Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Colonel Jonathan ``Jon'' Howerton, United States Army, for his extraordinary dedication to duty and selfless service to the United States of America. Colonel Howerton will be moving on from his present assignment as the Chief of the Army's Liaison Division to the United States House of Representatives where he served from April 1st, 2016 to June 1st, 2017 to become the Deputy Commander for Maneuver of the 2nd Infantry Division (Republic of Korea-United States Combined Division), Camp Casey, Republic of Korea.

The son of a career Army officer, Colonel Howerton grew up on posts, camps, and stations across the continental United States and in Europe. He was commissioned through the Reserve Officer Training Corps into the Field Artillery upon graduation from Texas Christian University in 1990. After his first assignment as a lieutenant, he commanded Field Artillery units at the Battery, Battalion and Brigade levels and has served in a variety of tactical, operational, and strategic level leadership and staff positions. He has extensive experience overseas including a previous assignment to Korea and one to Germany along with operational deployments to Bosnia-Herzegovina supporting Operation Joint Guard, and three to Iraq supporting both Operations Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn. He has also been stationed at numerous military installations in the United States to include Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Fort Polk, Louisiana; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Carson, Colorado; Schofield Barracks, Fort Shafter and Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii; and Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to recognize Colonel Howerton's long and decorated career. On behalf of a grateful Nation, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing and commending Colonel Howerton for a lifetime of service to his country, and for all he and his family have given and continue to give to our country. We are in their debt. We wish him, his wife Tricia, his daughter Baylor, and his son Cooper all the best as they continue their Army journey to the Republic of Korea.

Mr. Speaker, the independent nation of Taiwan is a highly-advanced industrialized democracy which contributes greatly to the world economy, particularly in the area of high tech, and is a long-time stalwart ally of the United States. We congratulate President Tsai lng-wen on her one year anniversary as President of Taiwan.

The economic and military ties between our two nations have been built steadily over the past several decades, and I believe that it is important that the U.S. remains committed to this important bilateral relationship.

While our two countries have much to celebrate on this occasion, at the same time, some of the old diplomatic and political challenges are resurfacing which threaten Taiwan's participation as a constructive member of the global community. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO), an arm of the United Nations, declined to invite Taiwan to participate in its annual World Health Assembly despite Taiwan's participation and contributions during the previous 8 years running.

Mr. Speaker, this deliberate snub was politically motivated, and violated the WHO's Constitution by excluding the people of Taiwan for no legitimate reason. The 23 million citizens of Taiwan should not be denied access to this and future annual meetings, especially if the stated goal of the World Health Organization is to provide a better healthier future to all peoples of the world.

I believe that the United States has an obligation to step forward and express strong disapproval of this WHO action.

To ensure that there is no gap in the disease prevention network and that, together, all might work for the advancement of human health worldwide, it is imperative that the United States Congress and the Administration rise in full support for Taiwan in this matter. The WHO Secretariat should be admonished regarding its moral and legal obligation to uphold its charter of independence and impartiality. The WHO and its leadership should not be at the service of any member state in particular. I ask my colleagues to join me in voicing our support for Taiwan's full and meaningful participation in the WHO, as well other international organizations now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 123, I

call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 69) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior relating to ``Non- Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 69.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the only Member of Congress in the House from Alaska, the dean of the Republican side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands in our full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the vice chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a member of our committee, who is also going to talk about the reality of what we are facing here.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman

from Alaska (Mr. Young), the one who actually lives there and knows the area and knows the names of the towns.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here to repeal a rule issued by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service to restrict hunting on the national wildlife refuges in Alaska.

This rule is a solution. The only problem is no one knows for what it is a solution because there is no problem. And the sad part is that means that this rule is basically a useless rule. It has no efficacy to it. Despite the assertions that had been made repeatedly and a cacophony of all sorts of practices that are seeming to be wrong and bad, this rule doesn't do that.

This rule does not abandon any of the practices you are talking about on subsistence hunting, only on nonsubsistence hunting, which simply means that, if you are classified as a subsistence hunter, anything that the other side talked about and raled about is actually allowed by the silly rule. That is why the rule makes no sense.

The State of Alaska had it under control, and there is no real problem that is solved by this rule that is totally inefficient, but did make something nice about it.

Now, it makes things worse because it is talking about predator control only on nonsubsistence hunting. Unfortunately, the predators don't know, when they go after their prey, whether that prey is designed for a subsistence hunter or a recreation hunter. They haven't learned to distinguish that yet.

Ergo, how you administer this law is totally ineffective. It is impossible to do so, and what you do is simply make a blanket approach so that everyone gets harmed in the same equal fashion. That is what Fish and Wildlife has decided to do.

In addition to that, yes, it is illegal. It usurps State authority, and it usurps it very clearly. You know, it is amazing to me. I cannot believe that in the first Congress that we had, the Founding Fathers were there coming up with the Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment, they thought the 10th Amendment would eventually some day be imagined by a bureaucrat in Washington to overrule Congress on matters that were clearly intended for State discretion, but that is precisely what we have done here.

This rule violates three congressionally passed statutes that have precedence on this particular issue. And this rule violates Federal law passed by Congress on three separate occasions.

What was supposed to be envisioned with this system was a cooperative relationship between the State and the Federal Government. What this rule simply does is allow for Fish and Wildlife on the Federal level to have supremacy, to destroy that cooperation and coordination and take over control totally. That is wrong. It should never be there.

There are 16 different refuges up there. That is 76 million acres of land now going to be controlled by the Fish and Wildlife system here in Washington. That is more acreage than 46 of the 50 States that we have. And, once again, for many of those people, this hunting is a source of subsistence up there.

Here is the bottom line: Mr. Blumenauer came up here and said, why don't we let the professionals make their decisions. They do. Those professionals are the Alaska Department of Fish and Game who know exactly what they are doing, they know the area, and they know the animals.

The so-called helicopter hunting that was raled against up here is not done by any recreational hunter. Alaska doesn't allow that. The Alaska Fish and Game will do that for management control based on scientific purposes and reasons and that only.

This rule doesn't change any of that. No. I'm sorry, this rule actually doesn't change any of the recreational hunting, which is already outlawed by the State of Alaska. It only stops the Fish and Wildlife system of Alaska from simply doing their job as they know how to do it.

I include in the Record a letter supported by 27 different organizations all dealing with outdoor life in support of this particular resolution.

February 6, 2017.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader McCarthy: We write

representing organizations that collectively include millions

of wildlife conservationists, hunter conservationists,

wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists, in strong

support of H.J. Res. 49 from Cong. Young (AK), which would

nullify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) final rule

``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation

and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in

Alaska'' (81 Fed. Reg. 52248 (August 5, 2016)). Our community

exhausted all Executive Branch appeals and remedies urging

the FWS to slow down the Proposed Rule, and revise it to

reflect a proposal mutually agreed to by the State of Alaska

and the FWS; all to no end. It is time for Congress to

nullify this final rule.

This final rule boldly preempts the authority of the Alaska

Department of Fish and Game to manage wildlife for both

recreational and subsistence hunting on NWRs, which authority

of the state is affirmed by Congress in the Alaska Statehood

Act, the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act, and

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The FWS

final rule was premised on meeting as a priority the FWS

policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental

Health; which

would inadvisably set a precedent nationally. Many members of

our organizations enjoy Alaska's bounty of fish and wildlife

resources and their habitats for unrivaled hunting, fishing

and outdoor experiences. The sustainable management of these

natural resources needs to be led by the State working in

cooperation with the FWS. We urge that you favorably consider

H.J. Res. 49 which will restore the jurisdictional state-

federal relationship as Congress has previously directed.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns

about this harmful and illegal rule which if left un-

remedied, significantly affects the use and appreciation of

the magnificent natural resources found in Alaska.

Sincerely,

Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to

Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari Club,

Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Houston Safari

Club, Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mule Deer Foundation,

National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports

Foundation, National Trappers Association, National Wild

Turkey Federation, Orion the Hunter's Institute.

Pheasants Forever, Professional Outfitters and Guides,

Quail Forever, Quality Deer Management Association, Ruffed

Grouse Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club

International, Sportsmen's Alliance, Whitetails Unlimited,

Wild Sheep Foundation, Wildlife Forever, Wildlife Management

Institute.

Madam Speaker, this comes from groups all over the Nation who understand what is going on and also realize the problem of this--I mean, there are some people who might think this only deals with Alaska. Technically, it does.

The problem is, if this happens to Alaska, if the ability of the Federal Government to supersede the State happens in Alaska, this could also happen to anyone of the lower 48 States.

We are simply one lawsuit away from Fish and Wildlife Service being either allowed or required to order similar regulations for everything across the lower 48 States as well. And that is what is so difficult and impossible to understand.

Look, let me try and sum it up this way: None of the practices that have been railed about today actually are existing, and any of those that are are easily controlled by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

The underlying premise, both of the rule that the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior did and the underlying premise of most of the debate that has happened here on the floor, is that only somebody who lives here in Washington has the intelligence, the foresight, the vision to make these kind of rules that unfortunately people in Alaska are simply too dumb to do it. You are a bunch of redneck hicks that don't understand how to rule yourself. You don't understand science. You barely have television.

I don't know what it is, but why do we have this mindset that only Washington can make these decisions when actually the States have proven, not only that are they capable, they are superior to what happens from this Department here in Washington.

That is what this is about, an illegal rule that simply takes away from the States what they are doing and what they are doing well; and that is why this should be opposed. That is why this rule should be pulled away. This midnight rule, once again, should be taken back.

Allow them to start over and do something intelligently. At least, recognize the professionals--the real professionals who work in the States to make this system work. They can do it. They have done it. Allow them to do their jobs, and protect the rest of us from any judge saying, oh, if it happened in Alaska, maybe it can happen in your State as well. That is the fear.

This is a rule passed by Fish and Wildlife at the last minute of the Obama administration that doesn't solve anything and will be impossible to administer. It violates everything that has gone on before.

Vote for this rule. Bring back sanity and allow the States to do their job as they are supposed to do and as the law prescribes for them to do.

I urge support of this. I don't know if you are undecided on whether I was for this resolution or not. Just, for the record, yes, I support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 99, I call up the bill (H.R. 428) to survey the gradient boundary along the Red River in the States of Oklahoma and Texas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 428.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the sponsor of this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Federal Lands that deals with this area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who understands this, who is coming from that State, and who also serves as the vice chairman of the entire Resources Committee.

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

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

Now, in summary of what we have heard today, this situation is a result

of a silly and suspect survey that has slapped the citizens with uncertainty and soured them for the security because seizing citizen sites has taken place.

The question was asked: Where is BLM? That is a good question. Where is BLM? They started this problem 8 years ago and have yet to do anything to try and solve the problem. That is why this bill is here before us because BLM has not done their job. Using a poor survey process, they have simply put people who have done nothing wrong in doubt of their ownership of their property which they have had for generations and have been paying taxes on for years. Yet, in 8 long years, BLM has done nothing to solve the situation to give them the certainty so they know where they stand.

That is why the private citizens went to court. The only reason it is in court is because these private citizens were so frustrated with BLM taking so long to do something that could have been done within a matter of weeks, and yet it is now 8 years into a process simply because BLM used a flawed survey. Instead of using the gradient boundary survey method that the Supreme Court suggests, they did something else which brought them to the unusual conclusion that BLM actually owned 90,000 acres of land on this riverbank that they have never had in their history.

Later, they realized that was an unusual claim, so they lowered it down to: I own 30,000 acres of land--but 30,000 acres of land that has been in private property for years, for generations, they have been paying taxes on it, and now their land is in limbo. They can't do anything simply because BLM has refused to do its job.

It is not just here in Texas. Go across the State boundary to Louisiana where Lake Bistineau has the exact same problem with the exact same survey problems from the same agency, BLM. Go all the way to Colorado with Elkhorn Ranch. Once again, survey problems done by BLM which placed claims on private property that are exorbitant and yet moves at a snail's pace to try and solve the problem.

One of the first issues I dealt with when I came to Congress was Hyde Park, and, once again, the Federal Government--this time it was the Forest Service--taking claim on lands that had been, for generations, in private property and refusing to try and work with the property owners to solve the problem. That is what has been going on for 8 long years with the boundary line between Texas and Oklahoma.

Why are we coming here with a bill? Simply because you have got to solve the problem. You have got to fix the problem for people.

I have to also say something. The misrepresentation of the BLM planning rule that was presented is a total misrepresentation. In fact, when we removed that rule, the 2.0 planning rule, we did it because people want to have their voices heard and are eliminated if that planning rule goes into effect. That is why it has to stop, so this type of situation does not happen again.

Some people have said this may be an unprecedented concept. Actually, our realization that somebody has to handle the situation by actually allowing Oklahoma and Texas to pick qualified surveyors, do the survey--and do the survey--and then coordinate with the tribes so they come up with a process, that is exactly what should have happened in 2009. Because BLM didn't do it, we are going to bring a bill to make sure they actually get something done.

This has been supported by the Texas and Oklahoma Farm Bureaus, the Texas General Land Office, Texas Southwest Cattle Raisers Association, and the people who live in this area who want to have some kind of conclusion so they can have their property rights respected.

Now, it has been said what we are doing is unprecedented--perhaps. What we are doing is trying to solve the problem to help people; and if it takes an unprecedented action by Congress to solve people's problem and let them move on with their lives, then that is the responsibility of Congress. We are the ones who establish what the policies should be, not some executive branch agency of government. It is our responsibility.

We are doing exactly what the people expect us to do by saying 8 years of unexpected and unanswered questions is far too long. Solve the problem and help people so they know what is their private property and what is not their private property and they can move on with their lives. If that is unprecedented, then it is about time we did something that is unprecedented. That is important.

That is why this bill is here, and that is why this bill is here now. It is coming at the beginning of the session because we cannot wait longer for the BLM to actually do what they should have done in 2009.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want you to realize we are here on Valentine's Day. There is nothing special about that, but this is an issue where there has been no love lost. In fact, the landowners along this river have been simply soaked. But deep in the heart of Texas--all right, I know it is a boundary line, but I have got to get the heart in there some way. Deep in the heart of Texas, we are coming forth with a bill that is showing that the love for people who have paid their taxes and lived on this land for generations is not forgotten and that BLM has committed a crime of the heart with this land grab.

Indeed, Chairman Thornberry has passionately defended the interests of his constituents who just want to know the government loves them. That is why this bill is here. That is why it needs to be supported, and that is why I urge you to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this different kind of rule. It is basically a rule defining a rule that defines future activity. So it is somewhat convoluted.

But this is a regulation--one more of those broad, midnight regulations--that affects 250 million acres of land, almost all of which is found in the West. Even in my own district, it will affect 3 million acres of land; that means something that is bigger than the State of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. It affects us with disastrous consequences. As has been said, this dilutes local and State voices and centralizes power here in Washington, D.C.

By law already, the agencies have got to meet with local and State leaders and coordinate, which they are not doing well. This undermines that specifically, and it stacks the deck from the very beginning against counties and State voices and against multiple use.

This puts special interest groups above elected local officials, which is not the way it was ever intended to be. There are 60 different organizations that are begging us to repeal this bad rule.

In my district, the Duchesne County Commissioners wrote us to say:

``Our constituents are good stewards of the land, dedicated to meeting environmental requirements, while developing and supplying affordable energy to consumers. We believe Planning 2.0 presents multiple challenges that will prejudice multiple use interests with a bias. . . . ''

That bias is clearly there. That bias is shown in the mitigation factor within this. Within the bowels of the Department of the Interior, they have shown us how they are going to implement this rule, which means if there is any kind of economic or recreational opportunity and you want to develop, say, like 50 acres to do that, they will insist that you go out and buy either State or private land as a mitigation for those 50 acres. And if you can't find additional private or State lands, you hold up the entire process.

Either way, you expand the amount of acreage the Federal Government will do, and that is part of this Planning 2.0 process. That is why it is so ludicrous.

Duchesne County participated in the rulemaking process for Planning 2.0, but like all the other counties, States, and local governments, their concerns were ignored and their opinions were excluded in the final rule. We had two separate hearings on this issue, but all the testimony that was heard was also ignored and no input was given to them at that time.

Look, counties like Duchesne are in dire situations, especially in the West. They need to be consulted. That is their role and responsibility. That is what a democracy in the republican form of government does.

This rule bypasses them. It cuts out their voice, and it puts in programs like that mitigation, which is definitely scary and has absolutely negative connotations for the future.

This is a perfect rule that needs to be rolled back because it goes too far, it was done at the last minute, and it undermines the kind of input we need to make proper decisions.

I compliment the gentlewoman from Wyoming for presenting this rule. This is one that has got to go. I urge Members' support of her resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 74, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 36.

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

For the last decade, there has been an ongoing renaissance in the United States in energy production. It has changed our geopolitics; our economy has been strengthened; our security has been enhanced; and there have been thousands of new, good-paying jobs that have been created from it. This energy boom, according to a 2015 survey, has saved the American family around $1,000 a year, and this growth of the last decade has come in spite of consistent anti-energy policies of the previous administration's. It has especially hit those of us in the West very hard--those who are public land States in the West--who use our resources to fund our infrastructure and to pay for our schools and our essential government services.

This rule, which is allegedly to help the environment, actually is designed to stop production; therefore, it becomes a prime candidate for a repeal under the Congressional Review Act, which was passed into law in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. At that time, Clinton said that this was a great way for Congress to be held accountable, and it truly is in that any rule is subject to this rule if it has one of three criteria: one, excessive costs; two, it was done beyond the particular agency's statutory authority; or, three, it is duplicative or unnecessary or redundant. With this particular rule, we have the trifecta because it is not just one of those criteria--it offends all of those criteria.

The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency, in its working with States, the authority to develop issues and regulations that address air quality. The Bureau of Land Management does not, and they are the ones who instituted this particular rule. In fact, the contortions the BLM went through to say they have the legal authority is almost embarrassing. The contortions they went through would qualify for an opening act on the Las Vegas Strip. Instead, it reminds us of when the BLM came up with the hydraulic fracturing rule only for them to

be rebuked by the courts for simply doing what they did outside their delegated authority.

This is the same thing. This is an illegal rule, and it is a costly one. Our effort to educate our children, to build infrastructure, to provide essential government services--in other words, to make people's lives better--depends on our ability to deal with our resources. This is a costly rule. On Friday, it was estimated by one source that it could cost the industry up to $20 billion; it was estimated to cost States up to $6 billion; and it was estimated to cost the Federal Government in lost royalties up to $600 million a year. It is a costly rule and is a totally unnecessary rule.

Without this rule, the American energy industry will continue to do what they have done for well over a decade--reduce methane emissions on their own by investing in technology that not only helps the environment, but that helps them grow their business, which will lead to more jobs for Americans and more funding for State education programs and infrastructure. Since 2005, methane emissions have actually decreased even as production has increased, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this progress will suddenly stop because we strike this unnecessary rule, this illegal rule, this totally redundant rule.

There are some who will say: Well, we need this rule to protect the taxpayers because we are burning up the royalty payments.

Oh, really? If one looks at the BLM's actions--their management on sage-grouse, their lease cancellations, pulling acreage out of lease sales at the last minute, their constant barrage of revenue-reducing agency actions--you will realize that saving taxpayers money is not the real goal here.

Look, there are only three things you can do with the methane. You can build pipelines to capture it and take it away where it can be used for the benefit of mankind. Unfortunately, the agencies in the last administration refused to do that. Even though, legally, they had to make decisions on pipelines within 60 days, there is not a single BLM office anywhere in the Nation that was meeting that legal deadline. Instead, it was open for months afterwards when nothing was happening. If you can't have the pipelines to move it away, you have to burn it. So, if they won't give the pipelines and if now they are trying to stop the burning of it, the only other option is not to drill at all.

Our policy should be to fund and make sure those pipelines and those rights of ways are approved so that we can actually capture the methane and use it for productive purposes. Unfortunately, this rule's real goal is to do the third element--simply stop the production. That is counterproductive.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution because it will help people and it will support people. This rule's repeal is a vote for people and making sure that their lives are better, not worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who knows exactly what this means to his State and his State's economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who also understands this issue because it is part of the livelihood of his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who lives in an area where he clearly understands what this issue is about.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Much has been said about what Colorado has been able to do as a State on this particular issue, and that's good because Colorado, as a State, has the legal responsibility and legal authorization to work with the EPA on this particular issue. Naturally, industry would be liking that because the States are far more effective in dealing with industry than the BLM ever is, which still does not have statutory authority in this particular area.

In fact, even Colorado has its limits. When they were cut out of the process on the stream buffer rule that we talked about earlier, they also joined the lawsuit against the EPA and against the Federal Government for that particular issue. It is simply hypocritical for BLM to pretend that this is about waste when they refuse to actually solve the problem by pipeline approval and rights-of-way approval, which is the total solution.

So what we come down to is that simply this is a rule that violates all three of the criteria set forth in the Congressional Review Act. It is a rule that is terribly expensive; it is a rule that is redundant; and it is a rule that exceeds the statutory authority of the entity that is making that particular rule, a prime candidate for use of the Congressional Review Act, which is our responsibility. It's a congressional responsibility to establish these standards, not the executive branch agencies.

If someone has decided not to vote for this resolution, to actually support this rule, I could ask: What is the deciding factor that pushed them over into accepting that position? Was it simply because this rule is redundant and unnecessary? That without this rule, emissions were being lowered and they were lowered before this rule was implemented and they will be lowered after this rule is decimated at the same time? Is it because of the redundancy? Did they decide to vote against this particular rule because, well, of the cost increase that it will bring?

The idea that affordable energy is being harmed by this particular rule is real, and that means that any person is going to feel an increased cost in their energy consumption. Whether it is trying to heat his or her home or every time they turn on a lightbulb, this rule raises that cost. Once again, it hurts the people who are at the bottom of our economic level who are the most vulnerable to these kinds of increases.

Is that what decided you to vote against this resolution or tipped you in the balance of trying to support the rule? Or is it simply the fact that it is an illegal rule? Is that the defining issue, that it simply is an illegal rule where they have no statutory authority to do what they did?

If those criteria are not good enough, then I ask you and urge you to do something that actually helps people and helps reduce the cost of energy and make sure that we have affordable energy so this economic and energy renaissance that we have had in the last decade can continue not just on State and private lands, but it can continue on Federal lands as well, which it has not done.

We need to do this to support people. We need to do this so that States can fund their infrastructure and States can actually fund their education system and people can turn on the lightbulb without having to take out a loan at the local bank to do so.

This rule repeal is the right thing to do. You should vote ``yes'' on this resolution because it helps people.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 70, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 38.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

We are starting an historic week in the House, something that was replicated almost two decades ago, but we are doing it again and are using the Congressional Review Act to look at actual rules and regulations. What we are doing is the right thing.

In 1996, when this act was first passed, President Clinton, after signing it, said that this act would give congressional accountability for regulations. Even Harry Reid said that this act would be reclaiming for Congress some of its policymaking authority, and Sander Levin of Michigan, at the time, also said that now we are in a position to do something ourselves. If a rule goes too far afield from the intent of Congress in its passing the statute in the first place, we can stop it. That is exactly what we are attempting to do, and this is one of the first of those activities we will be doing this week.

The Congressional Review Act actually has three purposes in mind. They said, if a rule has excessive costs, if a rule goes beyond the particular agency's statutory authority, and if a rule is duplicative or unnecessary, it should be reviewed by Congress and rescinded. That is exactly what we are going to do because this rule, commonly called the stream protection rule, does all three of those criteria.

What I want to do is talk about this rule that was passed at the last minute by the former administration--it actually went into effect on the very last day of the administration--and say that it violates all of those three elements. The act itself--the rule itself--was done in secret. They had their own opaque study that they did without letting anyone know what the data was. We asked for it repeatedly, but the agency refused to tell us. Even in 2015, Congress passed a law in the Appropriations Act that mandated they tell us the data, the information. They simply ignored that law. They have refused to work with Congress in any particular way.

Actually, it violates law. If this rule goes forward, it violates the NEPA law. If gone into implementation, it would violate the Endangered Species Act.

It violates a memo of understanding the Federal Government had with 10 States at the time. In fact, there are 14 States suing over this rule and regulation. We have the letters of support from 14 State attorneys general in support of what we are attempting to do here.

If put into effect, it clearly violates the Clean Water Act by its effort to redefine hydraulic balance, which this agency does not have the authority to do. It is given to other elements.

It also puts us at risk of litigation on a takings issue. There is precedent for that. It could happen again, all because of this ill- defined and unnecessary rule and regulation.

If we roll it back, there is still protection. There will always still be protection. In a Department of the Interior study, they clearly said that 93 percent of all the impact has already been taken care of and does not actually exist. It would be easy for us to do and it would put us back to a rule established in 1983 that is effective in protecting these areas. Ninety three percent of all streams have no impact by this issue whatsoever.

It also clearly says, under the report when this rule was being done, that the States that are legally supposed to be coordinated and be a part of the process were shut out of the process. It is one of the reasons why they are still suing, which means the memo of understanding signed by those States was ignored by the agency in coming up with this rule. The States that regulate 97 percent of the Nation's coal production, States and tribes that abate well over 90 percent of the abandoned mine problems--they have it in line, they have it ready, they are ready to move forward with it--they were simply shut out of the process. It is a poor process.

There was a former icon of this body, a great Member who once allegedly said: If I let you make the policy and you let me make the procedure, I will screw you over every time.

This is poor procedure that has produced a poor rule, which will result in poor policy. At best, this rule is redundant. It is clearly unnecessary, and it does have the potential of hurting people nefariously when it does not need to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) to explain this joint resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), someone who has forgotten more about coal than I will ever know.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to quibble over details, but we actually held 13 hearings and passed four bills over the last three Congresses about this particular rule and found countless problems with it. That is why we are here today.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who knows the real impact on his constituents that this rule will have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who chaired most of our 13 hearings on this issue, and who represents a State that is suing because they were ignored in this rule, where they should have had their rights under the Clean Water Act, which is part of the problem we have here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), part of our committee who has heard the 13 hearings, understands this issue, and was part of the House when we voted four different times to be opposed to this particular rule.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the pleasure of recognizing people who are not on our committee but still know how silly this rule actually is.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost.)

Mr. Speaker, nice to know that 2:30 in the afternoon is the dead of night.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), another State that was promised, in the Clean Water Act, to have authority which was taken away by this simple rule.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), a new Member of Congress, who realizes that this rule is long on regulations and short on real new protections for people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), one of the other members of our committee who has served for a long time and has heard many of these arguments before.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition to this particular bill goes from coast to coast. We just heard from California. Now we will go back to the East Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who clearly understands the situation that this rule has presented.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The stream protection rule has got to be the poster child for the Congressional Review Act's action. There are 400 changes to the bill. There are 400 changes in over 1,600 pages of regulations, and there is no new, real protection above and beyond what we were using since the Reagan administration.

But it does outline benefits and potential problems for 70,000 people directly with their jobs, for 300,000 people whose jobs are threatened in a ripple effect, and, unfortunately, for everyone else. Every time you turn a light on, your costs will be exacerbated because of this particular rule.

This rule affects the most vulnerable of our population and it hurts them. It is time for us to realize that it is time to stop making rules and regulations for an ideological approach, and, instead, new rules and regulations that help people, not hurt people, as this particular one does.

That is why this House, on four different occasions over the last three congresses, has voted against this particular proposal.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of false science today, which is appropriate since the agency that concocted this rule refused to allow any of the data they used to make the rule to be made public. We asked for it. We asked for it in legislation. They simply refused to comply. Ninety-three percent of the sites are not having any impact on the streams, and the other seven percent we already had rules that covered them that did this protection. There is no real new protection in this particular act.

The States, which regulate 97 percent of the coal mines in the United States, were shut out of the process, which is why they are suing over it. This rule undercuts the State primacy that was provided in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

What we are doing here today with this effort is to reestablish the article I authority that we have in the Constitution by saying we are responsible for the policy, not some agency of the executive branch.

Adopting this resolution protects the rights of States tasked with regulating the coal industry in their borders, and it also actually helps people. People are going to be harmed if this act is not repealed and actually goes into effect, and the most vulnerable of our populations are the ones who will suffer the most because of it.

Because of that reason, it is right for Congress to do our responsibility here and now and repeal this bad act that was done in secret that was not allowed to have the openness that we have requested in the past and that is simply redundant at best, totally unnecessary, and does the harm that it does to real people: 70,000 direct jobs, over 300,000 indirect jobs, as well as a higher cost to everyone who uses energy in this Nation.

I ask my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval and vote for its final passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of coming here and talking about this issue.

My relationship with the Environmental Protection Agency has been infrequent, thankfully, but it has also not necessarily been successful or positive. In an issue that dealt specifically with my hometown and county, to be very honest, the science that was used by the Environmental Protection Agency to make the decision was flawed.

The State clearly showed that it was flawed; yet that did not make a difference in their ultimate decision, which led me to believe that the decision was perhaps more politically motivated than it was scientifically motivated.

I realize this advisory board, though, is in place to try to mitigate against those circumstances taking place, but if that advisory board is going to work, it has to have the balance of input that is necessary for that.

I am frustrated that out of the 50-plus members of this board, only two have backgrounds in State and local governments and those from only specific States. This board desperately needs that kind of input from those entities that have a day-to-day working relationship with these issues.

If that is not there, if that is not remedied, then the board itself is going to be flawed, and it is not going to fulfill the purpose for which it was designed.

I fully support this bill because this advisory board has an effort and a job to fill to mitigate problems before those problems develop, and if it is not an effective board, then we should either reform it, as this bill tries to do, or we should eliminate it, but it can be reformed. It should be reformed. This is a step to actually reform it, to make sure that there is better input for better decisions to be made.

I congratulate the gentleman from my home State of Utah for coming up with a bill that solves a real problem and does it in a fair and professional way.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 715 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014, and makes in order three amendments, all from Democrats, for floor consideration.

It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

In addition, this resolution provides for a closed rule for consideration of House Resolution 644, which condemns the administration's clear failure to follow the law requiring 30 days' advance congressional notification if any terrorist detainees at Guantanamo are to be released and condemning this administration's policy of selectively negotiating with terrorists to secure the release of an Army staff sergeant.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

While these are separate issues, the two separate pieces of legislation covered under this rule, unfortunately, share one common theme: the practice of this administration to stretch the law.

As Bill Veeck used to say when he was running his baseball team, he doesn't break the rules, he just tests their elasticity. This administration has tested the elasticity from some of these rules and laws to the point where they have broken, and it is an overreach of the authority under the law.

Madam Speaker, let me talk for just a second about H.R. 5078 that deals with the Clean Water Act. This is a bipartisan bill. It was passed in the committee by a voice vote supported by many State and local governments and has largely been ignored by this administration as the administration seeks to go around Congress and attempt to revise administrative rules asserting a Federal stranglehold on private enterprise and job creation.

One may want to know why the U.S. economy is still in a Jimmy Carter- like malaise situation after 6 years with this administration. Just taking a look at the underlying issue of this bill finds an answer: the administration wants more rulemaking authority, more regulations, and a stronger Federal stranglehold on what you and I can and can't do, what business owners can and can't do, and what farmers can or can't do with their own property.

Clearly, when the Clean Water Act was passed, it specified that the primary responsibility for water issues were to lay with the States. It is very clear when they came up with the concept of navigable waters of the United States, the Federal Government had a jurisdictional interest in interstate water regulations, but not intrastate.

Twice the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled against the agencies that have been managing the Clean Water Act and saying simply that they overstretched their authority, they stretched their limits, and they stretched what is the power given to them under this particular act.

Now, unfortunately, we see an administration that is trying to move around that. Two Congresses--the 110th and the 111th--had legislation that was introduced to try and change these provisions of the Clean Water Act. Both times they were met with strong bipartisan opposition which didn't go anywhere.

Now, the administration, with much of their work done in closed-door session without local input, are trying to draft a proposed administrative rule that takes the Supreme Court decisions--it misconstrues their decisions and manipulates their decisions, so that, in effect, it turns the cases that we are attempting to put limitations on what the Clean Water Act authorized the government to do and use that as a justification for the Agency to broaden its jurisdiction and increase the controls it has over waters of the United States and individuals. In so doing, it actually harms people.

Overregulation seems to be one of this administration's hallmark. This

bill, in a bipartisan manner, will address the proper way to go about modifying the Clean Water Act and its relation to Federal power, such that it will not further stifle jobs, economic growth, or hurt people, while it still protects the environment.

The rule before us is still a good bill. It deals with two vitally important pieces of legislation. I urge their adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend from Florida that significant issues need to be addressed on this floor. Nothing is more significant than the future of our water rights, which does impact the economy, especially for areas of interest where that is significant, like agriculture. Because of that, I am glad to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments that were made by the gentleman from Florida just recently, except that I would take exception to the idea that anything that we should bring to this floor has to be generated and has to be passed by the Senate.

I reject the idea that we have to get permission from that body to discuss things here on the floor, and if they allow it to go forward, then, and only then, would we bring something to the floor, because this rule will bring a significant piece of legislation that has to be addressed dealing with a potential rule and regulation that deals with the waters of the United States that could have enormous consequences-- enormous consequences not only for the economy of this country, but also for individuals who use the water and live with that water.

We have the potential of actually doing something positive by stopping a bad rule from going into effect by changing its direction and saying that only Congress should be the one that would change those concepts. Unfortunately, if we don't do that, we end up hurting people. And that is why I want this rule to go forward and I want the underlying bill to go forward on water, because we have to stop hurting people.

Let me give you a story of an old farmer in northern Utah I met when I was first elected. He was a very kindly gentleman because, in his entire ordeal with the Federal Government, I never heard him say an unkind word. I, on the other hand, will spend quite a few years in purgatory about what I was saying about this situation not only verbally but inside my head.

This gentleman had a problem because he was renting a farm that had been a family farm since the 1800s. He was a sugar beet farmer, which, parenthetically, I have to note for the record, is a root crop that cannot be grown in a wetlands.

Nonetheless, his farm was watered by irrigation that came from a valid right that came from a creek that was diverted by a ditch. Around 1905, the creek was diverted to a higher level on the farm so that it would run there, and the old waterbed became vacant. It became part of his sugar beet farm. The water then went through a ditch that irrigated that particular area.

Well, as the farmer for over 80 years, his family was growing sugar beets on this creekbed. As the gentleman's siblings left the farm and his kids didn't want to take it over, this land became his inheritance that would provide for his retirement and an inheritance for his kids to pass on.

It came to the point where it was rezoned by the local community for commercial property, and the company gave him a very decent offer to try and

buy his old farm. This was back in 1993. But what it would require is to actually fill up the old riverbed and run a pipe underneath the property so the water would go from the original point over to the neighbors.

Everything was great until the Army Corps of Engineers came by and one Army regulator saw them irrigating the land, which was now used to grow hay and not sugar beets, and declared that, since water was now pooled in this land, it was a wetland. His recognition was that it was a wetland. Now, the fact that no water reached that land if the ditch was shut off didn't stop him from saying: This now is a wetland, and I get to regulate it under the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States.

So the soil and conservation service came in and conducted tests. They drilled 22 holes 8 feet or longer to find out that under the topsoil is a level of clay, so no water would ever percolate up onto this land. The only way you got water there is if you opened the ditch to let water come back. Nonetheless, the Army Corps regulator still said: I declare this to be a wetland, and I have jurisdiction over it under the Clean Water Act regulations that we have.

The guy tried to prove his point by putting in a pipe that shows that if you actually ran the water past this area, nothing actually pooled on this land, to which he was threatened with jail time if he did not take the pipe that he owned off the land that he owned from the water right that he owned, actually take that away.

We said: Look, no water actually appears there normally. You go out there and you can break a shovel trying to dig up this wetland. How long will it take before you recognize the fact that this is not a generating wetland?

The regulator said: Well, you know, we are in a drought cycle. So maybe in 7 to 15 years, if no water appears on that land, we will actually not declare this a wetland and allow the owner of the land to actually sell his property for his retirement and his inheritance.

My predecessor started this case. I met the man as I was early elected. Finally, after 10 years of haggling with the regulators of the United States over what is or is not waters of the United States, he simply got tired of doing it. He sold his land at one-quarter of the value that a neighboring piece of property got for the same size but had not been declared as wetlands by a single regulator in the United States.

Now, why is this bill so significant? Because this bill, if not put in some kind of parameters and checks, allows the Federal Government to hurt people. It gives them the power and authority to hurt people. Indeed, the direction that this proposed rule is going would not limit the control the agencies have over people's lives. It would significantly expand it. That is why it is so significant.

It is important for Congress to simply say: No, we will no longer make rules in this country simply by agencies deciding to expand their own control where they have a terrible track record and they actually hurt people. We will say: If you are going to expand it, it has got to be done by Congress--specifically by Congress--and not by rulemaking authority of some agency of the Federal Government.

That is the significance of this piece of legislation. That is why this legislation has to come to the floor. That is why we are not wasting time.

This is not a message issue. This is something where people are being harmed by the agencies of the Federal Government, and Congress must exert its rightful role in trying to rein in these agencies and trying to write the laws so these agencies will not simply abuse people because they have the power to abuse people.

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but I consider that to be significant. I consider that to be our responsibility. If the Senate doesn't want to take up that responsibility, if the Senate wants to still abuse people, then that can be their prerogative, but it should not limit what we do here in the House in speaking out for our constituents.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate my friend from Virginia's effort to try and save my mortal soul. You failed.

Whether it is one person or multiple people being abused, abuse is wrong and, unfortunately, we have two Supreme Court decisions that have said the same thing: the agencies abuse their authority. It is time for Congress to step in.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) to talk about this significant issue.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) because if anyone can be considered an expert on water issues in the United States, it is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, as well as a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

The only one to hear from now is I.

Madam Speaker, in closing, historically, the wise use of water has made the desert bloom, but much of my time and some of the most egregious problems that I face deal with the overreach of executive agencies when it comes to water. To claim that their tactics are arbitrary and capricious would be overly generous.

The bottom line is the Supreme Court has twice said that the executive branch agencies have overreached their authority. Twice there was legislation to try to expand that authority, which failed miserably, and now what the Supreme Court said they could not do and what Congress would not grant them to do, the agencies are trying to accomplish by creating a rule to give them powers that they ought not to have.

That--I am sorry, Madam Speaker--is simply wrong. The reason it is wrong is that it hurts people. People trying to live their lives find themselves frustrated by executive agency overreach.

That is why Congress must indeed pass not only this resolution and rule, but also the underlying bill, and it must move forward to make sure that Congress controls these issues in the future, not an executive branch agency. I have to reiterate that this rule is fair, and the underlying legislation is appropriate.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 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 by way of Kentucky, 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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4315, the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, and

makes in order four separate amendments for floor consideration.

In fact, this rule is generous in making all filed amendments which were germane and otherwise met the rules of the House in order. Only four were filed, and they are all made in order, so it is hard to see how anyone could vote against this resolution as not being fair.

The resolution also provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member from the House Committee on Natural Resources.

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

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

I want to introduce you to an individual in history by the name of John Gochnaur. John Gochnaur was the shortstop for the Cleveland Indians in 1902 and in 1903. In 1902, he played the entire year, and his batting average was .185, as he committed also 48 errors, but was still good enough to be the shortstop in 1903 as well, where he completed a second season, once again hitting .185, but this time committing a still record 98 errors as shortstop, which means one out of every five times he touched the ball, he threw it away.

John Gochnaur probably has the record now of being the most inept major league player we have ever had in history, never hitting above the Mendoza Line and setting the standard for errors. The worst major league player--which is still quite an achievement to be a major league player--but the worst major league player we have ever had in history hit .185. The Endangered Species Act batting average would be .010 if you round it up. They have had 1,500 species listed, only 12 have actually passed the test and been recovered, for an actual batting average of .008, or .010 if you really want to round up.

The Endangered Species Act, quite frankly, is the most ineffective and inefficient piece of legislation that we have in the history of this country. It does not work. It does not meet its goals. It never has and it never will. The sad part is, though, this act does not go into significant changes to the Endangered Species Act, which would change that batting average. Instead, Chairman Hastings has to be commended for getting a group of people to work together that did a study, got testimony, produced a report, and came up with the most basic of reforms that have to be necessary before anything significant can go on past that.

What these reforms are is simply saying, look, if you are going to have an Endangered Species Act, for heaven's sake, make sure that the data that is used to come up with the realization of the program you have is open to the people, it is transparent and it is public knowledge. They are paying for it. You might as well make sure that they have the opportunity to see it.

The President of the United States recognized this when he said in 2008:

Democracy requires accountability; accountability requires

transparency.

And then he quoted Justice Brandeis, who said that ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is the concept that is here. The data used to make these decisions should be available to the public, and presently, it is not.

One of the witnesses in the committee, when it was a full committee markup on this bill, was a long-time biologist by the name Mr. Ramey, who said:

What are the effects of this lack of transparency on the

public when data are not possible or accessible? Legitimate

scientific inquiry and debate is effectively eliminated, and

no independent third party can produce the results. This

action puts the basis of some ESA decisions outside the realm

of science.

We have the issue that if there is data making these decisions, people should know about it. It should be transparent. All of the data that they use to make these decisions should be transparent. That is not what is happening today.

In an exchange between the director of Fish and Wildlife and the ranking member, the ranking member asked:

Okay. But again, why would a scientist wish to withhold

that data? I mean, if we gave them the public funds, I guess

we could require they publish the data; right? I mean, we

could change. We could put that into the language.

The Fish and Wildlife official said:

Congress could do that.

The ranking member said:

Okay. That might be something we would want to do. I don't

understand why we would go down the path of withholding the

data.

That is what this bill does. There are two elements to it. The most significant part is the first of transparency. If there is data that is going to be used, we need to make sure that we have access to that particular data.

This is a bill that was passed almost four decades ago. This is a bill the last time it was addressed I was still wearing saddleback jeans and platform shoes and my hair had color and it was parted down the middle and it covered more than just my ears. We haven't touched it since that time. They didn't have iPods back then the last time we touched it. It is a new era that requires new information and new data, and there is no reason that should be withheld from the American people, and that is what this bill tries to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), who has had to live with the realities of the Endangered Species Act.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) because he also is faced with the unique situation, because this is not just a Western issue. This is an issue that affects all of us.

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

I am pleased to talk about the Endangered Species Act here because we need to make sure that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not to make sure that the government is always funding the listing and the maintenance of these species, but to make sure that they are healthy enough so that the government doesn't have to do that, in which case, I am sorry, the batting average is still .008. The Endangered Species Act is failing in that effort.

The methods don't work. But we are not discussing the methods here today. We are discussing something that is simply a commonsense solution to how we move forward with the Endangered Species Act.

The Governors understand that as well. I received a letter from the Western Governors' Association, signed by the Governor from Nevada, as well as the Governor from my friend's home State of Colorado, urging us to have transparency in this action, transparency in the Endangered Species Act. It is important that we simply know what is or is not taking place.

The Endangered Species Act, unfortunately, has an impact on real people. It is a regulatory taking by the Federal Government. It impacts real people's ability to use their property, it impacts real people's ability to have jobs and maintain them. To say that talking about this impact on these people is not good enough, that this is not a high enough version, this is not raising to the level, we don't care enough about these people who are impacted by that act, is something we in Congress should never say. It is significant, it is important, and to make commonsense improvements to the Endangered Species Act should be the goal.

Let me explain a couple of different areas in which these reforms are going to be significant and important.

The first one is this tries to cap the amount of money we spend wasted on litigation costs that should be actually going to the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and recovery of these species. This act tries to set a limit on what an attorney can get for engaging in a petition against the government for the Endangered Species Act. It is mind-boggling to me that in most of the agencies of the government we put caps on what can be obtained in attorney fees who sue the government, but we don't in the Endangered Species Act.

So in San Diego, the Jonas Salk Elementary School was postponed indefinitely. The firm that actually did that postponement so the kids didn't have their school charged the Federal Government six figures, and I promise you the first number in that six figures was not 1.

In the Clinton administration, they were averaging 20 petitions a year on this act. Today, we are averaging 1,200 petitions a year. So obviously, we have a problem, as no one has a total concept of what the total cost of this litigation is or how many full-time employees we are using simply for this litigation, although we do know that the Fish and Wildlife Service allotted in 2013 $21 million and 86 full-time employees just to handling the issue of litigation.

The Ag Department has told us that the litigation cost was the third- largest cost that they were running at that time. We don't have that data. We need to have that particular data, and we also need to put in caps so we are not wasting our money on litigation, we are putting the money in the program where it should be.

That is a significant commonsense element of this particular bill. But the most significant commonsense element is simply saying people should know what data is being used to reach the decisions. The bill itself says the Federal Government shall cooperate--shall cooperate--to the maximum extent practical with the States. That simply is not being done.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

First of all, the dunes sagebrush lizard--a wonderful little lizard, Mr. Speaker, in your home State of Texas--that is trying to be listed by the Federal Government, they were using data from the 1960s, determined that they were locally extinct, the lizard was locally extinct in an area where it flat-out was not extinct. Had they gone through with this listing, 47,000 jobs in this district in Texas would have been impacted by this particular listing, and the data was inaccurate.

The Governor of Idaho asked for a FOIA request dealing with the sagebrush. He got back the emails in the FOIA request, and to summarize those emails that dealt with the national technical team report, the emails basically said: This is our approach--does anyone out there have any kind of data we can use? And if there was no data, then their next step was to use the best guess of the elements of the members who were actually working in that particular department.

That is not the way you make decisions. You collect the data first, make it public, let people know about it, then you create the decisions on where you want it to go. In Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado, actually had to go to court to try to get the department to give them the data they were using for the decisions they were going to try to use on the endangered species in that county, and that simply is not an example of how you cooperate to the maximum extent possible with the States.

We have an issue with prairie dogs in southern Utah. The problem is the Federal Government only counts prairie dogs on Federal lands to determine if they are a viable species or not. Prairie dogs are very abundant on private lands and State lands, to the point that you can actually get a permit to hunt them on private lands. Notwithstanding the fact that there is an abundance of prairie dogs, the rural electric co-op down there had to spend $150,000 to airlift transmission lines to build a transmission line so they went over Federal habitat for prairie dogs, even though other people hunting prairie dogs happened to be on the private property.

This is silly, this is unrealistic, this should not take place if we were actually having a commonsense approach to it.

The bladderpod up in Franklin County, Washington, was threatened to be listed on the endangered species. A local university came up with its own study that proved the DNA of this bladderpod was no different than another flower that was not endangered in that area.

Nonetheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service rejected that particular piece of data. They ignored it. They said it wasn't peer-reviewed, but the sad part is that they ultimately refused to tell us the data that they were using to reach their own decision. Even when that data was subpoenaed, they refused to comply with that particular subpoena.

We simply have a problem here, in that decisions are being made on the Endangered Species Act without having public access to the data being used to make those decisions, and that is wrong.

That is not the way you run a government. That is not the way transparency has to be. The people of the United States are paying for all this data. They have a right to see what it is. They have a right to look at it. They have a right to question it.

All this bill does is simply make the data that is being used public--so people know exactly what you are making those decisions on-- and try to limit the amount that we are spending on needless litigation, so you put some kind of caps on them. That is the first step.

Does that solve all the problems of the ESA? Of course not, but it is the first and most important step. This is a commonsense approach that is rational. It is where we need to go. If we can't get this done, no other reforms of a system that is failing can possibly take place.

I urge adoption of this bill. I support the underlying bill. I urge the adoption of the rule that would do it.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate this is a fair rule, and it is appropriate to the underlying piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a brilliant amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, so last night, I am watching the Cubs game. And the shortstop, who is on a tear right now as far as hitting, bounces off a foul tip that the replay clearly shows bounced onto the ground. The catcher trapped the ball, and then held it up as saying he had actually caught it. And the umpire, even though this violates the rules of the game, had the power to pick the catcher over the hitter, and he declared that the batter had struck out.

Now even though the Cubs manager went out there, claiming how unfair this was--and I was yelling at the TV screen for hours afterwards-- history books will still say that Castro had a strikeout at this particular event.

Now, of course, the unfortunate thing is that our administration and the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management plays this same game of picking catchers over hitters all the time, even though it violates some of the rules.

So, 77 leases were put up for bid in Utah. It took the BLM on the ground 7 years to go through the process. They checked all the boxes. They did the environmental analysis. And the Secretary of the Interior simply canceled them. His reason was, 'cause.

Recently, 56 leases were also set out there for auction. Once again, all the boxes were checked. They got through the process. They did the environmental analysis. The environment assessment was done. Public comment was done. The protest period was finished. And 5 days--5 days-- before the auction, a letter comes from a special interest group to the State director for the Bureau of Land Management, a group that had been silent through the entire process. They said nothing during the assessment. They said nothing during the public comment. During the protest period, they said nothing. Here, 2 months after the record was closed, 2 months after the decision had been done with no more access for public comments, the director of the BLM simply says, I am going to pick a special interest group over another interest group, and he canceled these leases.

Schools, the chance of jobs in my State went out, the chance of actually getting royalty payments that would help the kids of my State pay for their education. It was simply done on a whim.

The industry had spent $500,000. Half a million dollars from their recreation and development funds were spent getting ready for this auction. And all of a sudden, a special interest group is given special treatment, and it is taken away.

Now, what government needs, especially out in the local areas, and what business needs is simply certainty. You tell us what the rules are, and they can play by those rules. It is a business necessity to have certainty and not have administrative officials simply change the rules on a whim at some particular time.

It is kind of like, to paraphrase the old Tom Cruise movie: You screwed up. You trusted me.

If we have a policy that is long and it is hard, it gives ample opportunity. But it is proven meaningless if, indeed,

the Bureau of Land Management is able to fervently yield at the eleventh hour to the opinion of some special interest group. All we are asking them to do with this amendment is to simply follow the rules. Don't change things on a whim. Don't pick one group over the other. Don't pick the catcher or the hitter.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, before I make a comment about the Red Sox, may I inquire about how much time I have remaining?

With that, I would like to yield 45 seconds to a Mariners fan--tough day down here--the chairman of the committee.

I assume the gentleman has no other speakers?

Good. I will finish this. And I appreciate knowing the gentleman from Oregon is a Red Sox fan. That explains so, so much here.

Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that this is probably a needless amendment. One would assume that if you write a law or you write a rule, that is what you do. This amendment basically says that you abide by the rules. Even though you have great and awesome power--never mind the man behind the curtain--you don't change the rules to pick winners and losers and one special interest group over another. You abide by the rule.

In the first 77 lease issue, they had 7 years to go through the process of finding out what it is. This is one of the concepts in which it simply says we are going to obey the law. We are going to abide by the rules so everyone knows what is there and everyone knows with certainty what they can do and for what they should plan, and you don't change it at the last minute because you want to favor one group over another group.

That is why we are doing this. It has happened in the past, it can happen in the future, and it should not.

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 1 of this year, Georgetown University seniors, Andrew Arsht--who happens to be a Utahan in my district--and Andrew Markoff won the 68th National Debate Tournament for the second time in 3 years.

As sophomores and seniors, they were the national citizenship team. As juniors, they were in the final four, which means they are the only team in the history to accomplish these standards each year.

There have been 286 colleges who have competed at this tournament since 1947. Only eight of those colleges have actually won more championships than these two guys by themselves.

They are the only team to have won two national championships and the Copeland Award for the best yearlong performance. Arsht was also named as the top individual speaker at the tournament.

I congratulate these two debaters, as well as congratulations to Jonathan Paul, who is the director of debate at Georgetown University.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 641 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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 during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel An America That Works Act of 2014. It makes 10 amendments in order--four Republican and six Democrat--and the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2015, under a modified open rule and provides for other technical and clerical purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is a bipartisan measure that provides for the essential funding of several Federal agencies during the next fiscal year, including the Department of Energy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation.

This measure would also fund important Federal science research in the fields of energy, high-performance computing systems, and next- generation energy sources. It is appropriate that this measure providing for the Nation's energy needs also be included with this rule.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today and speak in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.

American families, Mr. Speaker, are hurting. Every time you pull up to the gas pump, you have to wonder whether there will ever be any relief to the family budget for these ever-increasing gasoline prices.

It means simply--whether you support or like the guy or not--that before President Obama took office in 2009, the average national price for a gallon of unleaded regular gas was under $2 a gallon. Today, it has nearly doubled to around $4 a gallon. And the prices keep rising almost every day.

This administration touts its growth in energy production, not recognizing that that production increase has all come on private and State-owned property. If we are to have sustained growth of our economy, if we are not having peaks and valleys, if we are not having boom and bust, it is important that the resources that we have in great abundance that are on Federal lands also be included so there can be a sustained growth to our economy.

Unfortunately, since President Obama took office, total Federal oil production has dropped 6 percent, total Federal national gas production has dropped an astounding 28 percent, and, at the same time, offshore oil production is down 15 percent and offshore gas production is down 47 percent.

Unfortunately, 87 percent of all the area that is allowed offshore of acreage of potential development is currently off limits to oil and natural gas production.

We have policies that are really harming our progress forward, and they need to be changed. This act that will be put before us, if we pass this rule, does indeed do that.

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

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

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

The gentleman has only from me yet to hear.

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

I am an old history teacher, and one of the things I have always claimed for my students is you should actually try to look to the past, to see how you can plan for the future.

When Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, this country was faced with the crisis of double-digit inflation, double- digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates; and as President, after so many years of a Congress that tried to have the policy of spending ourselves into economic growth that failed, his issue was: Which of those do you attack first?

I think it is interesting to realize--to grab hold of each of those issues, his first action was to increase the supply of affordable energy. That became the basis of growing an economy in which he could then attack each of those problems of unemployment and inflation and interest rates which were plaguing this country.

We have to realize now that a strong foundation of affordable energy is extremely significant, from whatever source, but especially from what will be workable now.

High gasoline prices--and the price that is increasing in every form of energy we have today--hurts the middle class, and it especially hurts the working poor, many of whom have to decide, every time they go to the pump, whether they are going to put food on the table or fill up the minivan.

We have to deal with something. Now, in my area of the west where we live and the part of the country where the distances between communities are extremely large, as opposed to back here in the east, where everything is so lumped closely together, the increase in fuel costs hits home with a real inflicting pain.

I am sorry. The policies of the past that we had that made the desert bloom are being reversed by the policies of the present. Whether you are at the pump realizing the pain that is inflicted or whether your concern is what kind of energy cost it will take when you go into the room and flip on the light or you decide to cook food, we have to realize these are real problems facing middle America, as well as the working poor of America.

We can either come up with policies that move us forward, or we can implement policies that allow us to freeze in the dark, and so far, we have done a good job on the latter and not the first.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have passed several bills over the past few years--and this year as well--aimed at increasing U.S. domestic fuel production, only to have those bills sidelined in the deliberative body on the other side of this building.

It reminds me of a great quote, when Thomas Brackett Reed, the old Speaker of the House, went over to the Senate to watch them in debate and came back and announced to the body:

Thank heavens we are not a deliberative body.

There are problems that we have that can be solved. We have those places, too, and I appreciate the fact the gentleman from Florida did mention that China and others are putting money into alternative energy programs.

They are also going around the world and gobbling up whatever kinds of oil and coal resources they can get their hands on, to support and sustain a growing economy over there, while our administration is taking the United States in the opposite direction by self-inflicted artificial limits, policies that have actually hurt our economy, killed high-paying jobs, and increased the cost of consumer goods for all, including the middle class.

There are reasons why, Mr. Speaker, in the last 6 years, our economy is simply limping along, and we should learn the lessons of the past to recognize what we can do from that. Our economic malaise can be attributed to a lack of attention to a commonsense energy program on Federal lands.

So what would this bill, H.R. 4899, actually do? It would establish and demand a new 5-year plan for the leases of those areas, with the concept of going after where the resources actually are. We can talk about all the lands that are leased, but it is totally unimportant if there are no resources there.

Have a plan that focuses on where the resources are. Produce a revenue-sharing plan with the coastal States. Come up with three distinct agencies which would replace the new structure that has been put upon since the oil spill and make them actually functioning. That is the problem.

I agree with some of the things you have said. We haven't done much in reform, but we have done a whole lot in regulatory reform on the administrative level, and I agree with you, that that hasn't worked as well.

To establish a policy that the NPR-A is for the purpose of providing oil as a resource to the United States and to establish some kind of Internet-based auctions for these programs--look, we are not talking about taking over everything and drilling everywhere.

This Federal Government owns somewhere around 400 to 450 million acres of land. Of that, 350, roughly, are already in a conservation status that can never be touched.

There are 50 million acres, at the most, that have development potential, and those are the areas in which policies of this administration are strangling the ability to move them forward.

I will--because I hadn't planned on it, so I don't have my wonderful charts here. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida talking about education because I want to finish off with that in just one second.

I appreciate his sentiment that, some day, my position can prevail, but unless we change the overall Federal position, I can't get that moving forward, and that is why it becomes extremely important.

We are not just talking about gas at the pump and the cost of electricity and the cost of cooking your food. There are also those tradeoff effects which specifically deal with education.

If one looks at a map of the States, there is overwhelming control by the Federal Government of ownership of the land, the public land States of the Midwest and the west coast, and you look at the States which have the hardest time increasing their funding for public education.

It is an amazing correlation between the two, which means that, over the past 20 years, those who do not live in public land States, those areas east of Denver, which average about 4 percent of their States being controlled by the Federal Government, have grown their educational funding by 68 percent.

Those of us who average over 50 percent of our land controlled by the Federal Government in these public lands States have grown our education budget by 35 percent.

It is simply a matter that my State cannot improve its education funding alone unless we are allowed to develop some of the resources we have in huge abundance but are tied up in the policies of the Federal Government.

So, yes, it is true. We are growing petroleum activities in this country. We are growing our exploration. We are growing what we are developing, what we are exporting. But it is all coming from private lands and State lands that are not part of the West. And if you want to keep that growth on a continuous basis and not have spikes, then you have to go after the resources that we have on the public lands.

And if you were allowed to do that, not only would we get royalties coming back in from those resources, but it would spin off all sorts of jobs that would then generate the income tax we need and the sales tax revenue and the royalties to replace the fact that we are not getting property tax from lands that are controlled by the Federal Government and were promised to us a long time ago when we became States.

This bill provides a plan on how to do this. This bill is something that is desperately needed if we are going to move forward. If enacted into law, it would encourage greater oil and gas development on Federal onshore and offshore lands with a plan of how you actually accomplish it and how you do it. And it may actually give my kids a chance at a fairer shot for an education, because they desperately need it, and the status quo is not providing it. And that has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I would only urge Members to support this rule. It is a fair rule. It is a good rule. And then I would hope, afterwards, they would support the underlying bills which provide for our Nation's critical energy needs and would help promote jobs at the same time, as well as funding for my schools in Utah.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 641 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 7. 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.

1426) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow

the deduction for income attributable to domestic production

activities with respect to oil and gas activities of major

integrated oil companies. 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 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. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 1426.

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