[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.

                          ____________________