stopped management. In many cases, we have stopped
fire. The forests continue to grow, and die, and build, and get more
dense, and so when fire does strike, it is with devastating
consequence.
My friend from Florida, and he is my friend, when he gets
thunderstorms in Florida in the summer, he gets a lot of rain with it,
I bet. If we have thunderstorms in Oregon, we don't get the rain. We
went nearly 90 days without any rain, but we still got lightning. The
lightning torches these forests and starts a lot of these blazes.
A 2014 study in California by the Nature Conservancy, Forest Service,
and others found that these types of projects can reduce the intensity
of fires up to 70 percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. My intensity of this
issue is almost that of the fires we fight.
We can reduce the size and intensity of fires by 70 percent if we do
the kinds of projects that thin out the forest, better manage, and be
better stewards of our public Federal forests that are contemplated as
a result of this legislation.
In Oregon, this bill would take away an arbitrary prohibition on
harvesting trees over 21 inches in diameter that has tied the hands of
our forest managers. We would clarify timber production mandates of the
unique Oregon-California lands in southern and western Oregon to live
with the underlying statute and actually have it enforced.
When fires do happen, we would exchange this for a new, healthy
forest that would grow green trees that sequester carbon and restore a
landscape that we in the West so enjoy.
It is long past time to fix our broken forest policy. I commend the
Rules Committee for bringing this bill forward, and I commend Mr.
Westerman, Mr. Bishop, and others who have worked on this on both sides
of the aisle to help us stop the fires that ravage, and kill, and
destroy, and to help us have healthy, green forests.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his passionate words about the
impact of catastrophic fires in his State.
He is right. The fire from Oregon did jump the Columbia River into
Washington, but that is not the only thing that they shared with us
this summer. My own community, the Yakima Valley, was filled with smoke
for probably 6 weeks this summer, causing all kinds of health issues
for the citizens of central Washington, not just from Oregon, but smoke
also from as far away as Montana and Idaho, and other parts of the
Northwest.
In fact, I was just handed a news article, I would like to note, from
the Methow Valley News, which if you have never been to the Methow
Valley, it is one of the most pristine, beautiful places on the face of
the Earth. They are talking about the quality of air in the Methow
Valley in the community of Twisp.
The air pollution in Twisp, Washington, is considered among the worst
in the State, if you can imagine that, in some of the most beautiful,
clean, pristine areas that you can imagine. The air quality, largely
due to these catastrophic fires year round, has been impacted
negatively. That is something that, thanks to the Methow Valley News,
they are making very clear to all of us that we need to do something to
address this particularly important issue.
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), my neighbor to the east, the Congressperson
from the Fifth Congressional District of the State of Washington.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding and for his leadership on this very important issue.
I am pleased to see this legislation, the Resilient Federal Forests
Act coming to the floor today. I also want to express appreciation to
Representative Westerman for his leadership through the years on this
issue. In recent years, in my home State, as has been mentioned, in
Washington State, we have seen larger and larger devastating wildfires,
breaking all of the records, and it seems like every year they just get
larger and larger, and more devastating.
They impact people's health. It is not unusual now for air quality
warnings to be in eastern Washington, not just for days, but weeks at
end, where it really does impact people's health. It jeopardizes our
safety--the stories of people who are caught in the midst of these
fires--and it is destroying our environment.
We like to think of our forests as being green and healthy stands of
trees, but, unfortunately, today, when you look at these forests,
millions of acres, millions and millions of acres within the U.S.
Forest Service are actually diseased, dying, bug-infested trees.
I had the opportunity to meet with the chief of the Forest Service
just last week, and he said that he estimated 80 million out of the 198
million acres that the U.S. Forest Service owns needs treatment.
The Forest Service has warned us for years that the forests are in
terrible shape. It is really a result of decades of overregulation and
frivolous lawsuits that have hindered forest management, and we are
paying the price.
I represent the Colville National Forest which is about a million-
acre forest. It is really the engine of our economy in the Northwest.
Because what happens in the Colville National Forest determines whether
or not we have Vaagen Brothers Lumber, or 49 Degrees North Ski &
Snowboard Resort, or the biomass facility that Avista runs, converting
wood waste into electricity.
This is all providing jobs, energy, recreational opportunities, yet
mills have been closed, and jobs have been lost. It is unacceptable. It
is time to pass the Resilient Federal Forests Act legislation.
{time} 1315
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentlewoman from
Washington State for her remarks.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 3\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly show this is an example of some
of the fire damage. If you can see that, this is from the Carlton
Complex Fire that happened 3 years ago in my district in central
Washington, taken just yesterday.
The Carlton Complex burned through State, private, and Federal lands.
So you can see that these dead, fire-damaged trees have not been
logged, they have not been removed, and what they do is provide the
kindling for the next catastrophic fire.
So that is what we are talking about here, not disarming local
communities but actually arming them and giving them the ability and
the tools that they need in order to prevent these catastrophic fires.
I would invite the good gentleman from Florida to come with me to
witness firsthand the devastation and the potential devastation that we
have and to really understand the nature of the issue. I would
reciprocate with a visit to his State to see the damage done by the
devastating hurricanes as well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend that I am prepared to close. I have
no additional speakers, and I will go forward with your permission.
In the wake of the worst wildfires, as have been mentioned here by so
many
[[Page H8315]]
of our colleagues, that the U.S. has experienced in quite a while,
House Republicans, however, have responded by bringing to the floor,
really, a tired bill passed last Congress that went nowhere in the
Senate, a bill that does not fix the true problem of chronically
underfunding wildfire prevention but, instead, doubles down in creating
an unworkable system for wildfire suppression funding, a bill that
rolls back environmental protection and limits access to the courts.
It is dismaying to see the response to natural disasters in this
country hinge on the same thing so many other important debates do:
partisanship and ignoring facts and science.
Despite a year in which we have seen historic hurricanes and
wildfires, my Republican colleagues have yet again resorted to
continuing to push policies that repeal environmental regulations, all
the while denying the effects climate change is having on our
communities and our country's economy.
My friend from Oregon, a moment ago--and he is my friend--spoke about
the thunderstorms that we receive in Florida. In his version, it is
accompanied by rain, and that is true a lot. But we, too, have droughts
in Florida, and Florida is known as the lightning capital of the world.
Very occasionally, particularly in central Florida and in the
Everglades, those lightning strikes produce wildfires in the
congressional district that I serve and many others. Our response to
these events needs to improve, and it needs to happen quickly.
These disasters do not recognize congressional districts. These
disasters do not target one area of our country over another and do not
care about Republican or Democratic partisan gamesmanship. If we are
going to adequately respond to the needs of millions of American
citizens in the wake of these and future storms and future wildfires,
we need to be advocating for sound policies based on science. This is
the only way to protect future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the newspaper article from the
Methow Valley News, dated October 27.
[From the Methow Valley News, Oct. 27, 2017]
Smoke Is a Year-Round Problem in the Valley
(By Ann McCreary)
Autumn in the Methow Valley brings cool, crisp weather,
bright days and colorful foliage. And smoke. Just like every
other season of the year.
The Methow Valley's clean, clear air--one of its key
attractions--is anything but clean and clear for extended
periods of the year. In fact, the Methow Valley has four
seasons of smoke, said Liz Walker, head of the Methow Valley
Clean Air Project.
And it is not insignificant amounts of smoke, Walker said.
Air pollution in Twisp is among the worst in the state, based
on data from the Washington Department of Ecology.
Each season in the Methow Valley brings its own source of
air pollution. In recent years, the all-too-familiar pall of
wildfire smoke has hung over the valley for days or weeks
during summer. As wildfires are put out by cooler, wet
weather of fall, the valley enters another phase of smoke
produced by prescribed burning in national forests, outdoor
burn piles and wood stoves for home heating.
In spring, prescribed burning begins again, as well as more
burn piles. ``Maybe a respite in June and early July, and
then wildfire season will be upon us,'' Walker said.
Although wildfire season can bring health-threatening
amounts of smoke to the valley, like last summer's Diamond
Creek Fire, poor air quality is a real concern in winter as
well, Walker said. ``We're susceptible to inversions and
stagnation in the winter months'' that trap wood stove smoke
on the valley floor, she said.
Smoke is the air pollutant of greatest concern in the
Methow Valley, and is monitored by the Department of Ecology.
It is known as PM2.5, which means particulate matter that is
2.5 microns or smaller. These tiny particles are most
frequently caused by incomplete combustion, and can stay
airborne and can travel long distances, increasing the
likelihood that humans and animals will inhale them.
Data collected by a Department of Ecology air monitor in
Twisp ranked air quality at that site among the eight most-
polluted places in the state in 2016, Walker said. ``By
several of the measures the Department of Ecology uses to
look at PM2.5 pollution reported at air quality monitors
across the state, Twisp ranks among the worst in air
pollution--worse than metro Seattle or Tacoma. This is even
after PM2.5 from wildfire smoke is subtracted out,'' Walker
said.
There was insufficient data from the air pollution monitor
in Winthrop to assess air quality there last year, ``but it
is typically only slightly better than Twisp,'' Walker said.
Public cost
``Our valley cares a lot about this, and we're working
together to improve it. There's a real public health cost to
air pollution. Anyone who has sat around a campfire, or gone
for a strenuous hike on a smoky day has had a firsthand
lesson in the toxicity of smoke,'' Walker said.
Walker's concern about health impacts come from her
training as an environmental health toxicologist. Harmful
effects range from the inability to exercise outdoors, to
respiratory distress and infections, to increased risk of
cancer.
``For vulnerable populations--babies, children, pregnant
women, elders, and anyone with heart or lung issues--bad air
days can mean serious health repercussions. For everyone,
chronic exposure to high levels of PM2.5 can potentially
trigger or exacerbate conditions such as headaches, asthma,
bronchitis and cardiovascular disease.''
There are economic costs of air pollution in the Methow
Valley as well, she said. ``We're a tourist economy,
dependent on the natural beauty of the valley,'' Walker said.
The Methow Valley Clean Air Project was launched in 2015 by
Raleigh Bowden, a local physician, after she saw people
suffering health effects of poor winter air quality, Walker
said. A key goal of the project is improving air quality
during the home heating season, October through March.
``Due to our valley's frequent winter inversions, smoke
from woodstoves and outdoor burning pollutes our air to
frequently unhealthy levels,'' Walker said. ``We've focused
on the home heating season because this is when we can make
behavioral changes to improve our air quality. This is a
controllable source of pollution, as contrasted with
pollution from wildfires.''
The Clean Air Project outlines measures residents can take
to reduce pollution from wood stoves, including: Properly
season wood so that it is dry and burns cleaner; clean
chimneys yearly; build small, hot fires and don't damp them
down; comply with burn bans; upgrade to certified stoves or a
wood-burning alternative; weatherize homes.
The organization is also working to reduce outdoor burning
of yard waste and provide alternatives, including
``vegetation drives'' sponsored by the Clean Air Project,
Walker said.
Successful drives
Vgetation drives, supported by grants and partnerships,
were held in the fall of 2016 and spring of 2017, and another
drive is scheduled next spring. Past drives have collected
about 20 tons of vegetation, which prevented hundreds or
thousands of hours of smoke, Walker said.
The yard waste was dropped off by residents and hauled to
the county landfill during the first drive, conducted over
two days. During the second drive, conducted over eight days
in partnership with the Town of Twisp, residents delivered
vegetation to a site near the Twisp wastewater treatment
plant, where it was chipped and offered free for landscaping
and mulching.
``The most unusual community participant brought his load
strapped to the back of his bicycle--now that's commitment to
clean air!'' Walker said.
The Clean Air Project also partnered this year with the
Pine Forest Homeowners Association to provide support for
chipping branches and slash created when underbrush and trees
were thinned and limbed as part of Pine Forest's ongoing
Firewise efforts. The debris would otherwise have been
burned.
Next spring's vegetation drive will be conducted in
partnership with the Okanogan Conservation District, Walker
said. She suggested that residents who have been accumulating
yard waste cover their piles this fall instead of burning
them, and haul them to the vegetation drive in the spring to
be chipped.
Walker acknowledged that it takes extra effort, and a
different mindset, to participate in a vegetation drive
rather than burn yard waste. ``It's hard. Our valley is long.
It requires a truck, loading it up and hauling it in,'' she
said. ``People have been outdoor burning in the valley
forever. It's how you get rid of your stuff when you live out
in the country.''
However, Walker said, many valley residents have been
supportive of the vegetation drives. ``People really
appreciate this as an option. They don't want to impact the
health of families and the community,'' she said.
For people who want to continue the longstanding local
tradition of burning yard waste, the Clean Air Project
suggests ``best practices for burning outdoors in the most
safe and clean way,'' Walker said.
``Make sure the pile is as bone dry as possible. Make sure
you know what is a good day, with good ventilation, but not
too much wind. We've interacted with Fire District 6 and
smokejumpers. There are lots of folks with tons of knowledge
about how to build a hot, clean pile,'' she said.
The Clean Air Project is overseen by a volunteer advisory
group. The Methow Valley Citizens' Council is fiscal sponsor
for the organization. More information is available on the
Methow Valley Clean Air Project Facebook page.
[[Page H8316]]
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for
today's debate.
The issue of proactive management of our Nation's Federal forests is
critically important to the future and economic well-being of our whole
country as well as to the health of our Federal lands and safety of our
rural communities.
Let me say that, if you have never been through a rural community
that has had to face the devastation of a catastrophic fire, you are
welcome to come to the State of Washington and see firsthand exactly
the kind of damage that these fires can do.
This is of the highest priority, and I urge all my colleagues to
support this rule as well as the underlying bill in order to combat
these catastrophic wildfires and reform the way in which we manage our
forests.
This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2936, the Resilient
Federal Forests Act of 2017. This is bipartisan, it is comprehensive,
and it aims at addressing the disastrous consequences of catastrophic
wildfires by utilizing the tools the Forest Service and other agencies
have to reduce the threats posed by these fires, by insects, by disease
infestation, and by dangerous old forest overgrowth.
As I said, my district in central Washington and millions of acres
across our great country continue to face this threat. We must take
steps to prevent and address these fires, which this bill will do by
reforming the way we prepare for, respond to, and fund wildfire
response and mitigation efforts. These threats will only continue to
worsen not only for my constituents, but for people all around the
country.
We are recognizing sustained drought conditions. Mismanagement and
failure to conduct maintenance of our forests on Federal lands will
continue to plague this issue. The underlying legislation is essential
and desperately needed to change the outdated, unsustainable, and
untimely dangerous system of Federal forest management on these lands.
Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward rule allowing for
consideration of a critical piece of legislation that will help protect
our rural communities and ensure we are prepared to respond to these
devastating, catastrophic fires.
I appreciate the discussion we have had today. I believe that this is
a critical measure, and I urge my colleagues to support House
Resolution 595 and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 595 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children 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 the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 184, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 592]
YEAS--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
[[Page H8317]]
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--184
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Barragan
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Clyburn
Cummings
DeGette
DesJarlais
Garamendi
Gomez
Hill
Jackson Lee
Nadler
Perry
Pocan
Polis
Smith (NE)
{time} 1345
Messrs. BROWN of Maryland and LARSON of Connecticut changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. JONES changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 184, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 593]
AYES--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
[[Page H8318]]
NOT VOTING--16
Barragan
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Clyburn
Collins (NY)
Cummings
DeGette
DesJarlais
Garamendi
Gomez
Hill
Nadler
Perry
Pocan
Polis
Smith (NE)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1353
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 592, and ``Yea'' on
rollcall No. 593.
____________________