[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14455-14462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 348, RESPONSIBLY AND PROFESSIONALLY 
 INVIGORATING DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
   H.R. 758, LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 2015; AND PROVIDING FOR 
             CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 420

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 348) to provide for improved coordination of 
     agency actions in the preparation and adoption of 
     environmental documents for permitting determinations, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of

[[Page 14456]]

     Rules Committee Print 114-26. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 758) to amend 
     Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve 
     attorney accountability, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     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 
     the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of September 24, 2015, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous materials on House Resolution 420 currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? The question 
resonates throughout our Nation. It is the driving force behind every 
solution the Republican majority has offered to this body and every 
solution this administration has rejected.
  I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Committee on 
Rules. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 348, the RAPID Act, 
and H.R. 758, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015.
  The Committee on Rules met on this measure yesterday evening and 
heard testimony from a Republican member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and two Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
The Committee on Rules solicited amendments for both these measures, 
but no amendments were submitted for the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, 
making the rule closed. There were 11 amendments submitted for the 
RAPID Act by both Republican and Democratic Members. This rule makes 10 
of those in order. Let me repeat that: 11 amendments submitted, and 10 
of those amendments are on the floor. Both the RAPID Act and the 
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act went through regular order in the Committee 
on the Judiciary, including robust amendment debate.
  This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary for each piece of legislation.
  I appreciate the hard work of the Committee on the Judiciary 
chairman, Mr. Bob Goodlatte, and his full committee and subcommittee 
staffs in bringing forward these key reforms. It would take more than 
60 minutes to list all the ways Republicans have worked to encourage 
economic growth and create jobs in the 114th Congress. We have worked 
tirelessly to pass litigation reforms that would promote access to 
court and ensure the cost of litigation isn't being used to force 
settlements.
  I am a proud cosponsor of the RAPID Act because men and women across 
the Nation are ready to go back to work. Republicans are committed to 
giving job creators the confidence to take projects off the drawing 
board and onto the worksite.
  A 2012 U.S. Chamber of Commerce study of proposed projects in just 
one sector of the economy, the energy sector, found that if a modest 
number of these projects were allowed to move forward and begin 
construction, the direct and indirect economic benefits would be 
tremendous--hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars 
annually.
  Hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars are in the 
pipeline, and Republicans believe we should streamline the approval 
process so that these projects are either approved or denied, not left 
languishing year after year after year.
  Americans need jobs now. They have bills to pay and families to feed. 
The RAPID Act is one of a number of solutions offered by House 
Republicans that would break down unnecessary Federal barriers and 
allow employers to break ground on the projects that offer Americans 
jobs and economic growth.
  The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, was designed for 
an important purpose, one that should be preserved. The Committee on 
the Judiciary has done important work exploring the original goals of 
NEPA and hearing from experts in the field and academic scholars. The 
facts are clear: The NEPA process we have today is far removed from 
what the authors intended. It is normal for the review process to take 
years and years, and in some cases over a decade. Imagine how the world 
has changed in the past 10 years. It is absolutely mind-boggling that a 
review process for any project would take a decade.
  We live in a world where technology has made the impossible possible. 
There is no excuse for relying on old methods or overly complex 
regulatory frameworks. It is time for Federal regulators to stop tying 
up capital and prioritizing endless paper pushing over job creation.
  We can do better as a nation. Our economy and our families depend on 
us doing better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding the customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 348, the RAPID Act, is an attempt to limit 
flexibility and eliminate the public's role in environmental review and 
decisionmaking processes. H.R. 758 would force judges to impose 
sanctions against any claim that appears to lack support or involve a 
novel legal theory.
  These are no doubt important issues to debate and discuss, and we 
will have that time on the floor, but I want to address what this body 
is failing to address. Though the subject matter of these two bills 
couldn't be different, neither one of them relates to the fact that we 
are 6 legislative days before a job-killing, money-wasting shutdown of 
government.
  Now, when we hear 6 legislative days, let me translate that for 
normal days that Americans have. That is actually 14 days. We are 14 
days until we risk the government shutting down. Of the next 14 days, 
Congress is only scheduled to work 6. Now, by the way, we should thank 
Pope Francis for that, because before Pope Francis scheduled his visit, 
Congress was scheduled to work 4 of the next 14 days.

[[Page 14457]]

  Now, if everything were going wonderfully and this body was a model 
of keeping the government open and fulfilling its responsibilities, I 
think the American people would say: ``Well, guess what, Congress. You 
deserve a vacation.'' But that is not what I hear from my constituents. 
They are not saying that we should be on vacation 8 out of the next 14 
days when we are facing a government shutdown.
  Not only are we facing a government shutdown now, but we are 76 days 
after the expiration of the Export-Import Bank, which already has lost 
at least 500 jobs here in our country. We are 41 days until authorizing 
legislation to maintain our Federal highway systems expire. We have 
already passed that deadline twice and done short-term extensions.
  In my August townhall meetings--and I had a number of them across the 
district--I do not recall any of my constituents telling me their 
family's top concerns are we start eliminating environmental reviews 
and public health standards.
  While we are wasting unconscionable time on issues when we are only 6 
legislative days or 14 real days from a shutdown, we wonder why this 
body is losing popularity every day among the American public and will 
continue to.
  To my friends across the aisle, I want to work with you. My 
Democratic colleagues want to work with you. We want to work to avoid a 
government shutdown. We want to work with you to reauthorize the 
Federal highway bill.
  These are not Democratic or Republican principles. Both parties 
believe in a Federal Government; both parties believe in highways and 
investment in infrastructure. So let's do that. I think we should do 
that all 14 days, or at least 12 of the next 14 days rather than 6, but 
at least let's get to work and do it.
  I think we share many of the same domestic and foreign policy 
interests, and hopefully we can agree upon our priorities. The average 
American family in my district and across our country has no interest 
in grandstanding on display. They have no desire to send their hard-
earned dollars in taxes to a body that continues to govern crisis by 
crisis, sometimes after the fact.

                              {time}  1245

  So I implore my colleagues to use the next 14 days--or, if they want 
to take 8 of them off, 6 days--to consider the threat we are facing and 
the hardship a shutdown would cause in districts like mine that rely on 
two major universities to receive Federal funding; Federal labs; 
national parks that support countless local businesses that would close 
if the Federal Government is closed; the Centers for Disease Control, 
with a strong presence in Fort Collins; and the many other secondary 
and tertiary effects that a Federal shutdown would have.
  Let's find a way to avert it. There is still time. Let's not wait 
until it is 2 days or 1 day or zero days or negative 1 day or just 
hours remaining on the countdown clock. Let's pass a bipartisan bill to 
fund government. Let's reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Let's make a 
long-term commitment to our Federal highway system and infrastructure 
to keep our economy growing.
  After we fulfill these basic needs, these self-created crises that 
Congress is presented, then let's have a discussion about limitation of 
irregular lawsuits or eradication of environmental reviews on public 
projects. We can have our disagreements. We can debate them. But let's 
get our priorities right.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we just got back after spending time in our districts, 
and I know, in my case, one of the reasons that we are back today 
dealing with regulatory issues is just a couple of examples that just 
continue to come up in conversations.
  There were always questions about, frankly, what are we doing in 
Washington, what are we not doing in Washington, but there was a common 
theme when I went to small business, factories, and when we do 
roundtables. The common theme was: Why is Washington constantly keeping 
me from doing what I can do or need to do in my business? Why are we 
continuing to get regulation after regulation after regulation that 
keep us from expanding our business?
  I had a businessowner tell us in a roundtable that right now there 
were several businesses he knew that would be willing to hire upwards 
of 20, 30, 40 folks, but right now they are bound by the caps that they 
find under the healthcare law. They don't want to go over a certain 
number--that magic 49. They don't want to get involved in other areas 
that are keeping them constricted to this point.
  So when we look at these packages of bills that we are looking at, 
frankly, we are looking at everyday moms and dads; we are looking at 
businessowners; we are looking at the folks who are the economic 
engines of the United States; and we are saying the government should 
not be the inhibitor of your company. The government should not be the 
part that is stopping you from creating jobs, from getting that next 
big idea, from having that next product that hits the market that takes 
us to that different level or hiring that next person who has that 
spark, that creative energy to say: ``Here's the next idea that changes 
even how we are here today.''
  So when we deal with this and we look at it, the question really is: 
What drives jobs? The House majority, the Republican majority, 
constantly has looked at what it means to be an entrepreneur and to 
have people that you employ. What does it mean? It means giving someone 
a chance.
  This summer, I had the awesome fun or joy, if you will, of watching 
my son get his first job. He started to work at a grocery store, and I 
can remember at first he was all excited. He went through all the 
process and he got that job. The best day was when he actually came 
home after working and he was tired, but yet it was payday. He came in 
and he looked at me and he said: ``Dad, I got my paycheck.''
  And for a moment, regardless of how much that check was--this is not 
a story about seeing taxes for the first time; my son has lived in my 
house and he understands the burden of taxes, so it was not any of 
that--it was just the joy in his eyes that someone had given him a job 
and that he went to work. It was that pride of having money that he 
could spend. There is a new person in the economic engine.
  That is why we continue to bring these bills forward, so that 
government can be out of the way and be its proper role, not the 
roadblock to job creation. When we do that, then the people of the 
United States can look at this House Republican majority and know our 
best interests are with those who get up every day looking to make life 
just a little bit better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation to reauthorize 
the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of 
the Financial Services Committee.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to 
thank the gentleman from Colorado for the time to speak on this 
important issue.
  I rise today in opposition to the previous question in order to give 
House Members an opportunity to vote on reauthorizing the charter of 
the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. Speaker, it is well past time to end the ideologically driven 
shutdown of the Export-Import Bank that has prohibited this critical 
agency from continuing to support United States businesses and their 
workers.

[[Page 14458]]

  For almost 2 years, Democrats have been sounding the alarm that a 
shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank would be devastating for American businesses 
and their workers. Since Republicans in Congress let the Bank's charter 
expire in June, companies around the country have been preparing to lay 
off employees, and many have stopped expansion plans because they now 
lack the critical financing tools that Ex-Im provides.
  In fact, just last week, General Electric announced that, due to the 
GOP shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank, more than 500 jobs will be shipped to 
places like France and China. Last month, Boeing told its workers that 
it expected to cut as many as several hundred jobs at its southern 
California-based satellite factory after a multimillion-dollar contract 
was scuttled due to uncertainty about the future of the Export-Import 
Bank.
  Republican obstructionism is also having a direct impact on countless 
small businesses around this country, many of which are set to lose 
their Ex-Im-backed insurance policies in the coming weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, a majority of this House supports reauthorizing the 
Export-Import Bank, but if we don't give Members the opportunity to 
vote up or down on reopening the Bank's doors today, the self-inflicted 
shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank may continue for months on end.
  If that scenario plays out, the damage to our businesses, their 
workers, and our economy will only get worse. The consequences for 
average taxpayers would get worse as well. Because the Bank generates 
income through fees it charges for its services, failure to reauthorize 
the Bank means throwing away billions of dollars that would otherwise 
be transferred to hardworking American taxpayers. Accordingly, we 
should reauthorize the Bank. If we did, we could raise billions of 
dollars in profit for U.S. taxpayers over the coming years. The House 
should take a position.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, we have too many Republicans, our friends on 
the opposite side of the aisle, claim they support small businesses. 
They want to do everything that they can to get rid of the regulatory 
obstacles to small businesses being able to grow and expand. They talk 
about this with community banks. They talk about this with all kinds of 
businesses. But look what they are doing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. They have absolutely stood in the 
way of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
  And where does that place this country? It places us in a position 
where we cannot compete with other countries who fully support the 
export opportunity. So I would ask my colleagues to please vote on this 
bill at this time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Heck), a leader in the effort to reauthorize the 
Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous 
question so that we might indeed take up legislation to reauthorize the 
Export-Import Bank. Because I think the gentleman from Georgia has it 
exactly right, the question before this Chamber, before this Congress, 
before the President, before the American people is: Where are the 
jobs?
  Now we know where the jobs, in part, have come from over the last 8 
years. In fact, about 1.5 million of them have come through the 
activity of the Export-Import Bank, where they supported $200 billion 
in exports spread out across 7,300 companies. And we know where the 
jobs have not come from since July 1, when the charter of the Export-
Import Bank expired, at which time there were 116 deals frozen, 
constituting $9.3 billion in activity.
  Who were they?
  Norwest Ingredients is a company in my home State that sells mint 
flavoring for the manufacturers of candy and oral care. The company 
currently employs about a dozen employees. It is a small business.
  Without Ex-Im, many small businesses like Norwest aren't going to be 
able to extend terms to foreign buyers, and they will have to ask for 
cash in advance. When they do, they will lose their business to other 
countries who have export credit authorities.
  By way of reminder, every single developed nation on the face of the 
Earth has an export credit authority right now, except the United 
States of America.
  Combustion Associates in California, they spent 3 years closing a 
deal for a new power project in Nigeria that would generate $39 million 
in revenue and create 30 new American jobs. The deal is on hold, along 
with two other projects that would have been worth nearly $50 million 
in revenue and 100 jobs.
  GE, the gentlewoman from California shared the sad news of the 500 
jobs that are leaving these shores as a consequence of our failure to 
reauthorize the Ex-Im.
  Digital Check, an Illinois company, sells check scanning equipment to 
clients in nearly 100 countries. Tom Anderson is the family-run 
company's chief executive. He says: We're losing now a quarter million 
in sales in British markets and around $300,000 in India. And that 
half-million-dollar hit is causing the company to reevaluate whether 
they will suspend, altogether, their scanner leasing services.
  FirmGreen--Steve Wilburn, president of FirmGreen and, I might add, a 
proud and highly decorated marine--laid off 10 of its 17 employees last 
year because the company lost $60 million in contracts during our 
latest period of uncertainty.
  They are now, right as we speak, right as we are attempting to answer 
the question of where are the jobs, competing for a $300 million 
project in the Philippines, and it hinges on securing export credit 
financing from the Ex-Im. Without it, that business is going to likely 
go to a South Korean rival and, with it, the 400 jobs he would have 
added.
  Boeing, again, the gentlewoman made mention of layoffs in El Segundo, 
California. That was not the first but the second satellite sale to a 
foreign company and country that we lost as a consequence of the 
uncertainty surrounding the Export-Import Bank.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. The outgoing CEO, Mr. McNerney, said: ``We 
never would have considered that before this craziness on Ex-Im. We 
love making and designing airplanes in the U.S. We are now forced to 
think about doing it differently.''
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have now moved beyond the 
theoretical and the abstract. We are now in the phase of this debate 
where real people with real jobs and real families are losing their 
livelihood. The question is right: Where are the jobs? The answer is: 
In reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
  Defeat the previous question so that we might do what a majority of 
this body wants to do, which is continue to compete in a global 
economy.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the will of the majority is being thwarted in 
this House, the people's House. Mr. Boehner, our Speaker, said when he 
took his office as Speaker that the House worked best when the House 
was allowed to work its will. Mr. Speaker, let the House work its will.

                              {time}  1300

  We are about to take a vote on whether this House should move to 
reopen the Export-Import Bank and save thousands--thousands--of jobs 
that Speaker Boehner has admitted will be lost without our action.
  The Export-Import Bank is a critical tool that supports job creation 
here in

[[Page 14459]]

America by helping American businesses compete in foreign markets--in 
other words, making goods here with American workers and selling them 
abroad. That is what we need to be doing. The Export-Import Bank 
facilitates that happening. It has over 300 votes out of 435 on this 
floor, but we cannot vote if it is not brought to the floor.
  When the Speaker and majority leader allowed the Bank's authorization 
to expire in June, they did so with the full knowledge that a 
reauthorization has the votes to pass and will pass with strong, 
bipartisan support if brought to the floor. Now, we have a chance to 
defeat the previous question and bring that bill to the floor today.
  Now, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to some of my colleagues who may be 
new, that voting down this rule, defeating the previous question is a 
vote to open the Export-Import Bank.
  Now, I know some of you will say: Well, it is a procedural vote. My 
party makes me do this.
  Well, if you have that answer, look in the eye those who are losing 
their jobs and say: I had to do this for my party, not my country, not 
the competitiveness of America, not for American jobs, not for American 
businesses, but I voted for the previous question for my party.
  Sometimes, my friends, party demands too much. When you raise your 
hand, it is to defend the Constitution and laws thereof, but in a real 
sense, it is to defend and make America better.
  Let's refuse to engage in what Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue 
today called a ``unilateral disarmament in the face of other 
governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies.''
  Let me repeat that. That is Tom Donohue, president of the Chamber of 
Commerce. The Republican Party used to be a party of business, the 
party that wanted to grow jobs. We talk about that all the time.
  Well, my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, you have an 
opportunity to do that on this upcoming vote. Don't do as Tom Donohue 
today said you might do, a ``unilateral disarmament in the face of 
other governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies.''
  Last week, General Electric announced it would be moving 500 jobs 
from New York, Texas, South Carolina, and Maine to Europe and China 
because of the failure of this Congress to pass the Export-Import Bank 
reauthorization. There are over 300 votes for that on this floor.
  The American people think we are dysfunctional. They are right. They 
don't trust us because they don't think their board of directors is 
doing the job they sent us here to do. They are right. They are angry. 
They are anxious.
  Let us for once, this day--we haven't funded the government yet; 
hopefully, we will get that done--but at least this day, given the 
opportunity on this previous question, say that we are going to make 
America competitive and we are not going to unilaterally disarm.
  This is something the Business Roundtable wants us to do. It is 
something the Chamber of Commerce wants us to do. It is something the 
National Association of Manufacturers wants us to do. It is something 
that organized labor wants us to do.
  In the face of unity of purpose, in the face of a majority of votes 
on this floor, party regularity still says: Tough. Tough. Yes, there 
may be 300 votes on this bill, but we are not going to allow it to come 
to the floor.
  Ladies and gentlemen in your offices or on this floor, America 
expects you to do better. America expects you to be responsible. 
America does not want you to be simply partisan. America does not want 
you to be cowed by a small minority of this House and by radical groups 
outside this House who threaten Members they will spend a million or $2 
million or $3 million to defeat them in a primary.
  America wants us to do the right thing. America wants us to have the 
courage of our convictions. America expects this House to reflect the 
majority opinion, not be dictated to by a small minority.
  Mr. Speaker, allow your Members to vote against the previous 
question. If you do so, we will bring to this floor the reauthorization 
of the Export-Import Bank; and, ladies and gentlemen of this House--and 
all Americans ought to know as well--it will pass.
  Bring the Export-Import Bank bill reauthorization to this floor so 
America can continue to be competitive and create jobs here in America. 
That is what our constituents want us to do.
  Vote against the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to take a vote on whether this house should 
move to reopen the Export-Import Bank and save thousands of jobs that 
even Speaker Boehner has admitted will be lost without our action.
  The Export-Import Bank is a critical tool that supports job creation 
here in America by helping American businesses compete in foreign 
markets.
  When the speaker and majority leader allowed the bank's authorization 
to expire in June, they did so with the full knowledge that a 
reauthorization has the votes to pass--and will pass with strong 
bipartisan support--if brought to the floor.
  Now we have a chance to defeat the previous question and bring that 
bill to the floor today.
  Let's end the uncertainty that has already caused businesses to hold 
back investment in job creation and to move American jobs overseas.
  Let's refuse to engage in what Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue 
today called a ``unilateral disarmament in the face of other 
governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies.''
  Last week, general electric announced that it would be moving 500 
jobs from New York, Texas, South Carolina, and Maine to Europe and 
China because of the failure to keep the export-import bank open.
  Congress has a responsibility to help grow jobs here--not send them 
overseas.
  It's time to reopen the export-import bank.
  Defeat this previous question.
  Bring the export-import bank up for a vote.
  And let's complete the task that America's workers and their 
employers have asked us to do for months.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend: Do 
you have any more speakers? Or are you prepared to close?
  Mr. POLIS. We have a lot of Democrats that want to talk about keeping 
government open. I hear no Republicans here.
  With good respect to my friend from Georgia, where are the Republican 
ideas to keep government open?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, I am trying to get an answer to a 
question. That means you do not have any more speakers on this. Are you 
ready to close?
  Mr. POLIS. We are ready to use all of our time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 23 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. May I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia if he plans to 
use his 23 minutes?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. That is why I was asking the gentleman from 
Colorado if he is prepared to close. I have no other speakers.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I will use our 9 minutes. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will be offering an 
amendment to the rule. The amendment will waive the two-thirds 
requirement to consider a rule on the same day as reported from the 
Rules Committee on the legislative days of September 24 and September 
25, 2015.
  This will provide the flexibility necessary during the Pope's visit 
to ensure the House completes its business on behalf of the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, I think it is clear. We have had many Democrats coming to the 
floor talking about what we should be doing. I think the gentleman from 
Georgia might be the only Republican in the Chamber. Maybe there is one 
other in the back. I don't have my glasses on.
  We have a lot of ideas for keeping government open. Mainly, let's 
pass a

[[Page 14460]]

continuing resolution to do it now. Let's work more than 6 days out of 
the next 14. Let's stay here until we can keep government open, until 
we can reauthorize the transportation and infrastructure bill.
  It sounds obvious to me; yet there just didn't seem to be any 
interest from the other side. No Republicans have approached me about 
keeping government open. I hope you do, Mr. Speaker. I hope you 
encourage your colleagues to. There is no one here in the Chamber 
talking about what we can do to avoid a job-crushing government 
shutdown, which we are 14 days away from.
  Instead, we are talking about unrelated bills. Now, I don't deny that 
these bills deserve their day in the sun. I just question whether, when 
we are 6 legislative days from a job-crushing shutdown, it is the time 
to discuss whether we should amend requirements set out by the National 
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, that would reduce the role of public 
input and turn the idea of NEPA on its head by eliminating any illusion 
of objective or scientific analysis by allowing private sponsors to 
write parts of their own environmental reviews.
  Now, look, we can discuss that. I am strongly for reforming the NEPA 
process. As an example, if we can make it easier to site renewal energy 
projects, I am a sponsor of a bill to expedite the NEPA process for 
solar and wind infrastructure projects.
  Look, there are people who support this terrible bill in its current 
form; I completely understand that, but this bill does nothing to avert 
a job-destroying government shutdown that we are only 6 legislative 
days from reaching.
  Now, the gentleman from Georgia mentioned this, what we call a 
martial law amendment. With this amendment that he is proposing with 
this rule--we just got notice of it last minute here on the floor--he 
is offering an amendment that will allow any bill to be brought up 
under martial law next week.
  Now, in honor of Pope Francis' visit, I hope that they have a bill 
that they plan to bring to the floor under martial law to reduce our 
carbon emissions and finally do something to impact climate change, 
which I hope that Pope Francis will be addressing.
  I also hope that, under martial law, they will bring forward a bill 
to replace our broken immigration system with a humane system, with a 
pathway to citizenship that replaces the chaos we have, with the rule 
of law, border security, and a pathway to normalization and citizenship 
for hard-working, aspiring Americans who are already here.
  Now, I am not going to bet the ship that that is what they are going 
to do with this martial law, but the fact of the matter is, from a 
process perspective, we--myself, my colleagues, and I think most of the 
Republican rank and file--simply don't know what they are going to do 
with that authority.
  This is going around the normal rules of the House to establish a 
mechanism to avoid the normal process, avoid the normal process through 
Rules Committee and, through martial law, bring some sort of bill. I 
hope it is an immigration reform bill. I hope it is a climate change 
bill. I don't think it is.
  Based on what we are seeing this week, it will probably be some NEPA 
bill or some--I don't know--some other bill that doesn't avoid a 
government shutdown to the floor of the House.
  Maybe it will be a bill that is a Republican funding bill that will 
have a Presidential veto threat over it. That doesn't avoid a shutdown. 
Remember, the only way we can avoid a shutdown is the House, the 
Senate, and the President of the United States are on the same page for 
legislation to avoid a government shutdown.
  Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and we will be back next 
week, and I will hold my criticism. I hope it is an immigration reform 
bill. I hope it is a climate change bill.
  I hope we honor Pope Francis by bringing forward two of his top 
priorities in a week that is appropriate, and if that is the case, I 
will support martial law for those two efforts, and I hope that that is 
what we will do.
  I will withhold judgment until we see what the Republicans attempt to 
do with this procedural bypass of our normal mechanisms that they have 
scheduled for next week.
  Look, these are bad bills under this rule. They are bad bills today. 
They would be bad bills if they were appropriate to consider. I believe 
they are inappropriate to consider in light of a job-crushing 
government shutdown occurring in 6 legislative days.
  The RAPID Act, which would turn the idea of NEPA on its head, is a 
one-size-fits-all approach. It is not the right approach to NEPA 
reform.
  There are thoughtful, bipartisan ideas that we could put together 
after we avoid a government shutdown. I am happy to do that.
  The LARA Act is even worse. Our country tried a similar framework to 
LARA in the eighties and early nineties, and there is broad consensus 
that the experiment failed. Instead of reducing lawsuits, there was an 
explosion of litigation, causing delays and wasting judicial resources. 
Why on earth are we giving these failed ideas a second try?
  The LARA Act would have prevented landmark decisions like the Brown 
v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools; Griswold v. 
Connecticut, which established constitutional protections for right to 
privacy; and Loving v. Virginia, which ended bans on interracial 
marriage.
  Rather than ``preventing abuse,'' this bill would actually promote 
civil rights abuses and weaken the courts' ability to crack down on 
people who seek to discriminate illegally at work or school or at the 
voting booth, and Congress should not pass this bill, now or ever.
  I think it is particularly offensive, when a job-crushing government 
shutdown is looming, to even be talking about these other items rather 
than discussing how we can avoid a job-crushing government shutdown.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I am clear. These issues we should 
discuss. Natural resources. The World Health Organization estimates 
that 2 million people a year are killed because of air pollution. But 
putting forth these bills now does nothing to eliminate or deal with a 
job-crushing government shutdown.
  Over just 16 days in 2013, our country lost $24 billion in economic 
growth, hundreds of thousands of Federal workers were furloughed, 
contractors and subcontractors were not paid. It is an avoidable 
scenario. It is a crisis created by Congress. We wonder why people 
don't like Congress. It is a crisis of our own making.
  Why are we threatening the critical, everyday services Americans rely 
on, the millions of people that work for contractors and subcontractors 
of the Federal Government?
  A small-R republic is a system of governance in which people exert 
influence over their elected officials, and those representatives are 
supposed to listen and act upon those requests.
  We need to listen to the American people and take the responsible 
course, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to join me on this 
commonsense mission before it is too late.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying 
legislation. We need to reinstate a legislative agenda that aligns with 
the desires and wills and aspirations of the American people and 
American businesses.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, just to clear up a couple of things 
here. One, let me be clear that nothing in this rule or the amendment 
waives the normal Rules Committee hearing process.
  It simply provides us with the flexibility to consider bills on the 
floor sooner while the Pope is here. It does nothing to waive the 
normal committee process for bills that should go to Rules, just to 
clear up that.
  I do appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's concern about our 
speakers and the fact that he was counting today. I was glad to see 
that he had three people come to speak on the rule that had nothing to 
do with the bills in the underlying rule. So that was pretty 
impressive.

[[Page 14461]]

  I will stand with one person speaking on the rules and the truth of 
the fact that regulatory burden has a crushing role on business. I will 
stand, one, by myself all day.
  And then in just a few hours, when we discuss this in the debate 
process, we will have plenty of people to discuss the actual bills 
themselves.
  So let me close up by talking about what we are here for. My friends 
across the aisle want to portray House Republicans as being against 
things and against people.
  Yes, it is true we have said ``no'' to bad policies and priorities of 
the administration. We have refused to turn a blind eye to those who 
exploit our legal system.
  We have said ``no'' to the Federal regulators who are indefinitely 
delaying projects that would put Americans back to work.
  We have said ``no'' to the tax more, spend more, save less, Big 
Government, job-killing machine that is crushing the American spirit 
and our economic growth.
  But this majority says ``yes'' to solid, principled legislation that 
protects Americans' personal and economic liberties. Later today, we 
will say ``yes'' to life.
  We will vote to protect the babies born alive despite the efforts to 
abort them. Regardless of the circumstances in which a baby is born 
alive, they are a person just like you or I. To fail to recognize their 
humanity is to deny our own.
  This House majority says ``yes'' to fiscal responsibility, ``yes'' to 
the commonsense principle that our Nation should have a budget and 
actually stick to it.
  We say ``yes'' to responsible oversight efforts because we 
understand, as our Founding Fathers did, that Americans' rights and 
liberties are only safe while the Federal Government is held within the 
bounds of the Constitution.
  We say ``yes'' to free market principles because we recognize that 
economic growth is rooted in the ingenuity of America's entrepreneurs, 
not government programs.
  We have replaced government with growth and regulations with reform. 
We have restored transparency and trust. We have given our Nation 
reason to believe that one day our children won't be looking for a job 
because government has crushed them. They will be creating jobs.
  House Republicans have heard the cries of the American people, and 
today, tomorrow, and every day to come we will continue to fight for 
them. We will fight so that they can realize their hopes, their dreams, 
and their ambitions.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Add at the end the following:
       Sec. 4. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative 
     day of September 24, 2015, or September 25, 2015.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, does this amendment to the rule mean that 
Members of this body will have less than 24 hours to review any bill we 
consider next week?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the meaning of 
the pending proposition.
  Mr. POLIS. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the meaning is very 
straightforward. That is exactly what it means.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 420 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. 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. 
     1031) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1031.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 14462]]


  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________