[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 194 (Wednesday, November 29, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9479-H9491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3017, BROWNFIELDS ENHANCEMENT,
ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT, AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3905, MINNESOTA'S ECONOMIC RIGHTS IN THE
SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST ACT
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 631 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 631
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3017) to
amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 to reauthorize and improve the
brownfields program, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-40 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3905) to
require congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or
monument designation involving the National Forest System
lands in the State of Minnesota, to provide for the renewal
of certain mineral leases in such lands, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-41 shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources; (2) the further
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member
designated in the report, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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.
{time} 1245
General Leave
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 631,
which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3017,
Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization
Act of 2017; and a structured rule for H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic
Rights in the Superior National Forest Act.
Mr. Speaker, brownfield refers normally to abandoned or closed
commercial or industrial properties that may be contaminated because of
their prior use. These sites often represent a tremendous amount of
untapped economic potential. However, developing that potential is
complicated by the presence of hazardous substances or contaminants.
The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that there are more
than 50,000 brownfields in the United States. The brownfields program
has enjoyed broad bipartisan support and has been critical in
converting these vacant sites into tax-generating properties and,
eventually, well-paying jobs for American citizens.
As of May 1, 2017, the program has assessed 26,722 sites, and they
have leveraged over 124,760 jobs. On average, Mr. Speaker, over $16 is
leveraged for every EPA brownfields dollar spent, and 8.5 jobs are
leveraged per $100,000 of EPA brownfields funds.
States all over the country have benefited from this grant program.
In my home State of Wyoming, we put brownfield grants to use in cities
like Casper, Cheyenne, Sheridan, Evanston, Kemmerer, Laramie, and
Dubois.
Brownfield sites have been revitalized using these funds in places
like the Minute Maid Park in Houston, Texas; development in the
neighborhoods around Danville, Illinois; and the Grijalva Park at
Santiago Creek in Orange, California.
The brownfields program has been expired, Mr. Speaker, since 2006,
and it is high time we reauthorize this critically important grant
program.
The brownfields program has enabled local communities to clean up and
repurpose vacated sites, utilizing them for meaningful economic
development, while responsibly cleaning up hazardous sites. This is an
important step in maintaining and improving what has been a
demonstrably effective program.
Mr. Speaker, the rule we consider today also provides for
consideration of a very important bill, H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic
Rights in the Superior National Forest Act, which was introduced by my
colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
H.R. 3905 requires congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal
or monument designation involving the National Forest System lands in
the State of Minnesota and provides for the renewal of certain mineral
leases in those lands.
This is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because in the final hours of the
Obama administration, the administration withdrew hundreds of thousands
of acres in Minnesota from mineral development and improperly
terminated two Federal mineral leases.
The effect of this decision halted potential mining projects in
Minnesota, robbing the region of 650 direct and 1,300 indirect jobs, as
well as the tax revenue the mining operation would bring.
Mining jobs, Mr. Speaker, are good, high-paying jobs. The average
mining wage in Minnesota is roughly $25,000 a year higher than the
average wage in the State.
Coming from a State where we mine more coal than any State in the
Nation, I understand and appreciate the economic development mining
projects can bring to a region. We also understand the burden that can
be imposed by working with the Federal Government on these projects in
Wyoming.
Roughly half my State, Mr. Speaker, is comprised of Federal lands.
Receiving the appropriate authorizations to drill or mine on these
lands can be a lengthy and cumbersome process that delays projects for
many years.
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we must improve our Federal regulatory
process so we can better harness the vast natural resources we have in
our country, while still protecting and conserving our environment.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage support for the rule for these
important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the
consideration of two bills.
The first piece of legislation, H.R. 3017, is a bipartisan compromise
to extend the EPA's brownfields program. The successful brownfields
program assists communities across this country in cleaning up
contaminated sites to reduce pollution and health risks and spur
economic development.
Although funding for this program has enjoyed broad support over the
years, its authorization lapsed in 2006; 11 years ago. It is certainly
long past time for this important program to be reauthorized. I
appreciate the work of Republicans and Democrats on both the Energy and
Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees in coming
together to produce this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this is how the process is supposed to work. There was a
hearing, and there was a markup. I should
[[Page H9480]]
say, for the Record, the majority could have issued an open rule,
instead of a closed rule. But I am not even going to criticize that
today, Mr. Speaker, because experts on this issue came together to
negotiate it in a bipartisan manner, and the result is a good piece of
legislation that I look forward to voting for later this week.
I commend Mr. McKinley, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Pallone, and all those who
worked together, and I just want to say for the Record, as one who
routinely gets up here and criticizes the majority for issuing closed
rules and structured rules all the time, I do so not just as a knee-
jerk reaction to what they produce in the Rules Committee. I do it
because usually they do closed rules and structured rules to basically
stifle a deliberative process. They do it to shut off debate and to
shut out other people's opinions. Quite frankly, the majority's record
on rules is abysmal.
In this case, what we are doing is bringing forward something that
represents a bipartisan process. I wish this wasn't an anomaly. I wish
that the majority would understand that, in the House of
Representatives, the views of Democrats are just as important as the
views of Republicans. If you want to get things done, you need to come
together in the spirit of compromise and work together for the good of
the American people, not just for the good of one political party, not
just so you can issue a press release, not just so you can play gotcha
games, but actually produce things that are meaningful.
If the Republican leadership would drop their all-or-nothing approach
to governing more often, support genuine bipartisan negotiations and
compromise, and open up the process on all pieces of legislation, both
minor and substantial, we might be able to get something done around
here. Maybe we could have more than 12 bills of any sort of real
significance signed into law.
This rule also brings to the floor legislation, I am sad to say, that
would do irreparable harm to our federally protected land by allowing a
foreign company the ability to use a half-century-old lease to mine
right next door to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
H.R. 3905 would allow a Chilean mining company, which is facing tens
of millions of dollars in fines from the Chilean Government for their
failure to protect nearby water resources, the ability to mine just
upstream of pristine U.S.-protected land.
This is all based on a 50-year-old lease--a lease that didn't go
through any environmental review because NEPA didn't exist yet. There
are Members of this Chamber who weren't even born when this lease was
signed.
My colleagues in the majority will claim that this bill will help
create jobs, but what about the 22,000 jobs that the local protected
land already supports?
What will happen to those jobs when the water is so polluted that no
one can visit the recreational area around the mine?
The truth is, this isn't about jobs. It is about helping a few rich
owners of mining companies line their pockets at the expense of the
environment. In fact, the recipient of this Republican handout is a
subsidiary of a Chilean company, Antofagasta, which is controlled by
Chilean billionaire Andronico Luksic Craig. And get this: he just
happens to be the landlord of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, President
Trump's daughter and son-in-law and senior advisers to the Trump White
House.
You cannot make this stuff up. This is part of a pattern of sketchy
deals and questionable business contacts involving the President and
his family and their closest advisers.
Earlier this month, we learned that President Trump and his family
made millions through a hotel in Panama financed by Colombian drug
cartels and the Russian Mafia. We still don't even know how these new
deals will boost President Trump's income or how his family profits off
of the Presidency, because we are 312 days into his Presidency, and we
still haven't seen his tax returns.
Imagine if this were Hillary Clinton. Imagine if this were Barack
Obama. Imagine the screams on the other side of the aisle demanding
transparency and an open process. But when it comes to covering up all
these sketchy deals on behalf of this President of the United States,
there is silence.
President Trump promised to drain the swamp, but, instead, he has
created a cesspool. There are so many conflicts of interest, this
administration is on a collision course with corruption.
Mr. Speaker, we have only 6 legislative days left before the
government runs out of money, but the Speaker of the House thinks
another corporate handout, this time to Jared Kushner and Ivanka
Trump's landlord, is the most pressing issue that needs to be resolved
in Congress this week.
If the Speaker wants some suggestions as things we ought to focus on
this week, I know Democrats in this Chamber have a few. I can give you
an example.
Democrats think we should be debating a funding bill to avert the
coming shutdown on December 8, when the temporary spending bill
expires.
Democrats want to debate and pass the Dream Act, ending the turmoil
this President has caused by upending the lives of 800,000 young
immigrant DREAMers and their families.
Democrats want to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program,
known as CHIP, and community health centers, whose authorization
expired 2 months ago.
Democrats think we ought to debate flood insurance reauthorization,
which expires on December 8.
Democrats want to pass additional hurricane relief to help those who
are still recovering from devastating hurricanes in Texas, Florida, and
Puerto Rico.
Democrats want to address funding for the Veterans Choice Program,
which is set to run out of money before the end of the year.
But instead, here we are, considering yet another ridiculous, extreme
antienvironment bill.
Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle love talking
about returning this country to the way it used to be. I have seen the
Make America Great Again stickers on many of their cars.
I can think of no pastime more important or more significant to our
national heritage and identity than our wilderness and protected areas.
My friends and colleagues who have spent time in the Boundary Waters
tell me how stunning it is. They say it is one of the most beautiful
places in our country. And we are going to risk polluting this national
treasure with copper-sulfide acid drainage running into the streams
that feed the Boundary Waters?
Worse yet, this bill makes these mining leases impossible to ever
overturn, even should the Bureau of Land Management conclude its
environmental assessment and rule against further mining in this
protected national forest.
This is a slippery slope. If we continue to allow corporations to
pillage our federally protected wilderness areas, we are opening the
door to irreversible damage. What is next? Clear-cutting in Yellowstone
Forest? Oil drilling off the coast of Acadia National Park?
Mr. Speaker, I beg my Republican friends to drop this assault on our
public lands and urge the leadership of this House to bring up the
urgent bills and priorities that we need to deal with before adjourning
in less than 3 weeks' time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose
efforts that will further degrade our natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to be clear about exactly what
H.R. 3905 does.
H.R. 3905 does not eliminate environmental requirements. In fact, it
will only allow mining as long as those strict environmental
requirements are met. What it does do is allow Minnesota itself to
advance its State and local economies.
I applaud my colleague from Massachusetts' commitment and dedication
to working together to try and come up with solutions about things
like, for example, funding the government. I will just point out that
if Democrats were, in fact, so dedicated to working with Republicans to
fund the government and to begin to come to a solution, to come to an
agreement, perhaps
[[Page H9481]]
their leadership would have shown up yesterday at the White House to
have meetings and discussions about funding the government. It is
awfully hard to claim that you are very dedicated and committed to that
concept if you don't have leaders who show up to the key meetings.
I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, my colleague has called our
bills and our process here ridiculous and extreme.
{time} 1300
I can't help but note that what is truly ridiculous and extreme, Mr.
Speaker, are the massive increases in ObamaCare premiums that my
constituents all across Wyoming are now facing.
My constituents are now facing a situation, because of ObamaCare,
because of this health plan that was supposed to provide coverage for
everybody, low-cost coverage for everybody, that was supposed to
guarantee access, guarantee if you liked your doctor, you could keep
him or her, guarantee that you would be able to afford healthcare, my
constituents are now facing premiums that will bankrupt them.
They are now receiving bills that demonstrate that their premiums
next year, for example, for a retired married couple of two, the lowest
amount that they can pay under the ObamaCare Bronze Plan is $2,700 a
month. Now, that is absolutely unsustainable, and that is what is
ridiculous and extreme.
What we are doing today is making sure that we pass legislation that
reauthorizes the important brownfields program that restores rights to
the State of Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. McKinley), the sponsor of H.R. 3017.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule on
H.R. 3017, the Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment and
Reauthorization Act of 2017. I am proud to be the sponsor of this bill,
which has broad bipartisan support, as you have been hearing about. It
will reauthorize the very successful EPA program, brownfields program,
for the first time since it was enacted.
Like my colleague Mr. Woodall said last night in the Rules Committee,
even though the brownfields site program is something that we all
support, and brownfields is something we all have in our districts,
working out the details of legislation like this is not easy, but the
fact that we are here today with a compromise bipartisan bill and no
amendment speaks volumes of how much support there is for H.R. 3017 and
the brownfields program.
There is no dispute that the EPA brownfields program has been a
success. As you just heard from the gentlewoman from Wyoming, the
program has resulted in over 27,000 properties being reassessed to
start them on this road to being cleaned up, and it has resulted in
over 129,000 new jobs.
Over the life of the program, the Federal dollars invested have
resulted in over $25 billion in leveraged private investment. This is a
program we all should support, and we all should encourage our
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to fully fund this program
in the future.
I have confidence that H.R. 3017 will make the brownfields program
even more successful, and I urge my colleagues to be in support of the
rule and to vote for the bill on final passage.
I want to thank my committee chairman, John Shimkus, for his work and
the staff's work in bringing this bill together in a fine, compromised
fashion.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to my colleague from
Wyoming, you know, when she raised the issue of why our Democratic
leaders didn't show up to the meeting at the White House. Maybe she
didn't catch the President's tweet in which the President made it very
clear he didn't see a deal.
I am glad our leaders didn't show up because they are not props, and
we in the minority are not props either to be rolled out, to give the
appearance of bipartisanship or give the appearance that somehow you
are working with us when, in fact, you are not.
The President showed his hand. He had no interest in a deal, no
interest in working with us. And I would say that is one of the
problems in this House of Representatives, that the reason why we are
not more productive in getting things done and producing real
legislation to help the American people is because there is no
bipartisanship, very little. I made one exception to the issue on this
brownfields legislation, but on the big bills, nothing.
The gentlewoman brought up the Affordable Care Act. You know, what
was her solution to the Affordable Care Act? What was the Republican
majority's solution to making the Affordable Care Act better? I mean,
bringing a bill to the floor under the most closed process that you can
possibly imagine, a bill that would throw 23 million Americans off of
health insurance, what are my friends thinking?
When people talk about healthcare reform and improving the Affordable
Care Act, they talk about lowering prices; they talk about more
accessibility; they talk about more people getting coverage. What the
Republicans brought to the floor was a bill that would throw 23 million
Americans off of health insurance. That is their solution. That would
take away essential benefits protection for people who desperately need
health insurance to deal with this opiate crisis and a whole bunch of
other things.
So we don't want any lectures about what is extreme and what is
ridiculous in this House of Representatives. The way the majority
conducts business in this House is extreme and ridiculous. The
legislation, whether it is their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care
Act or even this tax bill that is a giveaway to corporate special
interests and is going to raise taxes on people earning $100,000, that
is extreme, that is wrong.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my Republican friends, again,
you know, if you want to get things done, if you want to work with us,
you have got to treat us as more than just props. You have to enter
into good faith negotiations. And I would say, if you did that, we
actually might get some things done around here that might improve the
quality of life for everybody in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just note, in response to my friend
and colleague from Massachusetts, that if the gentleman's leaders are
so fragile that they are scared off by a tweet, then probably they need
some new leaders. And I don't suspect that his argument really is they
couldn't go to the meeting because they were scared because of a tweet.
We do need to work together to get things done. We are hard at work
doing that.
In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee,
who oversaw this bill.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and my good friend,
Mr. McGovern, for the kind words.
What we did here was simple. It is not always simple to get through
the legislative process, but what we attempted to do was reauthorize a
bill that hadn't been authorized. Appropriated dollars were being
spent.
It has been the focus of the Republican Congress to make sure we
reauthorize programs, and we do that to fix things that have gone wrong
over the years or because a changing environment has occurred.
The last time the bill was really authorized was 2002. Fast-forward
15 years, there are things changed. The authorization amount was set.
We actually spent more than the authorization amount.
People love this program, but we have got to update it to the modern
day, and we need to fix some of the items. Those are reflected in this
bill, and I appreciate the Rules Committee hearing the debate,
addressing some of the concerns, and deciding that this bill can come
to the floor. As it was stated, no amendments were offered to debate on
this floor, which I think is a great process.
Simply put, I have a friend from Houston, Texas, who is very proud of
the Houston Astros, and he will cite Minute Maid Park. Minute Maid Park
is on a brownfields. So if you looked at the World Series and you saw
that beautiful facility, well, that is the result of the brownfields
program that we are now trying to update and fix.
[[Page H9482]]
The stats are pretty clear. I mean, you get a $16 return for every
dollar we put in at the Federal level. That is a great return on
investment. Jobs are increased by every projection, and even local land
values around the brownfields, the property values increase around
them. This and more will be debated and discussed when we bring the
bill to the floor tomorrow. This rule helps us do that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, one other thing I will end on, and I know
we will have a lot of debate and frustration and controversy, but this
did go through regular order. We had a hearing. We had a subcommittee
mark. As Mr. McGovern mentioned, we had a full committee mark. We
invested with our Democratic colleagues--they brought some ideas; some
were accepted; some were rejected; some of the ones that we had they
rejected--and we have a pretty good product to bring as part of this
rule.
I would ask my colleagues to support the rule so we can bring the
bill to the floor, and I thank my colleagues on the Rules Committee for
making it happen.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to again respond to my colleague from
Wyoming when she again raised the issue as to why our leaders didn't
show up to the White House. It is not because they have a fragile ego.
It is because they didn't want to waste their time. It is because they
didn't want to be a prop or just be there for a photo op. It is because
they are actually focused on trying to do the people's business, and
they are tired of the gamesmanship.
If the gentlewoman wants to talk about fragile egos, I would suggest
that she observe the behavior of the man who is in the Oval Office. I
mean, this is a guy who will get into a Twitter war with a basketball
player's father.
I would say that, and I would just respectfully urge my Republican
colleagues, now is the time for an intervention because we have serious
business to deal with in this country: there are issues of war and
peace; there are issues of domestic security; there are issues of
economic security that we have to deal with; and instead, we are
dealing with constant nonsense coming out of the White House. So it is
time for the Republican majority to intervene and to say to the
President, ``Enough is enough.''
Mr. Speaker, you know, for weeks, tax experts have been reporting
that the Republican tax plans would raise taxes on millions of middle
class families in order to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
Their proposed legislation may directly benefit President Trump and his
family members to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, according to
independent analyses. President Trump has denied this, stating that he
would be a bigger loser if the House GOP tax bill is approved.
Well, without his tax returns, we simply have no way of knowing
exactly how much President Trump stands to gain from the tax bill. The
American people deserve to know whether or not our President is
directly benefiting from legislation that would hurt millions of
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R.
305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the
Presidency to release their tax returns.
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, there are so many
conflicts of interest in this administration, and especially with this
President. This administration is on a collision course with
corruption. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to stand up and to
be united and to demand a little sunshine on what the reality is.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I urge my
colleagues to defeat the previous question so that the House can vote
on my bipartisan legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.
This bill codifies the longstanding, bipartisan tradition of Presidents
and Presidential nominees disclosing their tax return information to
the American people.
The Republican majority and the President are currently working in
overdrive to pass a distorted tax bill that will raise the taxes on 82
million middle class families. It takes one's breath away.
I and many others have spoken at length about the harm this bill will
do to the middle class, from targeting the mortgage interest deduction,
to raising the cost of higher education and graduate school for student
loans, to limiting the deductibility of State and local taxes. And, at
a time when our country is recovering from several natural disasters,
including major wildfires in California where 14,000 Californians have
lost their homes, the House-passed bill eliminates the deduction for
personal property losses resulting from natural disasters, which I find
to be especially cruel.
While it is very clear that the Republican tax bill will harm the
middle class, it is less clear how the bill will benefit one taxpayer
in particular, if he pays any taxes: the President of the United States
of America.
Mr. Trump is the wealthiest President in our Nation's history, but he
is also the only President, going back to Gerald Ford and all
Presidents moving forward who voluntarily put out their tax returns--he
is the only one--to refuse to release his tax returns, a lapse in
disclosure that is made all the more troubling given his all-out push
for tax cuts for the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class and
others in our country.
{time} 1315
How can Americans have any confidence in what is going on? They are
not fools. They understand that we are swimming around in conflicts of
interest, and nothing is being done about it.
Today, Republicans have an opportunity. And while we cannot know
exactly how the Republican tax bill will benefit the President, until
he releases his tax returns, we can be sure that this tax bill, which
is skewed toward the top 1 percent, will benefit the billionaire
Commander in Chief and his family. What an example for the American
people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ESHOO. The Republican tax bill cuts the tax rate for so-called
pass-through businesses, which is how many of the Trump family's
businesses are structured, including hotels, golf courses, and real
estate developments. Specifically, the tax rate for passive business
income, which is derived from licensing, royalties, and other
arrangements that the Trump organization specializes in, will be cut
from 39.6 percent to 25 percent in the Republican tax scam bill.
That same bill also repeals the alternative minimum tax, which we
know from Mr. Trump's leaked 2005 tax return forced him to pay an
additional $26 million in taxes that year. Without the AMT, he is
completely off the hook and would, essentially, have a measly 3 percent
effective tax rate: another great example for the American people. It
is no wonder they don't trust Washington, D.C.
Lastly, the Republican tax bill doubles the estate tax exemption to
$22 million, and guess who wins again? Mr. Trump.
Mr. Speaker, only with full disclosure of the President's tax returns
will we know how much he and his family will benefit from this
Republican tax scam. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up for
transparency, listen to the will of the American people, and vote on
this bipartisan legislation.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H9483]]
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a very
tough job. They have to argue for policies that have failed and argue
for policies that we have actually had to live through the failure of
those policies over the last 8 years.
My colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), asked us to imagine if Hillary Clinton were President,
and imagine if Barack Obama were President. Mr. Speaker, we don't have
to imagine. We lived through Barack Obama's Presidency. We know that we
would be, today, living through completely stagnant growth, a strangled
military unable to meet its commitments around the world, out-of-
control Federal agencies, a Federal Government that believed it had an
obligation to run every aspect of people's lives across this country,
and, at the same time, the Federal Government telling people that they
were forced to purchase insurance they didn't want and they didn't
need.
We know that has failed. We know that the whole system that the
Democrats believed would work, in terms of bringing healthcare costs
down, fundamentally failed. You cannot force people into the insurance
pools. The concept was, if you forced the young, healthy people in, you
would drop costs down for everybody. That is not what happened.
I have sympathy for them because it is a tough job that they are
undertaking, but it is very important that we argue based on the facts
on this floor, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the tax bill that I hope will come
back from the Senate--the tax bill that we passed out of the House, and
one that we will take to conference--reduces taxes for the middle
class, reduces taxes for families all across this country, doubles the
standard deduction, and takes steps towards making real what we know to
be true, which is taxpayer dollars don't belong to the government, Mr.
Speaker, taxpayer dollars belong to the American people.
If we allow people to keep more of their own money, they will invest
that money, they will grow our economy, and they will create jobs. That
is how we are going to get this economy growing and continue the
expansion and economic growth that we have seen just since this
President came into office.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that our
friends on the other side of the aisle will soon get over their
obsession with the 2016 election and actually work with the majority on
genuine tax reform, genuine healthcare reform, and, of course,
Congressman Emmer's good bill from Minnesota, H.R. 3905, which I am
proud to stand up and support today, to expand employment opportunities
for my home State of Minnesota.
Employers in the mining, energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing
industries have been struggling to invest in projects and employees
over the last 8 years.
In fact, when a business finally figures out a way to go forward,
determining the economic feasibility of a project, and decides to
invest, then the Federal Government comes in and changes the rules,
forcing them back to square one. Minnesota is all too familiar with
this process.
Last-ditch Federal, bureaucratic decisions are costing our citizens
thousands of well-paying jobs, our communities tax revenue, and our
State educational systems funding, and is costing many Minnesotans
their way of life.
Over the past 100 years, Congress has studied and voted on where
mining should and should not take place. Minnesota has a proud history
of protecting the State's natural beauty, while also encouraging safe
mining, providing jobs for our citizens, especially in the northeastern
part of the State. That is why they call it the Iron Range.
We now have private companies that are willing to invest in
Minnesota, employ our constituents, and grow our communities. And what
has the Federal Government done? They put up a road block, without
congressional intent or input.
The Federal Government is proposing to unilaterally ban mineral
exploration and development on 235,000 acres of land that was meant to
provide jobs in our State.
Mr. Speaker, Congressman Emmer's bill does not undo environmental
studies, the bill does not fast-track mining, and it doesn't even
approve a mine. It is simply a vote to let the State of Minnesota
review and approve mining operations, based on each individual's
projects, merits, and impacts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. That is why the Laborers' International Union
of North America, International Union of Operating Engineers,
Associated General Contractors of Minnesota, Jobs for Minnesotans
Coalition, North America's Building Trades Union, and United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, to name a few,
support the bill.
Congress has always respected what activities should be allowed to
occur in the several States. This legislation makes certain the public
and the State of Minnesota retain that authority.
That is why I am proud to vote in favor of this rule and eventual
passage of the MINER Act that allows Minnesotans more opportunity.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Wyoming talks about this great tax
bill that the Republicans have proposed. I would call her attention to
an article in Politico/Morning Consult today, which said that 8 percent
of Americans believe that the Senate should take the Republican House-
passed tax bill and enact it as-is--8 percent. I don't know how much
lower you can get.
I thought my friend's healthcare bill had terrible ratings. I think
it was like 17 percent of the American people supported it. I don't
know how she can walk around and be proud of what she is trying to do
here when the vast majority of the people don't want what you are
selling. They believe that these policies will be harmful.
We are supposed to be the House of Representatives--the people's
House--not the House of corporations, to give out special deals to
mining companies, or to pass tax bills that benefit corporations at the
expense of middle class families, or to pass healthcare reform that is
a giveaway to insurance companies and rips away health coverage from
millions and millions of people. I mean, come on.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we believe in transparency on this side of
the aisle, and we need to know what is behind some of these proposes in
this tax bill, to find out who is benefiting and who is not. We know a
lot of middle class families will not benefit. They are going to see
their taxes increase. But we would like to know whether or not this
President is going to benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a special welcome to the President
of the United States as he visits my home State of Missouri, which has
a great need for brownfield remediation.
I understand that President Trump's visit will focus on the
indefensible, reckless Republican tax scam that will raise taxes on
millions of middle class families. It will rob seniors, punish
students, weaken higher education, strip healthcare coverage away from
13 million Americans, and explode the debt by charging an additional
$1.4 trillion on the national credit card.
Mr. Speaker, the majority likes to talk about family values, and
there is no doubt that extremely wealthy families, like President
Trump's, will reap millions from your GOP tax scam.
But what about real Americans who will pay more and get less?
I would like President Trump to show me why he wants to raise taxes
on over 320,000 middle class families in Missouri. I would like
President Trump to show me why he wants to bury 255,000 Missouri
students, who hold student loans, even deeper in debt by eliminating
the deduction for student loan interest. I would like President Trump
to show me why he wants to harm 165,000 seriously ill Missouri
taxpayers, who will no longer be able to deduct medical expenses. And I
would like him to show me why, when asked about the State level impact
of the
[[Page H9484]]
Trump-GOP tax scam, even the Republican chairman of the Missouri House
Budget Committee, State Representative Scott Fitzpatrick of Shell Knob,
told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on November 9: ``We cannot have a
billion-dollar hole blown in the budget. We cannot afford that.''
I would like President Trump to show me why he wants to impose double
taxation on every Missouri taxpayer, who will no longer be able to
deduct State and local income taxes.
And I would like him to show me why he wants to weaken Medicare by
robbing it of over $25 billion over the next 10 years to help pay for
tax cuts for billionaires.
And, finally, I would like President Trump to show me how he intends
to ever look middle class families in the face again when he promised
to lower taxes for every American.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Missouri.
Mr. CLAY. Instead, this shameful GOP tax scam will ensure that the
haves will have more, and everyone else will pay for it.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the sponsor of H.R. 3905.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate on H.R. 3905, Minnesota's
Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act, also known as the
MINER Act, is not just important to the great State of Minnesota: this
legislation is critically important to the United States.
The MINER Act will reverse the misguided last minute actions of the
Obama administration to stop any exploration of one of the most
valuable precious metal deposits in the world. The MINER Act will
ensure that the people of Minnesota will have the opportunity for jobs
and economic prosperity that would come if the deposit can ever be
mined in an environmentally safe and responsible manner.
The MINER Act will renew the Federal Government's commitment and
promise to the citizens of Minnesota. When the Superior National Forest
was created in 1909, and later when the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was
established in 1978, there was an express agreement between the Federal
Government and the State of Minnesota that mining and logging could
continue in the Superior National Forest.
{time} 1330
In fact, according to the most recent Superior National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan, mining and logging are considered
desirable conditions in the forest.
This is about more than 10,000 jobs, which are now at risk because of
the lameduck actions of the Obama administration. This is about
billions of dollars in revenue for Minnesota's economy and billions
more in potential education funding for Minnesota's schools that are
now on the line.
This is also about strategically important metals and minerals, which
are used by Americans every day. The MINER Act, again, is about
protecting Minnesota's right to explore and, if environmentally
appropriate, to mine valuable precious metals--precious metals that are
not only necessary to our everyday technology, but which are critically
important to our Nation's national defense.
There are some who would like to deny Minnesota the right to explore
and potentially mine these precious metals. They argue that any mining
activity could negatively impact our beloved Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness. This concern, however, ignores the fact that if a mine is
ever proposed--and one has not, but if one is ever proposed--in the
Superior National Forest, it would have to satisfy all current local,
State, and Federal environmental review and permitting requirements
before it could ever be approved to proceed.
We can and we will protect the Boundary Waters. I have no doubt we
could find a way to preserve Minnesota's pristine landscape without
permanently destroying any future job creation or economic development
in Minnesota.
By passing the MINER Act today, we protect thousands of jobs and
billions of dollars in revenue and education funding while leaving an
extensive process intact to protect and preserve the environment and
our State.
In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the MINER
Act, because we know that someday someone might find a way to mine
these important precious metals in a safe and environmentally
responsible way. And if that happens, Minnesota deserves the
opportunity and the jobs and economic prosperity that will ensue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Minnesota Governor
Mark Dayton in opposition to H.R. 3905.
State of Minnesota,
Office of Governor Mark Dayton,
Saint Paul, MN, November 27, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: I write in strong opposition to HR3905,
which I understand has passed out of Committee and is being
reviewed by House Majority Leadership for a floor vote. I
implore you not to schedule a vote on this bill without a
full vetting of the serious risks to the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness from adjacent copper-nickel mining, the
status of the two-year federal study currently underway, and
the wishes of the majority of Minnesotans, who oppose copper-
nickel mining in the immediate vicinity of the Boundary
Waters.
HR3905 is a bill, ``To require congressional approval of
any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the
National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, to
provide for the renewal of certain mineral leases in such
lands, and for other purposes.'' HR3905 was introduced in
response to the desires of a foreign mining company to use
Congress to circumvent the deliberations of the U.S.
Departments of Interior and Agriculture and their agencies,
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), to determine whether copper-nickel mining can
be conducted safely in this ecologically sensitive part of
Minnesota.
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BCWAW) is
America's most popular national Wilderness Area, drawing
visitors from all over the world to Northeastern Minnesota to
fish, hunt, and experience its interconnected pristine lakes,
rivers and streams. Additionally, the BWCAW contributes
enormously to Minnesota's social and economic well-being.
In January, 2017, the BLM and the USFS began a
comprehensive two-year study to determine whether copper-
nickel mining, with its toxic by-product, sulfide ore, is
appropriate within the watershed and immediate vicinity of
the BWCA. Specifically, this environmental review will
determine whether the Superior National Forest lands next to
the BWCAW should be removed from the federal mining program
to protect the Wilderness from pollution and other
environmental degradation caused by the resulting sulfide
ore. The study considers a wide variety of factors, including
scientific evidence, public input, economic considerations,
ecological characteristics, and recreational value, among
others.
I respectfully ask that you allow the completion of this
important review process. Over 126,000 Americans have
submitted public comments as part of it. Many attended three
public meetings conducted earlier this year by the BLM and
USFS. Moving HR3905 forward at this time would disregard the
input of all Americans, who have participated in the process,
as well as the views of the 79 percent of Minnesotans, who
favor the two-year pause and environmental review of
potential impacts to the BWCAW.
The BWCAW is crucially important to our state, and I
believe strongly that future federal and state decisions
about its future should be made only after the most careful
and objective scientific review. I urge you to reject the
attempts by a foreign mining corporation to short-circuit the
review process underway, and to affirm the importance of a
careful, objective analysis under the existing federal legal
framework.
Continuing this review process is the best way to allow for
well-informed federal and state decisions, which will affect
many future generations of Americans. Industry should not
dictate the stewardship of taxpayer-owned public lands, nor
use Congress to short-circuit sound decision-making--
especially regarding pristine Wilderness Areas like the
BWCAW.
Sincerely,
Mark Dayton,
Governor.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from
the Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters in opposition to the bill; a
letter from the National Parks Conservation Association; and a letter
from the Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin Lakes and Pines in
opposition to this bill.
Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters,
Ely, MN, November 29, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters, we urge
[[Page H9485]]
you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the so-called ``Minnesota's Economic
Rights in the Superior National Forest Act'' when it is
considered on the House floor.
Simply put, H.R. 3905 is a bill to allow sulfide-ore mining
at the edge of the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness
(BWCAW), directly threatening one of America's most
accessible and most-visited wilderness areas. At 1.1 million
acres in size, the BWCAW is the largest wilderness east of
the Rockies and north of the Everglades. This interconnected
system of lakes, rivers, and streams provides unparalleled
opportunities for solitude, recreation, hunting and fishing.
The connections between Northern Minnesota's national
forests, Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness, Voyageurs
National Park, and Quetico Provincial Park makes this entire
trans boundary area extremely susceptible to the threat of
pollution from sulfide-ore mining, one of the most toxic
industries in America, according to the EPA.
H.R. 3905 would require congressional approval of any
mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving National
Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota and would
provide for the perpetual renewal of federal mineral leases
in Minnesota, including two that were denied by the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The bill
undermines the Antiquities Act, National Environmental Policy
Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Boundary Waters
Wilderness Act, and other laws regulating mineral leasing in
Minnesota's national forests.
Contrary to the bill's title, H.R. 3905 would do more harm
than good for the economy of Northern Minnesota. Economic
analysis by Key-Log Economics LLC shows that sulfide-ore
mining on Superior National Forest lands in the watershed of
the Boundary Waters could lead to the loss of nearly 5,000
jobs in tourism, 5,000 to 22,000 jobs in the rest of the
economy, a $1.6 billion loss in annual income, and a $500
million reduction in private property values.
Specifically, we urge opposition to this bill because it
would:
Renew two expired and undeveloped mineral leases on
Superior National Forest lands next to the Boundary Waters
and along lakes and rivers that flow directly into the
Wilderness, advancing a foreign mining company's interests at
the expense of beloved American public lands.
Void the December 2016 record of decision by the Forest
Service withholding its consent to two mineral lease renewal
requests in the Superior National Forest due to the
unacceptable risks to this watershed, which according to the
Forest Service holds 20 percent of the National Forest
System's fresh water supply.
Undermine the National Environmental Policy Act by limiting
review of these two mineral leases to a 30-day environmental
assessment. Contrary to the bill language, there is no
`pending EA.' However, this section would override the
ongoing two-year Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
initiated by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
to carefully consider the potential impacts of sulfide-ore
mining on the Boundary Waters watershed. The ongoing EIS is
strongly supported by Minnesota's Governor Dayton and by the
citizens of Minnesota. More than 79% of Minnesota voters
support the study, while more than 126,000 citizens submitted
comments during the scoping phase.
Amend the 1906 Antiquities Act by mandating Congressional
approval for any national monument designations in
Minnesota's national forests. The Antiquities Act is a
bipartisan conservation law, which has been used by
Presidents of both parties, to protect irreplaceable federal
lands from potential threats. Monument designation under the
Antiquities Act have provided protections for areas including
the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and Olympic
National Parks. Quite simply, this attack on the Antiquities
Act is an attack against our national parks and monuments.
Amend the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) by mandating Congressional approval for mineral
withdrawals in Minnesota's national forests. Additionally,
FLPMA intentionally left intact the presidential power to
protect public lands as monuments.
Bar the Forest Service from complying with its legal
obligations under the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness Act. In
this Act Congress requires the Forest Service to maintain the
high-water quality of the Boundary Waters and a Mining
Protection Area within the Superior National Forest. The
Forest Service concluded that sulfide-ore mining near the
Boundary Waters would be ``contrary to Congress'
determination that it is necessary to `protect the special
qualities of the [BWCAW] as a natural forest-lakeland
wilderness ecosystem of major esthetic, scientific,
recreational and educational value to the Nation.' ''
Make all mineral leases on Minnesota's national forests
essentially perpetual. The `perpetual' nature of these leases
is material change in long-standing mineral leasing law and
policy. The bill would also override the two laws (1946 and
1950) on mineral leasing in Minnesota's national forests that
require Forest Service consent to any mining.
Ignore the request of the International Joint Commission
that environmental review of impacts on trans boundary water
quality and cumulative effects be studied and the requests of
four tribal entities (the area is Ceded Territory).
Thank you for considering our concerns. In order to
adequately protect iconic places like the Boundary Waters,
Voyageurs National Park, and all of Minnesota's public lands,
and bedrock environmental laws like the Antiquities Act and
the National Environmental Policy Act, we urge you to OPPOSE
H.R. 3905.
Sincerely,
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, National Wildlife
Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, Fly Fishers International, Minnesota
Division Izaak Walton League of America, American Fly
Fishing Trade Association, Pope and Young Club,
keepitpublic.org.
____
National Parks
Conservation Association,
Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
Oppose H.R. 3905: Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior
National Forest Act.
Dear Representative: Since 1919, the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice of
the American people in protecting and enhancing our National
Park System. On behalf of our more than 1.3 million members
and supporters nationwide, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3905:
Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest
Act when it is reviewed at a markup by the Natural Resources
Committee on Tuesday and Wednesday, November 7th and 8th.
NPCA strongly opposes this legislation as it undermines two
decisions made by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) regarding harmful sulfide-ore copper
mining within the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. The legislation also
carves out a special exception for Minnesota from protective
provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) and the Antiquities Act.
H.R. 3905 threatens the decision-making process already set
in motion by the Forest Service to consider a twenty-year
mineral withdrawal within the Superior National Forest in the
Rainy River watershed. These public lands lie upstream of two
prized and federally-protected areas, the Boundary Waters
Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. Both areas are easily
threatened by pollutants from mining activities in this
watershed given the exclusive drainage into their waters.
Tens of thousands of people have already submitted comments
on this matter and over 2,000 have participated in agency-
sponsored listening sessions. This legislation could erase
the remarkable outpouring of public support for clean water
and public lands, and set a precedent for legislating a
decision that could counter what our federal agencies and
public want.
The legislation also threatens the BLM's decision, with
advice from the Forest Service, not to renew two mineral
leases on the edge of the Boundary Waters Wilderness held by
Twin Metals Minnesota. Although the language of the
legislation is unclear, it is possible its intent is to
restrain Forest Service and BLM discretion on lease renewals
while reinstating the Twin Metals leases. Congress has
granted discretion to the Forest Service and BLM to assess
the circumstances and surrounding environment of any mineral
lease application, including applications for lease renewals.
Based on this discretion, both agencies have determined that
this region is too vulnerable for this type of risky mining,
a type of mining never before allowed in Minnesota. Twin
Metals would operate in the northeastern part of the state
upstream of the Boundary Waters Wilderness that hosts some of
cleanest water in America, and Voyageurs National Park, which
encompasses over 84,000 acres of water relied upon by many
native species.
NPCA also strongly objects to carving out a special
exception for Minnesota from the protective provisions of the
Antiquities Act and FLPMA. The Antiquities Act allows the
president to establish national monuments on federal lands
already owned by all Americans. Nearly every president since
1906 (eight republicans and eight democrats) has used the
Antiquities Act as a bipartisan conservation tool to protect
our nation's history and culture. The bill would eliminate
this authority on federal lands in Minnesota, making it only
the second state declared off-limits for national monuments
declared by presidential proclamation. To carve out
exceptions from this law is nothing short of a betrayal to
the American people and the land and history we've spent
generations protecting.
FLPMA establishes the authority of the Secretary of the
Interior to withdraw land from leasing for up to twenty
years. Any final Forest Service and BLM decision to move
forward with a twenty-year mineral withdrawal would be based
on a thorough, science-based process through the National
Environmental Policy Act. H.R. 3905 would eliminate this
authority solely for Minnesota, alone among the fifty states,
and undermine the ability of the agencies to do their job, as
appointed by Congress.
Thank you for considering our views on this important
legislation. Please reject H.R. 3905 during this week's
markup.
Sincerely,
Ani Kame'enui,
Director, Legislation and Policy.
[[Page H9486]]
____
Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin Lakes and Pines,
November 26, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: I am writing to request you vote
no on HR 3905, which is a bill that would stop a 2-year
Forest Service study of environmental, economic, and social
risks to the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining
on Superior National Forest lands in the headwaters of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
For over fifty years, Northern Lakes Canoe Base has offered
wilderness canoe trips in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness (BWCAW). I guided Girl Scout canoe trips for five
years and have directed our wilderness program for 7 years
and am writing this letter to describe the strengths of this
program to you and to underscore the fact that this one-of-a-
kind program cannot exist anywhere other than the Boundary
Waters.
Girls who come on our canoe trips may have had basic
camping and canoeing experiences, but few have experience in
wilderness travel. We typically serve 150-200 girls a summer.
In general, girls travel in wilderness areas less than
boys. Even in 2017, girls are taught to think that the
outdoors is no place for a girl because it is hard work,
dirty, and going to the mall is just much easier. We teach
teenage girls, in a girl-only environment, that their
individual strength and the power of teamwork is far greater
than they ever imagined. They also learn that hard-work and
dirt is part of the fun on a Boundary Waters canoe trip, and
they leave with an appreciation for the beauty of wilderness
and an understanding of the challenges they now know they can
overcome. Girl Scout wilderness canoe trips bring out the
best in teenage girls; we see how creative, hardworking, and
kind they can be to each other. It doesn't take much
imagination to believe that these traits will follow them
back to their everyday life.
We are a high quality, affordable program and pride
ourselves in our thriftiness. We use our canoes for 20+
seasons and packs and paddles summer after summer. We do this
so we can serve girls from all economic backgrounds,
including local iron range and Native American communities.
For years we have received feedback from participants
crediting their Boundary Waters experience for continued,
life-long growth. Our program cannot exist somewhere other
than the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. No other
place on earth offers the perfect combination of
accessibility and high adventure that the BWCAW offers. Many
of our participants drive to Ely from Chicago, Milwaukee, and
Minneapolis. Many others fly to Minneapolis and then rent a
car to get to Ely. Unlike many other wilderness areas which
may be high on a mountain range or only accessible by high-
clearance vehicles, it is easy for a mom or dad to drive a
van full of girls to the Boundary Waters, send them on a
trip, and then pick them up a week later.
The Boundary Waters is also unique in that, unlike many
other wilderness areas, visitors don't require any previous
experience or training to have a safe, adventurous trip.
Anyone seeking adventure and challenge belongs on a canoe
trip, not just body builders and endurance athletes. We have
even seen that a Girl Scout canoe trip sometimes inspires
girls who may be uninterested in athletics or leadership to
seek out her own creative ways to be active and healthy,
leading to improved confidence and greater aspirations.
Again, it doesn't take much imagination to conclude that
girls who experience wilderness travel will go on to make the
world a better place.
Girl Scouts canoe trip participants always remark that the
solitude they find in the Boundary Waters is unlike any they
have found elsewhere, whether at their own Girl Scout
resident camp or a state or national park. The quiet
environment of a protected wilderness area gives them an
opportunity to reflect on their life in a way that they could
not in a non-wilderness setting. Girl Scouts end their canoe
trip with a swagger to their step, ready to take on any
challenge that comes their way.
Thank you for doing your part to preserve the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness by voting no on HR 3905. It
means a lot to all of us in Ely whose programs and businesses
are focused around wilderness travel.
Sincerely,
Ann McNally,
Northern Lakes Canoe Base
Summer Program Director/Guide.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and H.R.
3905, the Minnesota Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest
Act.
17,000 jobs, $3 billion for education, $1.5 billion in annual wages,
and $2.5 billion annually for our economy are at risk if we don't pass
H.R. 3905. Further, there are more than 4 billion tons of ore
containing copper, nickel, and other metal resources within the area
the previous administration tried to shut down, which represents the
largest known undeveloped deposit of strategic and critical minerals in
the world.
If left unchallenged, these political anti-mining and anti-education
actions set precedent for a sweeping executive power grab that
threatens communities throughout the country. Education will be
significantly harmed, as Minnesota is projected to lose up to $3
billion in royalty revenues for the State's permanent school trust fund
that would support nearly 900,000 K-12 students statewide if the
withdrawal application and canceled leases are not rejected.
As the President, on January 19, was leaving office, he actually
proposed a massive land withdrawal in northern Minnesota, immediately
placing 245,000 acres off limits to development potentially for 20 more
years in the future.
In conjunction with this massive mineral withdrawal, the Obama
administration's Bureau of Land Management inappropriately rejected
Twin Metals Minnesota's application to renew two hard rock mineral
leases in Minnesota's Superior National Monument.
Finally, I want to put to rest the false claim raised by the
extremist groups that this bill would affect the 1.1-million-acre
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness that already has a significant
buffer between it and the forest.
No one is advocating to mine in the wilderness or the surrounding
buffer zones. In fact, the bill clearly states on page 4: ``Nothing in
this section may be construed as permitting the prospecting for
development and utilization of mineral resources within the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness or Mine Protection Area.''
Congress has authorized mining in the forest by law two different
times, and the 1986 Forest Service and 2004 Forest Plans both concluded
mining is a desired condition in the Superior National Forest.
Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to support this commonsense, job-creating
bill and to support the rule to bring this bill to the floor for proper
adjudication.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why many of us are opposed to H.R.
3905 is because we see it as a corporate giveaway that puts treasured
public lands in the hands of a Chilean mining conglomerate.
So much of what comes out of this Congress is about rewarding those
who are well-connected and well-off, rewarding corporations at the
expense of average citizens.
I will go back to our previous question, which would force a vote.
Everything would still move forward, but it would force a vote on a
bill that was introduced by Ms. Eshoo that would require Presidents and
Presidential nominees to release their tax returns.
It is not just the connections between the Trump family and this
mining company that we have concerns about; it is the connections
between this President and his administration and the tax bill that is
being proposed that we know would raise taxes on millions and millions
of middle class families and basically give a big tax cut to the
wealthiest individuals and to corporate special interests and to
corporations. We think that is all backwards, but I think the American
people deserve to know who benefits and who doesn't.
Again, for the life of me, I don't understand why so many of my
Republican friends have circled the wagons in opposition to
transparency, in opposition to letting the American people know where
this President's conflicts of interests are, and basically protect what
I think may very well be multiple conflicts of interest and maybe
conflicts of interest that lead directly into a collision course with
corruption. This is a big deal.
All this legislation that we are talking about here today, there is a
good piece of legislation, the brownfields legislation; a bad piece,
that is this mining bill. This still goes forward, but vote with us to
defeat the previous question so that we can bring up this other bill.
Now, my Republican colleague from Wyoming may say: Well, that is not
what we are talking about here today. The Democrats are just trying to
muddy up the discussion.
The reason why we have to resort to a procedural motion to bring up
this bill to force the President and Presidential nominees to release
their tax
[[Page H9487]]
returns is because the Rules Committee shuts everything down that this
leadership doesn't want to see come to the floor. We can't bring this
bill to the floor to require the President to release his tax returns
under regular order and our normal process. They won't let us. We can't
offer it as an amendment. They won't let us. This is the only way we
can do it.
I would urge my Republican friends to stop defending the indefensible
here.
This thing would apply not just to Donald Trump, it would apply to
every President. We have never had to do this before because every
other President has released their tax returns. This President, for
some reason, doesn't think it is anybody's business.
Given the nature of the legislation coming out of this House of
Representatives, I think the American people need to know and have a
right to know.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just, once again, point out that we have
important work that we are trying to get done here, we have important
work we have got to do on behalf of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, elections have consequences, and we have an obligation
to do what our constituents sent us here to do, and that includes a
whole range of things that we have been very effective at doing,
historically effective in this body since January in terms of
deregulation, in terms of passing the repeal of ObamaCare, in terms of
moving forward on tax cuts in terms of actually passing the legislation
to cut taxes, and importantly also, Mr. Speaker, moving forward to
provide the resources that our military needs.
We all watched just over the course of the last 24 hours as the North
Koreans launched yet again another ICBM. We live in a dangerous world.
It is increasingly dangerous, historically dangerous.
Those are the issues that we are focused on as Republicans and as
Members of this House. Those are the issues that we need to focus our
attention on.
Again, I think we have grown to expect, no matter what the rule is,
no matter what the underlying bill is, we are going to hear the same
thing from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, not
addressing the substance of these issues, not addressing the substance
of the things the American people sent us here to do. I am very proud
to stand here today doing exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule for H.R. 3905 as
well as the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I had the opportunity to travel to
Minnesota with Minnesota Congressmen Emmer and Nolan and others to
visit the Superior National Forest in northeast Minnesota.
While northeast Minnesota is a long way from the Fourth District of
Arkansas, the people, areas, and the economics are somewhat similar.
This is a rural area where local economies and constituencies depend on
the ability to sustainably and responsibly harvest and mine the natural
resources found there.
Unfortunately, the previous administration placed the wants of
special interest environmental groups before the needs of Minnesotans
and others who depend on natural resources management. In my opinion,
they trampled our Article I constitutional authority of the legislative
branch when doing so.
On January 19, 2017, one day before President Trump was sworn in, the
Obama administration published a 235,000-acre Federal mineral
withdrawal application in the Federal Register to impose a 20-year
moratorium on lands within the Superior National Forest in northeast
Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, this was in direct conflict with the will of Congress
and the law going back to when the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness was established.
At the same time, the Obama administration wrongly rejected Twin
Metals Minnesota's application to renew two hard rock mineral leases
that were renewed in 1989 and 2004. The land in question is not in the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and it doesn't even border
Boundary Waters. In fact, the land in question is outside a buffer area
around Boundary Waters created by Congress to protect the Boundary
Waters.
This politically motivated decision has the ability to destroy the
local economy, kill job creation, significantly harm education in
Minnesota, and sets a bad precedent.
I want to talk just a moment about the impact this decision will have
on Minnesota education. If this withdrawal is allowed to take place,
Minnesota is projected to lose up to $3 billion in royalty revenues for
the State's permanent school trust fund, supporting nearly 900,000
students.
Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents schools, communities, and
counties that depend on programs like Secure Rural Schools and PILTs, I
know the harm that will be brought on school districts, specifically
rural school districts, should the withdrawal and application rejection
go forward.
How much longer will we allow rural communities and education to
suffer because a special interest group doesn't agree with forest
management or mining, even though any projects will be carried out in
compliance with all environmental regulations in a responsible manner?
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3905 is a vital piece of legislation to not only
Minnesota, but to other States and communities that depend on natural
resource utilization.
It is also important for the legislative branch to remind the
executive branch it is not their job to make law or to change laws made
by Congress. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this
rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire of the gentlewoman
how many more speakers she has.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition to
H.R. 3905 signed by virtually every major environmental organization in
the country.
November 8, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters, we urge you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the
``Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest
Act'' scheduled for mark-up in House Natural Resources on
Wednesday. Section 3 of this radical bill, which would
require Congressional approval of any monument extension or
designation involving National Forest lands in Minnesota,
represents yet another direct attack on one of our nation's
bedrock conservation laws, and flatly ignores the
overwhelming public support for protecting unique and
sensitive federal lands and ocean areas through national
monument designations.
We urge the committee to consider the following during
markup of H.R. 3905 this week:
Contrary to the Intent of the Law--The Antiquities Act was
designed to allow for swift and necessary action, including
when Congress is either unable or unwilling to act, to
protect irreplaceable resources from potential threats. Not
only has the law successfully protected some of our nation's
most remarkable historical, cultural and natural treasures
for a century, Congress intentionally left this presidential
power intact when passing the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (signed into law by President Ford).
A Vote Against our Parks--Supporting any bill that would
undermine the Antiquities Act is a vote against parks. Nearly
half of America's national parks began as national monuments
including the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and
Olympic National Parks; and over two-thirds of our national
monuments are managed by the National Park Service. Quite
simply, a vote against the Antiquities Act is a vote against
our national parks and monuments.
Federal Lands Belong to All Americans--The Antiquities Act
is used only to protect federal lands already owned by the
American public. By carving out an exception for national
forest lands within Minnesota, Section 3 of H.R. 3905 flies
in the face of our nation's shared public heritage and
disregards how dearly the public values iconic public lands
and waters, like Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and
Voyageurs National Park.
Bipartisan History--A signature achievement of President
Theodore Roosevelt, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16
presidents since its inception--8 Republicans and 8
Democrats.
[[Page H9488]]
Out of Step with the Public--This bill is wildly out of
step with the American public's support for our national
parks and monuments. Just this summer, a vast majority of the
2.8 million people who submitted comments on the issue raised
their voices in support of keeping our national monuments
protected just as they are. These voices made Secretary
Zinke's national monuments public comment period the largest
public comment period in the history of the Interior
Department. Across the West, public support for protecting
our national monuments has proven strong, and a significant
majority of Western voters oppose more mining and drilling on
public lands. According to Colorado College's Conservation in
the West Poll, 80% of western voters support ``future
presidents continuing to protect existing public lands as
national monuments.'' This poll reinforces other surveys that
document widespread public opposition to congressional
attacks on new parks. Americans want more protected public
lands, not less!
Opposed by Diverse List of Hundreds of Organizations--As
demonstrated by this letter as well as the attached letter
signed by nearly 200 organizations, a diverse array of local
and national organizations representing sportsmen, outdoor
recreation businesses, local chambers of commerce, cultural
heritage, historic preservation and conservation have
consistently opposed efforts to undermine the Antiquities Act
in any form.
Disregards Local Economies--Economic research shows that
national monuments support the growth of local economies,
bringing in tourism and recreation dollars and boosting the
quality of life. The Outdoor Industry Association reported
this year that public lands like our national monuments help
support 7.6 million jobs in America, and $887 billion in
outdoor recreation activity.
Monuments Protect our Shared History and Culture--In
response to broad community input, sites honoring America's
military and outdoor heritage, as well as those expanding the
diversity of our national park system to better recognize the
contributions and histories of Native Americans, Hispanics
and African-Americans have been designated under the
Antiquities Act. These monuments include Fort Ord, Fort
Monroe, Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers, Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad, Chimney Rock, Organ Mountains-Desert
Peaks, Cesar E. Chavez and many more.
Recent attacks on national monuments, from President
Trump's executive order, to Interior Secretary Zinke's hasty
and arbitrary review of these magnificent places, to
legislative proposals like H.R. 3905 are a smokescreen for
other uses of these special places.
Thank you for considering our concerns. In order to
adequately protect iconic places like the Boundary Waters,
Voyageurs National Park, and all of Minnesota's shared public
resources, we urge you to vote no on H.R. 3905.
Sincerely,
American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Boundary Waters
Trust, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Lands
Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Earthworks,
Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America,
Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection
Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Hip Hop Caucus,
League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation
Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northeastern
Minnesotans for Wilderness, Sierra Club, Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, Tuleyome, The Wilderness Society,
Wilderness Watch.
____
November 28, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters, we urge you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the so-
called ``Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National
Forest Act,'' when it is considered on the House floor.
Simply put, H.R. 3905 is a bill to allow sulfide-ore mining
at the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
(BWCAW), directly threatening one of America's most-
accessible and most-visited Wilderness Areas. At 1.1 million
acres in size, the BWCAW is the largest Wilderness east of
the Rockies and north of the Everglades. This interconnected
system of lakes, rivers, and streams provides unparalleled
opportunities for solitude, recreation, hunting and fishing.
The connections between Northern Minnesota's national
forests, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Voyageurs
National Park, and Quetico Provincial Park makes this entire
transboundary area extremely susceptible to the threat of
pollution from sulfide-ore mining, one of the most toxic
industries in America, according to the Environmental
Protection Agency.
H.R. 3905 would require congressional approval of any
mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving National
Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota and would
provide for the perpetual renewal of federal mineral leases
in Minnesota, including two that were denied by the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The bill
undermines the Antiquities Act, National Environmental Policy
Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Boundary Waters
Wilderness Act, and other laws regulating mineral leasing in
Minnesota's national forests.
Contrary to the bill's title, H.R. 3905 would do more harm
than good for the economy of Northern Minnesota. Economic
analysis by Key-Log Economics LLC shows that sulfide-ore
mining on Superior National Forest lands in the watershed of
the Boundary Waters could lead to the loss of nearly 5,000
jobs in tourism, 5,000 to 22,000 jobs in the rest of the
economy, a $1.6 billion loss in annual income, and a $500
million reduction in private property values.
Specifically, we urge opposition to this bill because it
would:
Renew two expired and undeveloped mineral leases on
Superior National Forest lands next to the Boundary Waters
and along lakes and rivers that flow directly into the
Wilderness, advancing a foreign mining company's interests at
the expense of beloved American public lands.
Void the December 2016 record of decision by the Forest
Service withholding its consent to two mineral lease renewal
requests in the Superior National Forest due to the
unacceptable risks to this watershed, which according to the
Forest Service holds 20 percent of the National Forest
System's fresh water supply.
Undermine the National Environmental Policy Act by limiting
review of these two mineral leases to a 30-day environmental
assessment. Contrary to the bill language, there is no
`pending EA.' However, this section would override the
ongoing two-year Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
initiated by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
to carefully consider the potential impacts of sulfide-ore
mining on the Boundary Waters watershed. The ongoing EIS is
strongly supported by Minnesota's Governor Dayton and by the
citizens of Minnesota. More than 79% of Minnesota voters
support the study, while more than 126,000 citizens submitted
comments during the scoping phase.
Amend the 1906 Antiquities Act by mandating Congressional
approval for any national monument designations in
Minnesota's national forests. The Antiquities Act is a
bipartisan conservation law, which has been used by
Presidents of both parties, to protect irreplaceable federal
lands from potential threats. Monument designations under the
Antiquities Act have provided protection for areas including
the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and Olympic
National Parks. Quite simply, this attack on the Antiquities
Act is an attack against our national parks and monuments.
Amend the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) by mandating Congressional approval for mineral
withdrawals in Minnesota's national forests. Additionally,
FLPMA intentionally left intact the presidential power to
protect public lands as monuments.
Bar the Forest Service from complying with its legal
obligations under the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness Act. In
this Act Congress requires the Forest Service to maintain the
high-water quality of the Boundary Waters and a Mining
Protection Area within the Superior National Forest. The
Forest Service concluded that sulfide-ore mining near the
Boundary Waters would be ``contrary to Congress'
determination that it is necessary to `protect the special
qualities of the [BWCAW] as a natural forest-lakeland
wilderness ecosystem of major esthetic, scientific,
recreational and educational value to the Nation.' '' Make
all mineral leases on Minnesota's national forests
essentially perpetual. The `perpetual' nature of these leases
is material change in long-standing mineral leasing law and
policy. The bill would also override the two laws (1946 and
1950) on mineral leasing in Minnesota's national forests that
require Forest Service consent to any mining.
Ignore the request of the International Joint Commission
that environmental review of impacts on transboundary water
quality and cumulative effects be studied and the requests of
four tribal entities (the area is Ceded Territory).
Thank you for considering our concerns. In order to
adequately protect iconic places like the Boundary Waters,
Voyageurs National Park, and all of Minnesota's public lands,
and bedrock environmental laws like the Antiquities Act and
the National Environmental Policy Act, we urge you to OPPOSE
H.R. 3905.
Sincerely,
Allegheny Defense Project, American Bird Conservancy,
American Canoe Association, American Rivers, Boundary Waters
Trust, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action,
Conservation Lands Foundation, Crow River Trail Guards,
Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Endangered
Species Coalition, Environment America, Environmental Law &
Policy Center, Environmental Protection Information Center,
Ernest C. Oberholtzer Foundation, Freemans Explore LLC,
Friends of Bell Smith Springs, Friends of the Boundary Waters
Wilderness, Friends of the Land of Keweenaw, Gila Resources
Information Project, Great Old Broads for Wilderness,
GreenLatinos, Heartwood, Kentucky Heartwood, Klamath Forest
Alliance, League of Conservation Voters, Mining Impact
Coalition of WI, National Parks Conservation Association,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Northeastern Minnesotans
for Wilderness, Save Lake Superior Association, Shawnee
Forest Sentinels, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance, The Conservation Alliance, The Ernest C.
Oberholtzer Foundation, The Wilderness Society, Tuleyome, W.
J. McCabe (Duluth) Chapter, Izaak Walton League of America,
WaterLegacy, Wilderness Watch, Wildlands Network.
[[Page H9489]]
____
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we oppose the overall rule, but I will say
to the gentlewoman that we would have no problem even with the closed
rule on the brownfields bill, which is one of the bills that I think
has bipartisan support and reflects a legitimate process.
What we have a problem with is H.R. 3905, which we think is a
corporate giveaway that puts treasured public lands in the hands of a
Chilean mining conglomerate, and we think that is wrong.
I agree with the gentlewoman that we ought to be doing important
business here, but I would argue that, rather than rewarding some
Chilean mining conglomerate, the more important business would be
making sure we keep the government open, because we have a government
shutdown fast approaching on December 8.
I would say to the gentlewoman that we have got to pass the Dream Act
and help 800,000 people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil
because of this President.
{time} 1345
We ought to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program. We ought
to debate flood insurance. We ought to pass additional hurricane
relief. We ought to address funding for the Vets Choice Program. That
is more important, that is more vital to the national interest than
basically rewarding some Chilean mining conglomerate.
Finally, I would say to my colleagues here that we will ask you to
vote to defeat the previous question. We will ask you to defeat the
previous question so we can bring up and have a vote on a bill that
will require this President and all Presidents and all party nominees
to release their taxes.
I think the American people have a right to know where the conflicts
of interest are with this White House. I think they have a right to
know who benefits from this tax bill that we know is a giveaway to
corporations that will raise taxes on millions of middle class
families. They have a right to know who benefits from this.
I am astounded that the bar keeps on getting lower and lower and
lower for my Republican friends. I mean, we have daily offensive
tweets. We have irrational statements that come out of this White House
on a daily basis, and there is silence.
When it comes to transparency, when it comes to making sure that
there are no conflicts of interest, my Republican colleagues will not
even allow us to have a vote on basically requiring this President and
all Presidents to release their tax returns. That is not passing
judgment on this President. It would be a requirement of all Presidents
and nominees.
Basically, it is saying, let the sunshine in. Let us make sure that
there are no conflicts of interest. That ought to matter, because
everything that comes out of this House seems to be directed at helping
those who are well-off and well-connected.
Every corporation is cheering when this House comes up with
legislation, whether it is on tax reform or whether it is on helping
mining companies, because it always seems to benefit those who are the
most well-off.
Well, it is about time we put people first. It is about time the
American people know what is going on in this government. Let the
sunshine in. There is nothing wrong with that. We are doing it this way
because it is the only avenue available for us to bring this to a vote,
because the Rules Committee and the leadership in this House shuts off
debate on issues that they find uncomfortable.
This is supposed to be the people's House, not the Russia House. We
ought to be a place where we have deliberative engagements, where we
discuss important issues, where we do things that benefit the American
people.
I would say to my colleagues again, vote ``no'' on the previous
question so we can have this debate. If you want to help the President
cover up his tax returns, fine. You can vote ``no,'' but we ought to
have a vote.
I don't know why this is so controversial. It, to me, is a no-
brainer. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. McKinley and Mr. Emmer, for their
work on these important bills. I want to thank my colleague, Mr.
McGovern. I am glad to hear him say that they want to put people first.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing; whether we are
talking about our tax bill, which is going to put money back in
people's pockets; whether we are talking about repealing and replacing
ObamaCare, which we have passed through this House; whether we are
talking about defense spending that is going to protect the people of
this Nation.
All across Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, I know my constituents are very
grateful that we are now suddenly putting people first after years of
putting the government first. We are not doing that anymore, Mr.
Speaker.
It is true, this is the people's House. And in this House, Mr.
Speaker, we ought to always live by and remember the rules of Alexander
Hamilton: ``Here, sir, the people govern.''
In this House, Mr. Speaker, we are charged with carrying out the
obligations of the people who elected us. The bills and the rule that
we are debating today do just that. Both of these bills are absolutely
critical for spurring economic development across our country.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and of these
underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 631 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require
the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and
certain candidates for the office of the President, 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 among and
controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and
Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 305.
____
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
[[Page H9490]]
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. 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. McGOVERN. 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 227,
nays 189, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 640]
YEAS--227
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 (AL)
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)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
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)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
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
Loudermilk
Love
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
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
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 (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
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--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
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)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Polis
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--17
Bridenstine
Butterfield
Conyers
Graves (MO)
Hartzler
Herrera Beutler
Jayapal
Kennedy
Larson (CT)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Pocan
Posey
Smith (MO)
Stivers
Wagne
{time} 1413
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Valadao). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
November 29, 2017, on page H9490, the following appeared: The
question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
The online version has been corrected to read: The question was
taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 228,
noes 186, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 641]
AYES--228
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 (AL)
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)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
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)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
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
[[Page H9491]]
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
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
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
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 (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
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--186
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
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
Polis
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
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--19
Bridenstine
Butterfield
Conyers
Graves (MO)
Hartzler
Herrera Beutler
Jayapal
Kennedy
Lewis (GA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Nadler
Pocan
Posey
Smith (MO)
Stivers
Suozzi
Wagner
{time} 1421
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.
____________________