[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9558-9566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1873, ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY AND 
 FOREST PROTECTION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1654, 
                WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING COORDINATION ACT

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 392

       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. 1873) to amend the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 to enhance the reliability of the 
     electricity grid and reduce the threat of wildfires to and 
     from electric transmission and distribution facilities on 
     Federal lands by facilitating vegetation management on such 
     lands. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1654) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
     coordinate Federal and State permitting processes related to 
     the construction of new surface water storage projects on 
     lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the Bureau 
     of Reclamation as the lead agency for permit processing, 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 Natural Resources. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment

[[Page 9559]]

     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 committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 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. NEWHOUSE. 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 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, before I begin the rule on the two 
measures that are before us today, let me just make a couple of 
comments that have come to mind in light of the events over the last 
week.
  Mr. Speaker, you may know that this is the first formal debate that 
we have had as a legislative body since last Wednesday morning's 
shooting. I think it is appropriate that we take a minute to reflect 
and remember those who were injured and are still struggling to recover 
from their injuries as well as those who did not receive physical 
injuries on last Wednesday morning but who are still recovering.
  Let me also say, if I could be so presumptuous, Mr. Speaker, I 
believe that perhaps some people in the United States look to us here 
in Congress--their Representatives--and look and see how we act towards 
one another and how we conduct ourselves in our interaction with each 
other. Let me just say that if we are disrespectful to each other, 
others may see that and think that it is okay; that if Congress can be 
that way to themselves, maybe we can act that way, too. They may not 
even realize that. It may be just a subconscious thing.
  I ask how can we expect others to have a high opinion of us if we 
don't even show each other the respect that we should and that we 
deserve?
  I believe that we must all remember that we are--before we are 
Republicans, before we are Democrats or Independents--all Americans. We 
are all here trying to do what is right, what is right for our country, 
certainly what is right for our constituents, and we shouldn't say that 
someone is not here for those purposes.
  I don't know your district, Mr. Speaker, and I might say that you 
don't know mine. So let's argue, which is what we are here for. As ugly 
as sometimes it can be, that is our job, to debate on the merits of 
ideas. But it is not our job to win a debate by degrading the ones who 
are making the arguments against. I think we all have this obligation 
to win debates or to argue debates on the merits of the issue. Last 
Wednesday reminded me that it is up to us, if we want changes, to make 
them and to begin them here in this body.
  I was heartened in our meeting as a Congress in the auditorium over 
at the Capitol Visitor Center that there were several Members asking 
for a change in tone--a change in tone in how we interact with each 
other. It is important that we act civilly, that we be polite, and that 
we be respectful--kind of like how we treat each other on the journey 
over here from our offices in the elevators and in the hallways.
  I would assert that this is also something that is the responsibility 
of our President, our country's leader, someone who can set the tone 
for our country, someone who can describe our hopes and our dreams and 
help us aspire to reach those things. It is also the responsibility of 
our media and for those advocacy groups that we all have and that we 
all work with. It is up to our parties. I think it is up to every 
single American.
  We need to rediscover the faith that we should have in each other, 
our respect for each other and those bonds that make us one nation 
under God.
  Now, it is simple to state, but how do we accomplish this?
  It can start right here on this floor. Say something positive. We all 
call each other lady and gentleman. We all start off that way, and then 
sometimes the gloves come off.
  I can assert to you that not every idea that is presented here is all 
good or all bad.
  What is the risk of acknowledging a good part of a larger idea even 
if you may disagree with that larger idea?
  I believe we have some very articulate people in this body who can 
figure out quite easily how we can accomplish that.
  We shouldn't impugn the motives of others. We don't assign blame. We 
don't get personal. In fact, if you look in the rules that were adopted 
by this Congress, in section 363 of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary 
Practice, it says: ``The consequences of a measure may be reprobated in 
strong terms; but to arraign the motives of those who propose to 
advocate it is a personality, and against order.''
  So it says in no uncertain terms that we should not make this 
personal. We can object without being objectionable, and maybe--just 
maybe--others will see this and discover a tone that we need and a 
change in America. I believe that we can start this right here, today, 
with our very first debate right now.
  Will we agree on everything?
  Absolutely not. In fact, this is where our disagreements should show 
the most. We are duty-bound to shape legislation by pointing out 
weaknesses but also by accentuating strengths. Mr. Speaker, every 
debate, every speech on the floor or in committee, our interactions 
with the media, in townhalls, or press releases, we are being listened 
to and being watched. I hope that we can change our tone and begin to 
change the tone in the United States of America.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that, on Tuesday, 
the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 392, 
providing for consideration of two important bills: H.R. 1873, which is 
the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act; and H.R. 1654, 
the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.
  This combined rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1873 under a 
structured rule, making three amendments in order, all of which were 
submitted by Democratic Members of our Chamber. H.R. 1654 will also be 
considered under a structured rule, with one Democratic and one 
Republican amendment made in order.
  H.R. 1873 will help ensure reliable electric service and reduced 
wildfire hazards, which can result from inadequate vegetation 
management near power line rights-of-way on Federally owned and 
operated lands.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past several decades there have been numerous 
electricity outages as well as incidents of wildfires due to contact 
between power lines and trees on Federal lands.
  In 1996, my home State of Washington was impacted when three power 
lines in the Pacific Northwest sagged onto overgrown trees, leading to 
a massive electricity blackout that impacted 7.5 million people across 
14 Western States, two Canadian provinces, and even parts of Mexico. 
Then, in August of 2003, an outage left 50 million electricity 
customers without power when a falling tree came into contact with 
transmission lines.
  These are not isolated incidents. According to the U.S. Forest 
Service, in 2012 and 2013, contact between power lines and trees on 
Forest Service lands led to the outbreak of 113 and 232 wildfires, 
respectively. This legislation would reduce such wildfires in part by 
promoting Federal consistency, accountability, and timely 
decisionmaking to protect electricity transmission, grid reliability, 
and distribution lines on Federal lands from overgrown and under-
maintained trees and vegetation.

[[Page 9560]]

  H.R. 1873 will cut red tape to create a streamlined and consistent 
process for removing hazardous trees and vegetation without wasting 
time and money before they cause a wildfire or an outage. Preventing 
forest fires and maintaining a reliable electrical grid for our 
communities is an obvious priority for all of us here in Congress, 
which is why I was pleased to see this bill pass through the House 
Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support.
  I have seen countless catastrophic wildfires devastate Western 
communities just in the past several years, which is why this issue 
must be addressed and resolved. However, due to existing regulations, 
it is extremely difficult for utility companies to remove hazardous 
vegetation or trees that have the potential of falling on these power 
lines.
  The scope of this problem is evident when considering the U.S. Forest 
Service manages 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands--
encompassing over 192 million acres--that include 2,700 authorized 
electric transmission and distribution facilities.

                              {time}  1245

  Similarly, the Bureau of Land Management administers 245 million 
acres, including over 71,000 miles of electrical transmission and 
distribution lines on its Federal lands.
  In order to perform infrastructure inspections and operate and 
maintain power lines on these lands, electric utilities must seek 
permission and approval from the appropriate Federal land management 
agency, which typically use processes under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 to assess whether the proposed vegetative management 
measures comply with Federal environmental laws.
  This often leads to delays and cumbersome bureaucratic requirements, 
which often prevent utilities from carrying out important vegetative 
management activities on a consistent and timely basis. Yet the costs 
of operating, maintaining, and repairing these electric lines on 
Federal lands fall to the utility companies and their customers, which 
can lead to higher electricity costs for ratepayers.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1654, 
the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act. This legislation will 
streamline the permitting process for new surface water storage 
projects, which is critically important for many Western and rural 
communities that have endured severe droughts in recent years.
  Currently, the regulatory process for constructing new surface water 
storage projects often involves applying for a host of Federal, State, 
and local permits, as well as approvals from various agencies, which 
can be a very cumbersome, costly, and time-consuming undertaking.
  Additionally, conflicting permit requirements and agency reviews can 
add time to the project, the planning, and implementation process while 
also increasing the potential for last-minute surprises that could 
endanger the success of a project or require significant additional 
work.
  In order to address this problem, H.R. 1654 creates what is seen as a 
one-stop-shop permitting process to expedite construction of both new 
and expanded non-Federal surface water storage projects. The measure 
establishes the Bureau of Reclamation as the lead agency for purposes 
of coordinating all reviews, analyses, permits, licenses, or other 
Federal approvals as required by law, which will streamline the current 
multiagency permitting process and eliminate unnecessary delays for 
job-creating construction projects that directly benefit local 
communities and economies.
  As the lead agency, Reclamation will be required to coordinate and 
prepare the unified environmental documentation that will serve as the 
basis for Federal decisions authorizing the use of Federal lands, as 
well as to coordinate project development and the construction of 
qualifying projects.
  Additionally, H.R. 1654 will allow the Secretary of the Interior to 
expedite the evaluation of permits for qualifying projects through the 
use of funds contributed by a non-Federal public entity.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule we consider here today provides for the 
consideration of two bills that will have positive and lasting impacts 
for the American people, ratepayers, rural communities, and many 
Western States, as well as our entire country's economy.
  H.R. 1654 will provide the type of coordination and streamlining that 
is essential to the development and construction of much-needed water 
storage projects, certainly benefiting my home State of Washington, as 
well as water-stricken communities across the country.
  H.R. 1873 will create a framework for vegetation management near 
transmission and distribution lines on Federal lands while also 
providing electric companies with much-needed clarity and defined 
authority to remove hazardous trees that pose a risk of falling into 
power lines. Managing this vegetation is a critical component in 
ensuring the safety and reliability of the electrical grid, which will 
benefit all of our constituents.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this rule as well 
as the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  First, I want to rise in agreement with my friend from Washington's 
statement about civility in this Chamber and beyond. I think that, 
while it is extremely important that those of us who are elected to 
represent 700,000 to 800,000 people reflect the passions that we bring 
to our service, at the same time, we need to make sure that nothing 
that we say in these walls or outside is used to incite those who hear 
those words in a different way than they are intended.
  That is the fine line that we walk as elected Representatives who are 
passionate about our ideals and our values, and it is one that I 
encourage the President to walk, as well as other opinion leaders who 
we often see on the cable talk shows hurling inciteful phrases back and 
forth that could be used to further incite the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the two underlying 
bills: H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection 
Act; and H.R. 1654, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.
  Frankly, both of these bills are trying to address real problems that 
have bipartisan solutions that I support, but neither of these bills 
solve the problems in a thoughtful, effective way without creating 
collateral damage that, in many ways, is as damaging as the problem 
that they are designed to solve.
  The majority will claim that similar bills received hearings last 
Congress, but I want to point out from a procedural perspective that 
neither of these bills have had hearings. These bills have not gone 
through the committee process. But what they won't say is there are 
dozens of new Members of Congress. New members of the Natural Resources 
Committee didn't have hearings at all, but it was rushed through a 
markup in committee and to the floor without any hearings in this 
session, without the new members of the National Resources Committee 
having a chance to ask questions about these bills.
  There is a reason we have regular order. It is so that we elected 
Representatives can use the passion we bring to service to ask the 
difficult questions to find out how to get at these very real problems 
that we are trying to solve.
  Unfortunately, this secrecy, lack of hearings, and lack of 
participation appears to be the norm, and, in fact, the standard that 
Republicans are setting in both Chambers of Congress right now. It is 
how the Republicans handled the healthcare bill in the House. It is how 
the Republicans are handling the secret healthcare bill behind a closed 
door somewhere over in the Senate.
  We know some things about the Republican healthcare bill. We know it 
will increase healthcare costs, throw people off their insurance, 
reduce access for the American people. We know

[[Page 9561]]

it will burden small businesses and the middle class. We know it will 
hand hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 
Americans. But there is also a lot we don't know because the process 
has been closed. This type of secret backroom deal is, unfortunately, 
becoming the norm of the way Republicans are running their agenda in 
Washington.
  The rule for this bill is another example. It blocked at least three 
amendments from being considered on the floor.
  Why can't we discuss the ideas of all Members, especially since there 
was no hearing on this bill?
  Representative McEachin from Virginia, Representative Schneider from 
Illinois, and Representative Torres from California all offered 
amendments, all had good ideas and were not even allowed to discuss 
those on the floor for 10 minutes, 5 minutes, not even for 1 minute, to 
offer or discuss any of those amendments.
  If my colleagues on the Republican side don't think they are good 
ideas, let's at least have a vote. They can vote against them. If they 
defeat them, that is the process. But they are not even allowing a vote 
on these amendments.
  Unfortunately, the process of this bill is typical of the Republican 
process on healthcare and the way they have approached so many other 
issues. Republicans are working in secret and limiting debates so the 
American people won't see the horrible things they are trying to do, 
like throwing tens of millions of Americans off of healthcare.
  Now, getting to these bills.
  First, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act has the 
goal of preventing forest fires and disruptions to power distribution; 
something that I strongly agree with.
  I represent a district that has over 60 percent public land and a 
number of rural power districts. It is an admirable goal. We are a 
district that is at risk for forest fires. We had several devastating 
fires in the last several years alone. In fact, I am representing a 
State that is getting even more ravaged by fire, in light of the 
changing climate.
  We need to take action to prevent them and allow additional work with 
regard to preventing the forest fire risk. Unfortunately, this bill is 
not a positive step, but I am glad to say there is an alternative out 
there.
  Representative Cramer from North Dakota and I, along with five of my 
Colorado delegation colleagues, recently introduced bipartisan 
legislation that will decrease these types of fires and protect power 
lines and transformers the right way--a way that Democrats and 
Republicans can agree on; a way that we can probably run the bill as a 
suspension and get 410 votes; a way that the stakeholders are involved 
and utilities, fire prevention experts and firefighters, 
environmentalists all agree on.
  My legislation, known as the National Forest System Vegetation 
Management Pilot Program Act of 2017, gives power and electricity 
companies the ability to remove dead trees, but without the 
recklessness included in the bill that we are considering today.
  It is a stark contrast. We can actually solve this problem in a way 
that would bring the country together, or there can be a divisive 
bill--maybe against one Democrat, maybe against five; I don't know, but 
it is not a broadly bipartisan bill. It is not one that has the support 
of the communities that are most affected by forest fires in my 
district. It is not even a bill that has the support of our main 
utility company in Colorado that actually sought the ability to reduce 
forest fire risks, which is done by Representative Cramer's and my 
bill.
  This bill we are considering today simply lacks the protections that 
we need to have confidence. In this bill, the company can come up with 
a plan to remove vegetation, and then it can be accepted with no 
questions asked. They can't require them to fix obvious problems, like 
the power company cutting down trees for no reason other than to sell 
it for timber. They can't even deny an application.
  Frankly, I think this legislation's real goal is to take a small step 
toward turning management of public lands over to private industry.
  Once this plan that they would submit under this bill is approved--
because the plans have to be approved--the utility companies would be 
able to do massive devegetation and clearing work without any reason 
related to fires and without any risk of liability.
  On the other hand, the bipartisan legislation I introduced with Mr. 
Cramer gives that liability waiver that the utility companies need to 
do the additional work, but only if there is no gross negligence by the 
utility company and has something to do with actually reducing the risk 
of fires, as well as putting reasonable limits on the distance that the 
work can be done from the power lines or transformers themselves.
  Mr. Cramer's and my bill has some of the most conservative and some 
of the most liberal Members of this body as cosponsors. So I just 
wonder and I ask the majority leader why we aren't bringing that bill 
to the floor--a bill that lacks controversy, that helps prevent forest 
fires, that saves American people time and money, a bill that this body 
could be proud of advancing with, if not all, almost near unanimity.
  I would suggest that, instead of bringing the bill we are considering 
today to the floor, we should have been focused on fixing something 
that we know needs to be fixed: the Forest Service's problem with fire 
borrowing.
  Fire borrowing means the Forest Service has to spend all their money 
fighting fires and little money to reduce the risk of forest fires, 
deal with climate change, or clear the extensive backlog of 
maintenance. We can do that today by bringing to the floor the 
bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act that Representative Simpson 
and I introduced, along with my colleague, Mr. Schrader.
  These are the types of commonsense measures that would actually 
reduce the risk of forest fires, put the right parameters around 
utility companies doing additional work, and free up additional 
resources to prevent forest fires from occurring, rather than simply 
doing the cleanup after they occur.
  H.R. 1654, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act, also is an 
admirable and needed goal, one that there is potential for bipartisan 
cooperation to speed up the process of approval of water projects and 
hydro dams.
  There truly is a problem with the speed of which some of these 
problems are approved. I represent a district and a State where we 
understand how difficult and important water is, and we also believe in 
the new renewable energy economy.
  Unfortunately, this bill also does it the wrong way. It circumvents 
and undermines important input from experts and scientists that 
actually understand the reviews that are being made by the Clean Water 
Act. It even circumvents tribal sovereignty in the Native American 
Tribes and their sacred lands by overriding their input.
  That is why a wide spectrum of organizations are opposed, from 
conservation groups like Oceana and League of Conservation Voters to 
sportsmen's groups like Trout Unlimited and The Pacific Coast 
Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Dozens are opposed to this 
reckless bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of opposition.

                                                    July 20, 2017.

                        Please Oppose H.R. 1654

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned 
     organizations, we write to urge you to oppose H.R. 1654 
     (McClintock, R-CA), a bill that would significantly limit 
     meaningful public and environmental review of new dams and 
     other surface storage projects throughout the west. H.R. 1654 
     would likely reduce protections for fish and wildlife, and 
     could lead to further damming and destruction of western 
     waterways. Similar provisions were included in H.R. 2898 and 
     H.R. 23--anti-environmental bills from 2015 and 2017, 
     respectively--and the Department of Interior has previously 
     expressed opposition to these efforts.
       H.R. 1654 would undermine existing laws by making the U.S. 
     Bureau of Reclamation (``Reclamation'') the lead agency for 
     all environmental reviews, including reviews under the 
     Endangered Species Act. Giving Reclamation this unprecedented 
     power over project permitting could undermine the ability of 
     the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

[[Page 9562]]

     N.O.A.A. Fisheries to share expertise and inform the 
     development of major infrastructure investments, placing 
     imperiled fish species at risk. H.R. 1654 also establishes 
     strict project-review timelines, including provisions that 
     could require expedited review under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act. These fast-tracking provisions 
     could make it difficult for responsible agencies to 
     meaningfully analyze proposed projects, and could limit the 
     public's ability to weigh in on infrastructure that could 
     affect communities for decades. Further, the bill permits 
     non-federal public entities to contribute funds to expedite 
     project permitting, raising questions about the fairness of 
     the federal review process.
       This damaging bill would affect states throughout the west, 
     and could even impact how state agencies are able review 
     proposed projects within their jurisdictions. H.R. 1654 
     allows states to subject state agencies to the bill's 
     procedures, thereby requiring those agencies to cede control 
     to Reclamation and comply with Reclamation's timelines. 
     Consolidating project review in this manner could weaken the 
     essential role that states play in reviewing water 
     infrastructure projects within their jurisdictions.
       As we recently learned from the emergency at Oroville Dam 
     in California, careful planning and design for major 
     infrastructure projects is critical for ensuring public 
     safety and protecting the environment. Environmental review 
     of surface storage projects is also essential for protecting 
     endangered and commercially important salmon runs and the 
     thousands of jobs that depend on healthy salmon populations. 
     With so much at stake, the streamlining provisions in H.R. 
     1654 are unwise and irresponsible. Instead of fast tracking 
     dam projects in the West, we should be investing in fiscally 
     sound, environmentally friendly water supply solutions like 
     conservation, water use efficiency, wastewater recycling, and 
     stormwater capture.
       For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote no on 
     H.R. 1654.
           Sincerely,
     American Rivers
     Audubon California
     California Trout
     Cascadia Wildlands
     Center for Biological Diversity
     Clean Water Action
     Defenders of Wildlife
     Earthjustice
     Endangered Species Coalition
     Environmental Protection Information Center
     Friends of the Earth
     Friends of the River
     Grand Canyon Trust
     Klamath Forest Alliance
     League of Conservation Voters
     Living With Wolves
     Native Plant Conservation Campaign
     Natural Resources Defense Council
     Oceana
     Sierra Club
     The Bay Institute
     Western Environmental Law Center
     Western Watersheds Project
     WildEarth Guardians
     Wilderness Workshop
     Wildlands Network.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the letter is signed by a number of sportsmen 
and environmental organizations, the very groups that we should seek to 
work with, the very groups that actually support, as I do, hydropower, 
facilitated permitting of hydropower, the right way.
  We need to speed up the process. In Colorado, we have had water 
projects that have been waiting on a decision for far too long.

                              {time}  1300

  But instead of going around experts, rolling over tribal sovereignty, 
why don't we fund the agencies doing the reviews so that they have the 
manpower and time to look at an application, give feedback, and make a 
decision quickly?
  Again and again we have underfunded the Fish and Wildlife Service and 
NOAA, not acknowledging that that is what is causing and contributing 
to this very slowdown.
  We can solve these issues that we are facing. We can expedite 
permitting for water projects and hydropower. We can allow utilities to 
do additional work to reduce the risk of forest fires.
  I call upon this body, please, let's do it in a way that brings 
Democrats and Republicans together, proudly gets a bill to President 
Trump's desk in a fast and effective way involving input from Democrats 
and Republicans, not just Republicans.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentleman a couple 
questions to underline a couple of the really important points you made 
about the context in which this bill is considered, because while I 
think every Democrat agrees with our colleague from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse) about the importance of civility and the importance of us 
each taking responsibility for the tone here and certainly condemning 
violence, condemning anyone who would suggest that if you come to the 
rally and you protest that you ought to be beaten up by the people that 
are there, the kind of thing that happened, unfortunately, last year, 
that we should condemn all of that. Does the gentleman agree that the 
House exercising vigorous oversight of the Administration when it 
breaks its promises, when it mixes personal business with public 
business, that this remains an important aspect of our job and no way 
suggests a breach of civility?
  Mr. POLIS. Absolutely. I agree with the gentleman from Texas. This 
House and the institution of Congress, as a separate agency of 
government in Article I, section 1 of our Constitution has the 
responsibility to exercise oversight of the executive branch.
  Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman would further yield, I heard a rather 
bizarre comment last week in the aftermath of these shootings 
suggesting that, in the aftermath of them, Democrats would be reaching 
out to Republicans on healthcare, and I couldn't quite understand how 
that could occur. Indeed, your comments about this particular set of 
bills and the healthcare bill, isn't it a part of civility that we have 
respect for one another and don't try to force through a bill with an 
all-night, unnecessary session, not force through here a bill that 
Republican Members say they didn't have time to read but then leave it 
up there on the Speaker's desk for a month before even sending it to 
the Senate? And if you have a legislative process where the majority 
leader in the Senate says he won't even guarantee 10 hours to see a 
huge bill that affects this much of the economy and the lives and the 
livelihoods of millions of Americans, that that in itself is a breach 
of the respect and the civility that we need to have in this Congress?
  Mr. POLIS. It absolutely is.
  Sometimes the American people in the back-and-forth say: Hey, why 
aren't Democrats participating in the healthcare debate? And the 
reason, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) articulated, is we 
have never been invited into this room.
  I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett): Have you seen the 
Republican healthcare bill in the Senate?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DOGGETT. No. I served on the Ways and Means Committee. We could 
not see the Republican House bill until hours before it came up.
  Mr. POLIS. Isn't that too short a period of time to even come up with 
a thoughtful amendment?
  Mr. DOGGETT. It was under police guard downstairs so that even 
Republicans, like Senator Rand Paul, couldn't get in and see the bill.
  Then we have an all-night session without a single member of the 
Trump Administration coming to respond to questions about it, while 
every healthcare professional group that I have heard of opposed the 
bill, not letting any of those people come to a hearing. I just suggest 
that this is a breach of civility. That is a breach of respect. It is a 
breach of the democratic process which we are all about. That needs to 
be on the table and is as important as whether someone uses strong 
language here in the House.
  Mr. POLIS. I have one more question on that.
  I am a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, one of 
the three committees that had original jurisdiction over the Affordable 
Care Act. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, one of the two committees with jurisdiction 
under the budget reconciliation for this healthcare bill. I want to 
ask: Have you ever been invited by President Trump to discuss your 
ideas for healthcare reform?

[[Page 9563]]

  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DOGGETT. No. I think he has only wanted to listen to one side, 
and I don't begin to think that even the Republican Members of this 
House can contain President Trump. They seem to have sealed their lips 
about it, and I wish they would speak out more.
  But I think they can effect the processes in this House, and when 
they pass a bill that President Trump says is ``mean, mean, mean,'' 
they need to go back and look at that process. And I see the same thing 
happening, from what you have told us, about the two bills that are up 
here.
  Why is it that we have a process that is designed to exclude almost 
half of the people in this House, to exclude their amendments, to give 
them no opportunity to be heard at a markup, to bring in no witnesses 
to defend the bill or to allow discussion of that bill? That is not 
only not civil, not the democratic process, but it leads to worse 
public policy.
  Even if they have a majority to pass it, their ideas need to be 
tested, and it allows them to perfect their legislation. That is the 
way the democratic process is supposed to work. But with all the 
secrecy, all the forced action, the tight timetables that are applying 
here, they thwart our democratic process in a way that hurts all sides 
and certainly impairs civility.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and would 
just add, look, fire prevention, expediting water projects and 
hydropower, these are not partisan issues; and to prove that point, 
there are bipartisan bills sponsored by conservative Republicans and 
liberal Democrats that would solve these issues. Rather than moving 
either of those bills through the floor, they are moving a divisive 
ideological bill with unintended consequences--or, perhaps, intended 
consequences--that would devastate a lot of our natural resources that 
sportsmen and recreationists rely on for our quality of life in the 
mountain West and across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the beauty of having a diverse membership 
in this body is that we have people from all over the country who live 
and breathe the issues that are before us. We are privileged today to 
have the young lady from Wilson, Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) here to speak on 
these bills. I appreciate her offering to help in these arguments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. 
Cheney), my young colleague.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank very much my colleague 
from Washington particularly for calling me ``young.'' I appreciate 
that always.
  Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the colloquy taking place 
among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We see this 
repeatedly now day in and day out as we work hard in the majority to 
continue the progress that we have made so far in this Congress, really 
record-breaking progress of passing legislation, putting bills on the 
President's desk, having those bills signed into law. Mr. Speaker, I 
believe we are now at the point where we have presented more bills to 
the President and had more bills signed than in any Congress in the 
first term of any Presidency since Harry Truman. It is a record we are 
very proud of over here.
  It is clear that as we continue to put commonsense reform legislation 
forward that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
sometimes like to distract and talk about other things. In terms of the 
healthcare conversation that is going on and the talk of unintended 
consequences, I would just point out, Mr. Speaker, that we now know the 
consequences of ObamaCare. We have had to live under ObamaCare now for 
many years. We are in a situation where the system is absolutely 
failing the people of this country, and we have an obligation as a 
body, an obligation we take seriously here in the House, to make sure 
that we do what is right for the people of this country, that we 
provide them relief, that we provide them the kind of healthcare reform 
that is going to lower their costs, that is going to provide better 
access to care and put people back in charge.
  We have tried the Democrats' way now for the last 7 years and 
fundamentally seen that the government cannot mandate effectively what 
people need. It doesn't have the consequences that many on the other 
side of the aisle thought it would, and the consequences have been 
devastating.
  Mr. Speaker, the same is true in terms of the challenge that we are 
here dealing with today with these two bills. As my colleague from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse) so eloquently put it, those of us across the 
West--and Mr. Polis knows this well, too--have had to live under this 
situation of absolutely devastating forest fires, forest fires that 
have been caused in too many instances by mismanagement by the Forest 
Service, mismanagement by the Federal Government.
  These bills--and in particular, H.R. 1873, which is a bill that I am 
honored to cosponsor with Representative LaMalfa--will begin to impose 
the kind of commonsense reforms that we need so that our power grid is 
no longer threatened by mismanagement of our Federal Forest Service, of 
our Federal forestlands.
  On our federally managed forest in Wyoming, when we have overgrowth 
around a power line, it is a direct risk to the people, the property, 
and the power grid, as well as to the wildlife that those on the other 
side of the aisle claim to care so much about.
  Our local leaders understand this. Our local leaders are in the very 
best position to do something about this and to do it quickly. That is 
why we put in place these provisions in these bills that will allow the 
local utilities, allow local officials, to make the kinds of decisions 
that have to be made quickly.
  H.R. 1873 will allow our utilities to submit their own management 
facility inspection plans, their own operation and maintenance plans, 
and it will also ensure that our Federal land managers have consistent 
and accountable policies to reduce hazards in electricity rights-of-
way, including they, themselves, will be held accountable for managing 
the land. The bill does adjust the liability framework for these 
rights-of-way to ensure that the utilities and the Federal Government 
have the incentive to respond quickly and effectively to these hazards.
  Nobody in Wyoming or in any other State ought to feel that they have 
to go without affordable, reliable power, ought to feel that the power 
grid is threatened simply because the Federal Government fails to do 
its job. We have simply seen that too much. Our local co-ops are 
willing and able to step up to the plate.
  Solving this problem is crucial to those who live in Wyoming, where 
bark beetle-killed trees and poorly managed overgrowth of Federal 
forests pose true threats to the safety and health of our communities 
and to our power reliability. Mr. Speaker, that is why H.R. 1873 is 
supported by the Wyoming Rural Electric Association, the Tri-State 
Generation and Transmission Association, the National Rural Electric 
Cooperative Association, Black Hills Energy, the Edison Electric 
Institute, the American Public Power Association, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the Western Governors Association, and many others who care 
so much about our lands out West.
  Wyoming supports this bill. Wyoming utility co-ops know best how to 
manage the provision of electricity and how to handle these rights-of-
way and also how to provide healthy and sustainable forest management 
as they do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I request immediate passage of this bill. It is hugely 
important that we get back on track, that we stop the kind of 
mismanagement from Washington that has been so damaging for so many 
years, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to act quickly on its 
passage.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on a promise to 
bring, somehow, jobs back home. He said he was going to overhaul the 
Tax Code, introduce an infrastructure package, and remove barriers to 
job creation. Unfortunately, we have yet to hear specifics on any of 
the administration's plans to accomplish that.

[[Page 9564]]

  My colleagues will be happy to hear that in my hand I have an 
amendment that will help to accomplish this goal by providing tax 
incentives to companies that bring overseas jobs back home. What a 
great idea.
  Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pascrell's Bring Jobs 
Home Act, H.R. 685. This bill closes a tax loophole that actually 
rewards companies for moving jobs overseas while providing a tax credit 
to companies that move jobs back home to our country, the United States 
of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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 gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Here we are again. We are debating a bill to roll back regulations 
that protect the public, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker. I think we 
are a little bit tone deaf.
  Here is a news flash: The whole country is focused on defending blue-
collar jobs, bolstering our industrial manufacturing base. Americans 
broadly agree that keeping United States jobs from moving overseas is a 
top priority. Yet despite campaign promises, the administration has 
awarded government contracts to companies that continue to offshore.

                              {time}  1315

  You can't make this up. So we say one thing and then we do another. 
Now, look, both parties do it. Neither party is privy to virtue. But 
let me tell you something, there is a plethora of these before us on 
saying one thing when you are campaigning and not following through. 
That is not good.
  The flow of jobs overseas is not stopping. Just this week, it was 
announced that Ford is canceling plans to build the Ford Focus in 
Mexico, ending North American production entirely and making the model 
almost completely in China beginning next year, as soon as its output 
ends at a plant in Michigan.
  Yet, right now, when companies move overseas, as the gentleman from 
Colorado just said, we actually give them a reward. We give them a tax 
break for the cost of moving. Do you think that is going to impede or 
help people deciding whether they should stay or go? A tax break for 
leaving. The average citizen never gets that kind of a break. I mean, 
that is the law. I am not making it up. I will stand corrected, if need 
be, Mr. Speaker.
  We need to stop offshoring these jobs. And this Congress should start 
by defeating the previous question and bringing up the Bring Jobs Home 
Act.
  Around 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1994. 
Just ask folks in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania who have seen steel 
mills and rubber factories shipped overseas. Come to my hometown of 
Paterson, New Jersey, formerly the hub of the textile manufacturing 
industry.
  My bill eliminates this tax deduction to those companies and those 
corporations who want to bring their jobs overseas, and it gives a tax 
credit of up to 20 percent of the cost to U.S. businesses that bring 
jobs back to the United States of America. The companies would have to 
add jobs to claim the tax benefit.
  So let's stop subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas and start 
bringing jobs back to our shores.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't get much simpler than that.
  This is not a new idea. President Obama and Democrats in Congress 
have raised this bill for years, and the Republican Congress has 
blocked our bill at every turn. Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads this 
bill in the Senate, where it cleared a procedural vote 93-7 in 2014.
  I challenge you, today, to take up and pass this bill to stand up for 
American manufacturing and the workers here at home. Talk only goes so 
far. Let's act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, isn't it good to hear good news? I just 
got this on my electronic device here.
  The MedStar: ``Congressman Steve Scalise continues to make good 
progress. He is now listed in fair condition and is beginning an 
extended period of healing and rehabilitation.''
  Isn't that good news?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it is good news that 
our brother from Louisiana is in fair condition. I appreciate that news 
report.
  And I also want to take up the previous speaker's offer to work with 
us on tax reform. We look forward to his assistance in moving that 
issue forward.
  I might say that he is mistaken. The bill that we are talking about 
today is about protecting public interests. The last time I checked, 
people who I know like green trees, not black ones; they like their 
electricity to be there when they turn their light switch on; and they 
like water. These are three issues that we are looking to protect and 
make sure that people in the United States can enjoy all of these 
attributes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Buck) to talk about exactly that.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse), my colleague on the Rules Committee, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in the West, water is life. Coloradans must wisely 
steward the precious water flowing through our lands. That is why we 
are so focused on water storage projects.
  Unfortunately, many water storage projects in my State face 
significant setbacks in permitting due to a long list of regulatory 
checkboxes. Local, State, and Federal agencies all have their own 
requirements.
  For the past several years, I have followed multiple important water 
storage projects on the front range of Colorado that deeply impact 
Coloradans. Year after year, the shovels remain untouched as the water 
projects inched their way through the regulatory permitting process. 
Water projects should not take over 10 years to permit and then only a 
few years to build.
  Much of this delay occurs because each level of government--local, 
State, and Federal--requires their own studies and permitting 
checklists, even though many of those requirements are the same or only 
slightly different.
  H.R. 1654 makes this process more efficient, allowing the Bureau of 
Reclamation to coordinate the Federal and State permitting processes, 
so that we can avoid unnecessary duplication and so that we can better 
unify the approval requirements.
  H.R. 1654 offers a more streamlined approval process for our water 
projects but still empowers State and Federal governments to fulfill 
our duties to protect communities and the environment.
  This is a good government bill. We are simply asking different levels 
of government to work together so that our water projects can earn the 
permits they rightfully qualify for.
  No water project should take 10 years to gain approval, but too many 
have. H.R. 1654 ensures that projects on Federal lands will have a 
clear, more efficient permit application process.
  We owe this bill to the people of Colorado; we owe this bill to the 
people of the West. We owe this bill to everyone in this country who 
relies on fresh, clean drinking water. We owe it to the farmers who 
need water for their crops, to the ranchers who need water for their 
livestock, to the anglers who need water for their recreation.
  I am supporting H.R. 1654 for these people. I ask my colleagues to 
support this important legislation as well.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page 9565]]

  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), my 
friend, that there is a problem here we are trying to solve. 
Unfortunately, these are not the bipartisan bills that Democrats and 
Republicans from both sides of the aisle have worked hard to put 
together to do.
  Of course, Democrats, myself, and so many others want to expedite 
water projects permitting for hydro renewable energy projects. Of 
course, we want to free up utilities to do extra mitigation work around 
power lines to reduce the risk of fires. We have solid bipartisan bills 
that would do that. We could put them on the floor today or tomorrow, 
and they would have over 400 votes. There are liberal Democrats, 
conservative Republicans, and firefighters who support them. Utilities, 
Democrats, Republicans, and sportsmen support them.
  That is a route we could go. We could get those bills to President 
Trump's desk by next week and actually start preventing forest fires 
and facilitate the permitting process around hydro projects. But, no, 
instead, we are doing a very divisive bill, one that has a lot of 
problems that it creates, in addition to solving some of the problems 
that it sets out to address.
  I encourage my Republican friends--they are in charge; they control 
the agenda--to take a look at pragmatic, smart, and thoughtful ways to 
reduce forest fire risk, speed up water project approval, such as the 
bipartisan National Forest System Vegetation Management Pilot Program 
Act, which is a bipartisan bill.
  Look, this bill around the expedited water projects would circumvent 
a lot of the public input process that is actually so important to the 
success of these projects. My colleague from Colorado was referring to 
several water projects. One that we both care deeply about, the 
Northern Integrated Supply Project, NISP, is currently with the Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
  I strongly supported extending the public comment period from 30 to 
60 days--a very reasonable time to allow people more input, which 
actually changed how the project was done and planned. It was a very 
meaningful form of input to build additional public support for the 
project; and, when the project is completed, will lead to a better, 
more meaningful project, serving the water needs of our communities, as 
well as the impact on the lives of those who live in and near it.
  So, look, whether it is fixing fire borrowing, giving utilities a 
liability waiver while not giving them a free pass, making sure that 
our agencies doing water project reviews have the men and women power 
they need to actually get them done quickly, these are reasonable, good 
ideas that I think we could pass with unanimity, or near unanimity.
  I promise the Republicans, if you would just work with us and have an 
open process, we could find common ground. Let's start with these small 
things. Let's start with preventing forest fires around electrical 
fires. We will get to healthcare. We can find common ground with you on 
that, too.
  But let's start on finding common ground around reducing forest fire 
risk around electrical wires, Mr. Speaker. There is a path to do that. 
Let's solve our small problems, and let's build a pathway to work 
together on the big problems our country faces.
  I urge everyone to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule, this rule 
that goes to the floor with no hearing, this rule that rules out 
Democratic amendments, doesn't even allow discussion of them, and has a 
controversial piece of underlying legislation, when there is no need 
for controversy around such an important aspect of life in the American 
West, and, nationally, reducing forest fire risk and facilitating water 
projects and hydroelectric projects. Please join me in voting ``no,'' 
so we can get this House back to working on commonsense legislation 
that is bipartisan, with the full support of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the time of my colleagues, who have joined me on the 
floor today, to speak in support of these underlying bills, as well as 
for the hard work of the House Natural Resources Committee.
  First of all, H.R. 1873 is a bipartisan bill by any measure--five 
Democratic cosponsors, passed bipartisanly through the committee.
  This will reduce the threat of electricity outages caused by contact 
between overgrown trees and power lines. It is that simple.
  Existing Federal regulations and red tape can make it extremely 
difficult for utilities to gain the access that they need to their 
rights of way in order to perform needed maintenance. Before taking 
this action, they must receive approval from Federal agencies. They 
have been criticized for not allowing these utilities to carry out 
vegetative management policies on a consistent and timely basis.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, just one down tree on a transmission line 
can have devastating impacts, causing blackouts for thousands or 
millions of homes as well as businesses, or it can ignite fires that 
consume entire forests. Yet it can take months to remove one single 
tree, due to our outdated Federal regulations and cumbersome 
bureaucracy.
  H.R. 1654 streamlines the current multiagency permitting system, 
which creates significant delays for project construction and 
completion, by creating a one-stop shop, a permitting process at the 
Bureau of Reclamation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Bureau was created to oversee water resource 
management in the West and to prevent water shortages by building dams 
and conveyance systems. Yet, over the past 40 years, Federal 
regulations and policies have slowly made it increasingly difficult to 
build dams and reservoirs throughout the Western United States. 
Presently, it is nearly impossible to even expand the storage capacity 
at existing facilities.
  The Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act establishes a framework 
where the Federal agencies with jurisdiction over new surface water 
storage projects must work together, coordinate their schedules, share 
technical information and data, and publish their findings publicly. 
This important measure will allow water providers to better manage 
their systems to modernize and enhance their water storage 
infrastructure and optimize water resource management in preparation 
for future droughts and shortages, which we know will come.

                              {time}  1330

  The Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act will prevent 
wildfires and power outages while enabling utilities to safely supply 
electricity to rural and Western communities.
  H.R. 1873 will ensure that practical measures are taken to protect 
power lines and conserve our public lands, which is especially 
important in Western States where overgrown Federal forests are too 
often the norm rather than the exception.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the rule provides for consideration of two 
commonsense measures that will implement much needed improvements to 
the Federal management of our water resources, our Federal lands and 
forests, and electricity infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule as well as the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 392 Offered by Mr. Polis

       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. 
     685) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage 
     domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order

[[Page 9566]]

     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. 685.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

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

                          ____________________