Bring Jobs Home Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to anchor the CBC Special Order hour.

For the next 60 minutes, we have a chance to speak directly to the American people on issues of great importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, Congress, the constituents we represent, and all Americans.

Led by our chair, Cedric Richmond from Louisiana, it is our duty, we feel, as the conscience of the Congress, to speak to all people in this hour on the issues that we deem are important and that our constituents have told us are important.

For this Special Order hour, we will spend this time to talk about Failure to Govern: The First 6 Months Under Republican Control.

President Trump's first 6 months have been defined by his often angry and personal tweets, his efforts to denigrate and undercut the multiple investigations into Russian influence in the 2016 election, and most importantly, the stalemated legislative battle to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

President Trump has signed dozens of executive actions and Presidential proclamations. Some have fared better than others. His travel ban plan, for instance, first caused chaos and was effectively shut down by a series of legal challenges. But the second effort, which also faced a flurry of lawsuits, was ultimately allowed to take effect on a limited basis by the Supreme Court.

In all, our President has signed 42 bills into law. But when it comes to big ticket items, like infrastructure, tax reform, and a repeal and/ or replacement of ObamaCare, President Trump is sitting on zero. With healthcare seemingly on ice, tax reform is expected to be the big challenge next on our agenda.

Budgets are about priorities, and this President's priorities are clear. His budget hollows out our economy, endangers working families all across this country, in my district of the Virgin Islands, and the other districts that we all represent.

The $2.5 trillion in cuts to entitlement programs, which include $192 billion to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, and the $800 billion to Medicaid, will devastate localities like the Virgin Islands and elsewhere, where one in five children are covered under Medicaid and one-fifth of our population receives SNAP benefits.

The President has a budget with massive cuts that would shred social safety nets and cripple longstanding governmental functions. This administration has created uncertainty in the Nation's healthcare system by sending inconsistent administrative signals and supporting legislation that could deprive millions of people of health insurance coverage, undermine Medicaid health support for low-income Americans, and give wealthy taxpayers a massive tax cut.

He has mismanaged the Federal Government by failing to fill top spots. He has expanded the policy of deporting dangerous and illegal aliens by including many people with minimal records, stable jobs, and American families.

Most recently, we saw this with the Secretary of Homeland Security ordering the 50,000-plus Haitians here under protective status, due to the devastating natural disasters in Haiti, to leave. These are decent, hardworking people who are sending money back home, supporting an economy which is faltering under collapse.

We have seen a reversal of decades of bipartisan cooperation in extending environmental preservation of national landmarks. He has hired foxes to watch the chicken coops by filling his administration with arch-conservatives, many with records opposing the very agencies with which they work, and curbing civil rights and environmental enforcement.

All of these things we have seen in these first 6 months, and we will hear more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), to speak on behalf of what we have seen in these last 6 months.

Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman was talking about what has happened in these last 6 months, it reminded me of when the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Cedric Richmond, on March 22 went with the executive members to visit with the President to speak with him specifically about those things that African Americans and the people who we represent--the 17 million African Americans and the 20- plus million Americans that members of the Congressional Black Caucus represent--to outline for him in a very succinct and systematic manner those issues that are important to us.

You mentioned criminal justice reform. You talked about expansion of voting rights, jobs creation, support to small businesses, infrastructure. These are the things that the President said he was interested in.

These are the things that the Congressional Black Caucus said: We are willing to work with you. We have an agenda. We have specific language, specific legislation that we would like to have a discussion with you. And not a photo op, but really to sit down around a table and discuss actual legislation and how we can be supportive of an agenda that supports the people we represent.

And what have we gotten out of that? Zero to date, 6 months in.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans), the freshman who is not a freshman, who represents Philadelphia, who has been a legislator for many years and comes here. He is so thoughtful. He is very quiet just like yourself, Mr. Payne, and he sits back and is really more observant but is ready to do the work.

He is about policy, is discussing--on a regular basis I hear him talking about middle communities, middle America, those communities that are on the edge. There are places in Newark, New Jersey, and other places that you represent, in neighborhoods in my own district in the Virgin Islands where working class, hard working class people are there but they are on the edge of losing those homes, losing their health insurance, neighborhoods which they have worked so hard over 20, 30 years to create to be vibrant areas in this country that may be lost under this administration and the lack of action.

So I yield to Congressman Evans this evening to discuss what he has seen happen in these last 6 months of this administration and how it speaks to those individuals that we represent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Evans so much for talking about the optimism of the American people. There is a better deal that is out there, and there is a better way that we all, as Members of Congress, need to demonstrate.

I was looking at a fact Street Sheet that was put together talking about the 200 days of the 115th Congress by the numbers. This is a Congress that is controlled by the Republicans in the House, the Republicans in the Senate, and the Republican administration. You would think that so much legislation could get done, and we are a stalled body at this time.

That is not what the American people brought us to Washington to do. We all represent people who are looking for a better deal, looking for an expansion of the American Dream, a realization of the American Dream in their own lives, and having security for their own children and their grandchildren to be able to realize that dream.

When I looked at these numbers, I was aghast at what has not been done in this Congress and flabbergasted at the things that have been done by this Congress. Zero number of bills to create jobs have been brought to the House floor by House Republican leadership. Zero number of bills that have been considered under an open rule so far this Congress.

The same open rule that, Mr. Speaker, you said that you would exact when you were a young gun coming to Washington, you said that you would use the open rule, but we have not seen that done in this 115th Congress.

Three times, House Republicans blocked a vote on H.R. 685, Bring Jobs Home Act, which ends tax breaks for corporations sending jobs overseas and creates new incentives to create good-paying jobs here in the United States.

There have been zero times that Speaker Paul Ryan has spoken out in opposition to President Trump's dangerous and unconstitutional Muslim and refugee ban. Zero votes on the expansion and correction to the Voting Rights Act.

234 Republicans blocked a vote on H.R. 2933, a critical bill that promotes effective apprenticeships that gives students and workers the skills they need to find good-paying jobs.

Twice, House Republicans voted against Made in America amendment requiring that specific infrastructure and construction projects use materials and equipment made in the USA.

Mr. Speaker, 229 Republicans voted for a GOP antiworker, bait-and- switch bill that undermines the existing right to hard-earned overtime pay, giving employers the flexibility to substitute overtime pay with comp time while giving employees no guarantee that they can use their comp time when they need it.

Mr. Speaker, 217 Republicans voted for the disastrous TrumpCare bill, which would result in 23 million Americans losing their health insurance coverage, raises out-of-pocket healthcare costs for millions of American families, imposes a crushing age tax on those 50 to 64, shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund, and guts the protections for people with preexisting conditions.

Mr. Speaker, 233 Republicans voted to gut the Dodd-Frank Act, Wall Street reforms, rolling back key consumer protections, and take us back to pre-2008 era of unchecked risky financial market abuses that resulted in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

There have been zero amount of funding in President Trump's budget for Social Services Block Grants, which provide States with funding for services such as childcare and adult care programs. And there are 1.6 million school-age children that would lose afterschool and summer programs as a result of the President's budget.

When we talk about the President's budget, we need to discuss exactly what those numbers mean and how it is going to affect the American people--people, Mr. Speaker, that we say we represent, but that we are not standing up for against this administration.

The budget would cut SNAP funding by over 190 billion--with a ``B''-- over the next 10 years, jeopardizing benefits for an estimated 44 million Americans and reduce nutritional foods for women, infants, and children, the WIC program.

The budget also includes SNAP policy changes that would charge food stores using USDA approval to accept food stamps, which could drive smaller food retailers out of the program.

Why is this important?

Because many people in urban areas that are using food stamps are doing so in virtual food deserts. They do not have transportation to go to the large suppliers, the large grocery stores. They go to these smaller grocery stores. They go to these small places to use the food stamps to be able to provide food for their families. These changes would cap benefits, require localities to pay 25 percent of benefits, and limit local waivers for Federal work requirements that many communities are not appropriate because there are no jobs, because we also are not supplying individuals with the job skills, the work skills to be able to find employment in some of these areas.

The budget would reduce Education Department investments by $9 billion, including through the elimination of preschool and afterschool programs, literacy grants, and funding to improve teacher and principal quality. It also proposes cuts to higher education programs, including elimination of grants for lower income students, low-interest Perkins loans, and cutting by half a program that helps students work to pay off their loans.

The budget also calls for the elimination of NASA Space Grant education programs that prepare students, such as in my district at the University of the Virgin Islands, for careers in science and technology industries.

The budget would reduce USDA Rural Development funding by $9.2 million, approximately 30 percent. This is vital in areas like my district in the Virgin Islands with the elimination of rural business cooperative services and rural water and wastewater disposal programs.

The budget would zero out important rural housing assistance, such as single-family housing direct loans; would slash funding for rural broadband, distance learning, telemedicine, and needed community facilities improvement.

Mr. Speaker, these are in rural areas that President Trump won in the election. You would think that he would want to support these rural communities in areas of housing, the most American of American ideals, home ownership.

In the Labor Department, the budget would reduce Labor Department investments by $2.4 billion, including large cuts to Job Corps. Job Corps, a place that would allow young people to have training for jobs, activities meant to prepare disadvantaged youth, the same youth that we say we are concerned about being on the streets in these urban areas that are so dangerous, those are the individuals going to Job Corps, looking to be prepared for the workplace, and we are going to reduce that by $2.4 billion? That doesn't make any sense.

The budget request for the Department of Energy would slash research funding and move away from investments in renewables, including a 70 percent cut to the Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and zeroing out its weatherization assistance in State energy programs that aid low-income families with reducing energy costs.

The Department's Office of Science would be cut by 17 percent. That budget slashing to NOAA coastal science programs includes eliminating NOAA's Sea Grants program, coastal research at our university, and the coastal zone management grants that aid with climate change mitigation--climate change mitigation--which is needed in areas that I live in, like the Virgin Islands, Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and in coastal areas that are seeing a tremendous loss of economy and loss of homes because our environment is, in fact, changing.

The Environmental Protection Agency would be cut by approximately 30 percent, partly through elimination of all EPA climate change programs, lead control programs, the Energy Star program that encourages energy- efficient consumer products, and the environmental justice office that investigates the concentration of pollution in low-income communities.

Now we want people to be in communities where pollution is greatest, those inner cities that our President has said he wants to fight so strongly for. We are going to keep them in polluted areas because we are cutting out EPA funding in some of those places.

In transportation and housing, the budget would eliminate $500 million per year in TIGER grants, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, which has been important to ports and transshipment projects around this country, in the Virgin Islands, and the Community Development Block Grant program that provides grant funding to localities for economic development activities.

The Department of Housing would be cut nearly 20 percent, including elimination of several housing assistance grant programs and slashing its core rental housing program, Section 8 housing choice vouchers, which assists private rental housing, which is a win-win program. You allow individuals who have private homes, who are renting those out, to receive a voucher to support individuals who are looking to be placed in those homes.

An estimated 250,000 housing vouchers would be taken away over the next fiscal year, vouchers which primarily benefit seniors and individuals with disabilities. Support for local public housing authorities would also see cuts.

The budget would eliminate Commerce Department subdivisions that support businesses and entrepreneurship, such as the Economic Development Administration, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and the Minority Business Development Agency.

Healthcare, of course we could go on for forever, but the budget calls for phasing out enhanced Federal matching funds for expanded Medicaid populations by 2020 for people living in territories and in other areas that are heavily relying on Medicaid. It would be far more expensive for those localities to cover individuals, and our hospitals would be faced with even more uncompensated care costs.

The budget also proposes cuts of $1.3 billion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, and more than $7 billion from the National Institutes of Health, NIH. In the alternative, stronger budgets for NIH and CDC would benefit in preparation for public health threats and pandemics.

These are the things that we, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are seeing that are happening in these first 6 months. We are concerned. We are not here just to bash the President. That is not the objective with bringing these issues out.

The objective is to make the American people aware, to call on our colleagues here in this House, in the House next door to us in the Senate, to be better stewards of what the American people have given us: the ability, the right, the job of legislating, the job of being a check and balance to an administration which has been caught in a morass of ineffectiveness and inaction to support the American people of this great country.

We are asking, Mr. Speaker, that we would wake up to what is happening, see with clear eyes, not with fake news, not with our own vision of what we would like things to be, but what things are and where this is taking us now, the people who are going to be left behind, that a better deal needs to be made for the American people who have sent us here to Washington to do what is right, to do what is good for them, to represent all the people, not the wealthy.

Listen, I was raised in New York, and I don't have anything against New Yorkers, of course, but we can't just be looking out for those people who are living on the Upper West Side, the Upper East Side, in Tribeca and SoHo, the fat cats of Wall Street. We need to be for all Americans.

I know that each one of us is here sent by the people who have sent us not just for ourselves and not just for our constituents, but for all Americans: those who can't vote, those who rely on us to be the stewards of this great legacy--the Constitution and all that America represents, the land of opportunity. People will be losing that opportunity based on what we have seen in these last 6 months.

We, the Congressional Black Caucus, as the conscience of Congress, are relying and awakening the conscience of this Congress to wake up and see what is happening, to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves, and to do the right thing, to make a better deal with the American people--not with Pennsylvania Avenue, not among ourselves, not in our private little meetings, not with what can be done for us and for our small group, but for all Americans, those Americans that are going to be left behind by those billions and trillions in tax cuts that are coming to the social safety net of this country.

It cannot be relied on by many of the States. Many of the States do not have the wherewithal to pick up that slack. And there will be even greater--greater--demise to this country if we continue to allow it to work this way.

We have got to take up the call of those people who cannot speak for themselves and do what is right and tell our President that these 6 months cannot continue for another 3 years. We cannot have it. We will not tolerate

it. You must awaken to what is the best deal for all Americans, not just those within your inner circle.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress draws closer to the August recess, we are no closer to considering comprehensive legislation to shore up our nation's crumbling infrastructure remains than we were when Republicans took control of Congress. Republicans in Congress have had control over both chambers since January, yet the American people are still left waiting more for a plan to repair our roads and bridges, bolster funding for the Highway Trust Fund, and provide stable funding to local communities for transportation projects.

The costs of Congress' inability to act are staggering. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that every American household will lose $3,400 each year between 2016 and 2025, due to infrastructure deficiencies. Our failure to act will cost the U.S. economy nearly $4 trillion in GDP by 2025 through diminished productivity, lost jobs, and the increased cost of goods. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to repair our roads, electricity grid, and water and wastewater infrastructure.

The Republican House has been in session for 110 days. I am deeply disappointed that the Republican leadership has chosen to ignore important bills that I have supported, such as H.R. 1664--the Investing in America: A Penny for Progress Act. H.R. 1664 would shore up the Highway Trust Fund through new Invest in America bonds and a modest increase in the fuel excise tax. Another bill, H.R. 1265--the Rebuilding America's Airport Infrastructure Act, would eliminate the cap on passenger facility charges, allowing local airports the ability to raise additional funds in order to build up more airport infrastructure such as new terminals and runways. H.R. 2510--the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017 would help bolster financing for new water and wastewater infrastructure projects all across the United States. These are real bills already introduced in Congress that we could consider today.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to wait. There are a number of solutions already before us that this chamber could consider. It will take a display of political will by the Republican Party to consider these practical solutions to our nation's infrastructure woes. The American people are demanding that we act swiftly on these policies so that we can focus on what is most important--the efficient movement of the people, goods, and services which drive our economy forward. The time to act is now. I strongly urge my colleagues to support a comprehensive plan to shore up our nation's infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 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 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

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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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.

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.

Isn't that too short a period of time to even come up with a thoughtful amendment?

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?

I yield to the gentleman.

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. 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 454 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 454, which provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act; H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act; and H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act.

Mr. Speaker, our domestic energy industry has suffered greatly over the last 8 years under outdated regulations and burdensome bureaucratic red tape that have prohibited growth and innovation. Today's rule allows for consideration of two very important bills that will provide clear and transparent policies for our pipeline permitting processes, making them more efficient and effective so that we can fully realize the North American energy boom; create American jobs; grow our economy; and strengthen our relations with our largest energy trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

The first bill, H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, is sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Flores of Texas.

This bill reinforces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's role as the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines by directing it to identify and invite all agencies considering an aspect of an application to establish a schedule for concurrent reviews, and to impose deadlines for final decisions.

Recent advancements in energy exploration have allowed companies to tap into previously inaccessible natural gas reserves, leading to a dramatic increase in domestic production. The increased supply has lowered energy costs and increased demand for natural gas.

As a result, current U.S. pipelines are now operating near capacity, making new pipelines necessary to deliver gas to consumers across the Nation, especially to those in the Northeast and Midwest, where demand for energy is high, but where they lack the infrastructure to deliver domestic natural gas. Additionally, due to its abundance and affordability, many manufacturers are beginning to rely on natural gas as a primary fuel.

Unfortunately, the permitting process for new pipelines is arduous and unnecessarily burdensome. Currently, when siting a pipeline project, multiple permits are required, including permits under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act, for example. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average processing time from pre-filing to certification for interstate natural gas pipelines has been 558 days. We cannot afford to wait that long, Mr. Speaker.

It is critical that we expand and modernize our Nation's pipeline infrastructure to ensure the access to affordable energy and affordable prices for consumers across the country. In order to do this, we simply must promote timely and efficient reviews as well as coordination among Federal, State, and local regulators. This bill accomplishes these goals, and I support its passage.

The rule we are discussing today also provides for consideration of H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). This bill creates a uniform and transparent process to authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of international transfers of oil, natural gas, and electricity imports and exports.

The bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review cross-border oil and natural gas pipelines and the Department of Energy to review cross-border electric transmission facilities, requiring the relevant official to issue a certificate of crossing, unless it is found not to be in the public interest.

Recent advances in technology, Mr. Speaker, have dramatically increased our ability to harness our vast natural resources, but the current ad hoc permitting process has inhibited energy producers from exporting American-made energy to our international trading partners and has significantly delayed recent proposals, such as the Keystone XL pipeline.

The value of energy traded between the United States and its North American neighbors exceeded $140 billion in 2015, with $100 billion in U.S. energy imports, and over $40 billion in exports. We simply cannot afford to gamble our energy security and competitiveness on an inefficient permitting process.

Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, also allows for consideration of H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). This bill authorizes an equal value land exchange to facilitate the construction of an 11-mile road linking the remote city of King Cove and the city of Cold Bay, which has a modern airport. The State of Alaska will transfer approximately 43,000 acres to the Department of the Interior to add to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in return for 206 acres of Federal lands to build the road.

This road is critical, Mr. Speaker, because harsh winter conditions make transporting individuals in the remote King Cove community of nearly 1,000 people dangerous and sometimes fatal: gale-force winds ground planes and prevent sea travel; evacuations can take days; and the hovercraft terminal and medical facility that Congress temporarily provided funds for, in lieu of land for the road, ceased operation in 2010.

The King Cove community has been denied proper hospital care and access to essential emergency services since they began fighting for this road 40 years ago, and that, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable.

Ensuring these folks have ground transportation options for accessing the regional hub at Cold Bay, especially during harsh winters, is vital to the safety of this community in emergency situations.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage support for the rule for these important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my friend and colleague, and the sponsor of H.R. 218.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I share my colleague's dedication to job creation, and what we know is that the kind of job creation we need in this Nation can only come with access to reliable, affordable sources of energy. Our fossil fuels in this country are a national treasure, and these bills that are being considered under this rule today are bills that would help to streamline the regulatory process.

We have been, Mr. Speaker, really facing a war on fossil fuels during the course of the last 8 years. We have seen these industries targeted, completely unfairly targeted, based on some notion that, by shutting down our fossil fuel industry, we are somehow going to be able to continue to have economic growth. We have seen the environmental officials of the previous administration even admit before this body that things like the Clean Power Plan would result, if fully implemented, in a negligible impact on the environment.

So, again, I think that it is important to recognize that it is at the center of the agenda that we are pushing forward, frankly, with historic progress in this Congress to begin to generate the kind of economic growth that we really need to get back on track.

We have been stagnant now for 8 years. We have seen overreach from the Federal Government. We have seen a situation in which companies, industry, individuals, and small businesses are strangled by regulatory red tape.

No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be oversight. No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be environmental review, but what we know is we have got to streamline it.

We cannot be in a position where bureaucrats--and, frankly, it is often unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.--impose absolutely unattainable restrictions, impose rules that our industry can't meet and prevent us from being able to have access to our own energy sources. Again, it is that reliable, affordable energy that will allow our economy to grow and bring back the jobs that the gentleman says, and to which I agree, are so important for this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about energy. They don't want to talk about fossil fuels. They don't want to talk about how important these are to the economy.

I would propose, Mr. Speaker, maybe what we should do is turn out the lights in this Chamber. Maybe we ought to turn off the air conditioning, Mr. Speaker, and we could have the debate in the dark, which is where we would be, frankly, if we followed the energy policies in the approach of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

These bills are hugely important, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we are able to continue to get access to the energy that we need; and it is crucially important that we not skip over the burden that has been caused by the Federal Government, by the regulatory burden we have been feeling, and that we take action, as is our responsibility, to begin to help to roll back that overreach, to begin to help to provide some relief so that we can, in fact, get the jobs back that our colleagues say they desire so much and that we know we need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am proud to be here, and I am proud of the agenda that we have taken up under the Republican leadership in this Congress. We are indeed doing the important work that the people sent us here to do.

So far, just a list of some of the things that we have done in the first few months of this Congress: We have taken the first step in our obligation to repeal and replace ObamaCare, a system that is absolutely failing, that is causing rising premiums. It is causing people to lose their insurance all across the Nation, a system that will collapse if we don't fix it. We, the House Republicans, have taken important steps in order to begin the repeal and replace process of ObamaCare.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have passed a bill to repeal and replace Dodd- Frank, legislation that was strangling our local community banks across the country. We have taken a step to begin to fix that and provide relief.

We have also dealt with important immigration issues and taken important action in terms of passing legislation to end human trafficking.

I am very proud, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, of the work that we have done to pass the National Defense Authorization Act to begin to rebuild our military and get the military the resources it needs so that it can defend us against a growing array of threats and a very complex array of enemies across the Nation.

We have also, Mr. Speaker, taken important steps using the congressional review action process to repeal regulations put in place over the last 8 years that have been damaging to our industry, to individuals, to small businesses all across the Nation.

We have been historically productive, and it may be that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with the steps that we have taken, but it is simply not accurate to say we aren't focusing on what is important. We are focusing on those issues that matter most to the men and women across this Nation that will begin to make sure we can keep everybody safe, begin to make sure we can defend ourselves, begin the process of reforming our outdated and burdensome tax code, as well, Mr. Speaker, as ensuring we bring back the kind of economic growth we know we need and fixing our healthcare system.

These bills that we are debating today, the rule for these bills, are part of that process. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Flores, Mr. Mullin, and Mr. Young, for their hard work on this legislation.

In Wyoming, which is one of our Nation's largest energy-producing States, we know how important it is that we work to develop our domestic energy resources. We know the technology that has been available that has helped us do that, that has helped us begin to, for the first time ever, have energy independence that has really helped us begin to have the kind of economic growth we need.

We cannot depend just on that technology. We also have got to improve the permitting process, Mr. Speaker. Improving the pipeline permitting process by promoting the kind of timely review, supporting interagency coordination, and creating a new and streamlined system for safety that will help us to transport our energy exports and imports are all crucial steps in our ability to ensure affordable energy and economic growth.

The other bill that we are considering under this rule, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 218, will provide a desperately needed road, as you heard my colleague Mr. Young explain, to improve the safety and well-being of the residents of King Cove, Alaska, and save lives, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, I urge adoption of both the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, all of us mourn the death of Kate Steinle, tragically shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Indeed, there isn't a parent anywhere who doesn't worry constantly about the well-being and the health and the safety of a child. And we all know, even though we may not have lost our own, we have deep sympathy with those who do. But as the Cato Institute has outlined, the legislation before us today would not have prevented that tragedy.

As the Cato Institute has said, the alleged shooter ``did not end up in San Francisco due to lax border security, and the case actually shows the opposite. In recent years, Border Patrol caught him each time he attempted to cross.''

He was only in the city because the U.S. Justice Department failed to do its job, and that is why Cato has called this bill, ``a waste of Federal resources.'' Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, that these are the words of the Cato Institute, a group founded by the well-known conservative Charles Koch. Cato could not have been more clear when they said it this week: ``Kate's Law would not have helped Kate.''

Now, our country has listened as President Donald J. Trump called Mexican immigrants ``criminals, drug dealers, and rapists.'' The public has watched him promote the formation of a deportation force to tear apart immigrants from their families and sign an executive order directing Federal resources toward the construction of a wall along the border between the U.S. and Mexico, where there is one mostly already that has not done that much deterring, but that is despite the fact that Federal spending on border security over the last few years has been at the highest level that our country has ever seen. It seems the majority has now taken a page from the President's playbook, apparently trying to turn his dangerous rhetoric into law.

It is shameful that they are prioritizing a bill that is completely unnecessary, since current law already imposes adequately severe penalties for illegal reentry, including enhanced penalties for criminal offenses. It is already covered, Mr. Speaker, but we do have something we need to fill the afternoon since the health bill failed. All the while, the majority is ignoring the many, many, many major issues facing the Nation today.

Now, I know, and we all know, that the bill wasn't the only thing they were hoping to ram through here before we adjourned for the district work period. They also hoped to pass their healthcare repeal bill so quickly before leaving town that the American people wouldn't notice; but, frankly, even as I say that, they have noticed, as I understand now, that the approval rating for that bill is 12 percent. They have noticed. I think what they have noticed is that they are going to kill Medicaid.

The reason they wanted to do this in a hurry, repeal healthcare first, was in order to fulfill their tax bill promise of corporate tax cuts as well as tax cuts for the richest people in the United States. They wanted to take from the health bill, the expanded Medicare money, $80 billion to pay for tax cuts. The devastation that that would create, I think most American people understand it.

If they have a loved one in a nursing home, that means that, since 64 percent of the cost of nursing care is borne by Medicaid, that they would very likely have to bring the person home.

It means that 22 million people would lose their health insurance. You know, we just say that, ``22 million people.'' Let me put that number in some perspective. That number, 22 million, is more than the population of Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wyoming combined. That is pretty impressive, isn't it?

In February, our President Trump said: ``Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.'' Well, Mr. Speaker and Mr. President, those of us on our side who worked for more than a year to craft the Affordable Care Act knew that very well. I was chair of the Rules Committee at the time, and just the Rules Committee heard from 46 different Members of Congress over the course of three meetings which, together, lasted more than 20 hours, one of them a full Saturday of hearings.

So, together with the work done by the other committees of jurisdiction, the healthcare reform law received such a thorough vetting--and I want to get this on the record because I hear all the time it was written behind closed doors and strange people and nobody knew what it was and that we were all surprised. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bill Kristol proclaimed on FOX News: ``This is the most thoroughly debated piece of legislation in my memory in Washington.''

I feel like I need to say that again, but I won't take the time, but how important it is. But those of us who were there knew it. We knew how many committee meetings were held on this legislation.

On the bill you are talking about from your side, the majority side, not a single committee has heard it. I wager that the vast majority of the Republicans--who deserve to see it--have not even seen that bill, and that is a tragedy. We do not operate the United States of America that way.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison between the open, the transparent, and lengthy process that we went through to craft the Affordable Care Act--which, by the way, was written by experts--and what the majority is trying to do with this disastrous repeal bill.

And while I am at it, so many times when I was doing the rule on the repeal bills--and, you know, repeal and replace, repeal and replace. We know now that all those 7 years and those more than 60 votes that we paid for while we are running the House, that all this time there was no replacement. They still don't have a replacement. If that wasn't a hoax on the American people, I don't know what was. But the process we are seeing now is defined by backroom deals and secrecy and a complete disregard for regular order.

And I understand that, between now and tomorrow afternoon, there will be a lot of big deals changing hands so that we won't know next week what is there anyway, but we wait to see the new CBO score and see what that says.

Nearly every President since Theodore Roosevelt tried to enact healthcare reform. That is a long time. Teddy Roosevelt tried it and many

Presidents after him. But after decades of failed attempts and false starts, President Obama, working with a Democratic Congress, was finally able to deliver.

The majority should work with us again. We are willing to do that. And what we would really like to see you do is take the ACA and the problems that it has and let's work together and improve that law, which has already been in effect now for a number of years, since 2014, and we could just move ahead and get on with things that are terribly important to us.

We wish that you would do that instead of trying to dismantle it. If it were dismantled, it would disrupt the markets. It would harm the sick and disproportionately impact those in nursing homes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire if my colleague has more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on the promise of bringing jobs back home and removing barriers to job creation. But despite these promises, President Trump's budget does the complete opposite. It cuts job training programs by 39 percent, and its draconian spending cuts would lead to massive job losses.

My colleagues will be happy to hear that I have an amendment that will ensure that the President keeps his promise of bringing jobs back home.

Mr. Speaker, if 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.

H.R. 685 will close a tax loophole that rewards companies for moving jobs overseas, while providing a tax credit to companies that move jobs back to the United States.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 38th closed rule allowing no amendments that House Republicans have brought to the floor this year alone, and it is only June. At this rate, the majority is well on its way to becoming the most closed Congress in history.

Regular order seems to be a thing of the past under this leadership, with bills coming to the House floor, as these two are, for a vote without even going through the committee process. The immigration bills we considered this week didn't even go through regular order. The disastrous healthcare repeal bill, which would impact one-sixth of the Nation's economy, didn't get a single hearing, and hardly anybody saw it.

No experts were ever called to discuss its impacts, and it was jammed through the Chamber last month without even a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office outlining its costs or its impacts. The Senate has also completely bypassed the committee process.

I was proud to bring the Affordable Care Act, as I said earlier, to the House floor in 2009, as chair of the Rules Committee. That process couldn't have been more different.

Let me remind those watching today that the House held 79 bipartisan hearings and markups on health insurance reform in 2009 and 2010. During this time, House Members heard from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, considered 239 Democratic and Republican amendments, and accepted 121 of them.

That process was entirely different from what we go through today. In fact, a lot of the Members of the House are really cut out of most of the process. The idea of getting an amendment is really pretty rare.

The legislation we consider here should be able to withstand scrutiny, but, more and more, the Nation's business is done in the dark, or by a few people.

Let's get out of the back rooms, Mr. Speaker, and let legislators of both parties do their job under an open process. That is what the Speaker promised when he took the gavel, and it is what all the books and Rules of the House of Representatives desire, and it is certainly what the American people deserve.

Mr. Speaker, we should not consider a bill that would cost tens of millions of people to lose health insurance, and not consider the anti- immigration bills before us today.

So I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the bill, and hope for better days.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.