Providing for Consideration of H.R. Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act; Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. Providing for Congressional Disapproval of A Rule Submitted By the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act; and Providing for Proceedings During the Period From January Through January 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 583 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 583

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1644) to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to ensure transparency in the development of environmental regulations, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to commit.

Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3662) to enhance congressional oversight over the administration of sanctions against certain Iranian terrorism financiers, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from January 14, 2016, through January 22, 2016-- (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved; and

(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.

Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 583, providing for consideration of three important pieces of legislation. Those are H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act; H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act; and S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers' rule relating to the definition of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1644 under a structured rule, making four amendments in order, three from the Democrats and one from the Republicans, H.R. 3662 under a closed rule and S.J. Res 22 also under a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I have grave concerns about the administration's nuclear agreement with Iran. Since the agreement's adoption in July, Iran has shown no goodwill or intention of improving its relationship with the West. In many ways, the Iranian regime has increased its aggressive attitude toward the United States and our allies.

Against U.N. Security Council resolutions, the rogue nation has expanded its ballistic missile program, testing two missiles as recently as last fall. Just on December 26 an Iranian military ship fired a rocket near U.S. and French military vessels in the Persian Gulf. These incidents occurred just months before crippling international sanctions against the country are scheduled to be lifted.

Further, Iran continues to be a state sponsor of terrorism, a direct threat to our closest ally in the region, Israel, continues rampant human rights abuses, and continues the wrongful imprisonment of five American citizens.

President Obama and senior administration officials have claimed that the nuclear agreement and lifting of economic sanctions, which could return as much as $100 billion in frozen assets to Tehran, will help Iran down a more moderate path. However, reality appears to show the contrary is occurring.

Just weeks after the deal was signed, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that: We won't allow American political, economic, or cultural influence in Iran.

And just last week the Supreme Leader told a gathering of prayer leaders that: Americans have set their eyes covetously on elections, but the great and vigilant nation of Iran will act contrary to the enemies' will, whether it be in elections or on other issues, and, as before, will punch them in the mouth.

While President Obama may find something positive in Iran's actions and statements, I believe Congress owes it to the American people to view Iran with skepticism and concern.

H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act, requires the President to certify that those individuals and entities receiving sanctions relief under the Iranian nuclear deal are not involved in Iran's support for terrorism, its human rights abuses, or its ballistic missile program.

By passing this legislation, Mr. Speaker, Congress can help ensure that the U.S. will continue to sanction and deter terrorism and illegal ballistic missile tests within the state of Iran.

In arguing for the nuclear deal's adoption, the President committed to Congress and to the American people that our ``sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, will continue to be fully enforced.''

This legislation gives us the opportunity to hold the President to his word and conduct the necessary oversight to ensure that sanctions are enforced.

Additionally, this rule will provide for consideration of two other very critical measures that will help protect American businesses and families from the administration's regulatory overreach.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1644, legislation that was drafted in response to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's ongoing rulemaking process that seeks to govern the interaction between surface mining operations and streams. It is commonly referred to as the stream buffer zone rule.

In December 2008, the outgoing Bush administration published its final stream buffer zone rule. This rule was the product of over 5 years of deliberation, extensive scientific research, environmental analyses, public comment, and a concurrence from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Put simply, this rule was developed the right way, with transparency, unbiased research, scientific integrity, stakeholder engagement, and, most importantly, public involvement.

However, shortly after the final 2008 rule was released, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the OSM, ultimately leading to a settlement agreement between OSM and the environmental groups.

After numerous missed deadlines, the environmental organizations renewed the litigation, the administration agreed with the complaint. As a result, the court vacated the 2008 rule and OSM subsequently restarted the rulemaking process.

Since that time, the entire process has lacked transparency. Oversight conducted by the House Committee on Natural Resources, of which I am a member, revealed that the settlement agreement's expedited timeframe, coupled with an inexperienced contractor and gross mismanagement of the rulemaking process, resulted in major issues with the administration's rule.

Now, this may sound just a little familiar. It is the very same sue and settle practice that the House addressed just last week with the passage of H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act.

The outcome is another example of why sue and settle leads to poor rulemakings and onerous regulations that significantly harm the people, businesses, and jobs they are supposed to be supporting.

Backroom deals between environmental groups and Federal agencies do not lead to sound regulations, but instead circumvent the rulemaking process to serve the interest of a select few, namely, special interests and environmental groups.

For 6 years, OSM has been rewriting this rule, and the ongoing process has now cost the taxpayers over $10 million, though this is only a small fraction of the cost it will have on businesses and hardworking American families.

The stream protection rule will drastically reduce our access to coal, which accounts for nearly half of our country's electricity, leading to higher electricity costs and significant job losses.

According to a study from the National Mining Association, the number of direct mining jobs that could be lost is between 40,000 and 77,000 and the total job losses is between 112,000 and 280,000, a fact that is underscored by the Nation's second largest oil company, Arch Coal, filing for bankruptcy, largely due to the increased cost of Federal regulations. That happened just this week, Mr. Speaker.

For these reasons, it is imperative that we pass H.R. 1644, legislation that delays the rule's implementation, increases scientific transparency for rulemakings affecting mining, directs a transparent third party to evaluate the existing stream buffer zone rule, and reduces duplicative regulation.

This rule also makes in order legislation dealing with an issue that I hear about very often in my congressional district. It strikes the controversial waters of the United States, or WOTUS rule.

S.J. Res. 22 is a resolution of disapproval of the President's WOTUS rule that was passed by the Senate in bipartisan fashion, and it is now time for the House to consider and pass this important measure.

This legislation was crafted in response to the WOTUS rule promulgated by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, which redefines and vastly expands the scope of water subject to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. By issuing this rule, these agencies have given themselves broad new power over water and land across the United States.

Like many of my constituents, I am very concerned with this massive Federal overreach. It goes far beyond the agencies' statutory authority and could impose significant costs not only on American farmers and small businesses, but on States and local governments. The rule is another Federal power grab that has more to do with controlling land use decisions than protecting access to clean water.

Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 22 utilizes the Congressional Review Act to block this harmful regulation, and it is time to send this critical measure to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and the rule providing for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the rule we consider here today provides for the consideration of three bills that are critically important for the future of this country.

We must pass H.R. 1644 and S.J. Res. 22 to protect American families and businesses from the rampant executive overreach that will be the defining achievement of the Obama administration.

Furthermore, the United States must stand with our allies in the Middle East, as well as around the world, in the face of growing Iranian aggression, which threatens not only the stability of the region, but the strength of U.S. alliances and standing in the world.

I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Obama administration's shortsighted nuclear agreement does not unravel decades of work by the U.S. and our allies to impose meaningful sanctions on the country of Iran. These sanctions have restricted Iran's ability to spread its radical beliefs and inflict unknown damage on its neighbors in the region, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have got several colleagues here that would like to weigh in on all three of these issues. But before I turn the floor over to them, I just wanted to make a comment about the fact that there are two closed rule bills in this.

All of these issues before us today have been thoroughly vetted. They have been through the committee process. They have had ample opportunity for people to weigh in.

In fact, one of the bills is in a structured rule. Actually, we are allowing four amendments. Three of those amendments are from the Democratic side. So I think that there is ample opportunity for all people to make their feelings known on this legislation in front of us.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that transparency, public involvement, and anything that the administration, that this government does, is not a waste of time. In fact, it is our duty to make sure that the public has the ability to see what its government is doing, to make sure it is done in the light of day.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make the point that it is customary, whether Republicans are in control or whether Democrats control, that the CRAs, the Congressional Review Acts, come to the floor under a closed rule. I might also say that, regarding the STREAM Act, all amendments that were germane were made in order. As it comes to the bill pertaining to Iran, that bill was marked up in committee last week. No amendments were offered, and the bill passed on voice vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Herrera Beutler).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, if it embarrasses the President to be held accountable for the very words that come out of his mouth, I guess there is not much we can do about that.

I appreciate the good gentleman's wishes for a good retreat for the Republicans this coming next few days, and I look forward to finding opportunities to work together with his side of the aisle on many important things facing our Nation.

I just would remind them, too, that there have been plenty of opportunities for all Members of this body to have input on these pieces of legislation before us through committee, here on the floor, in Rules. I think following regular order is proving exactly what we wanted it to do to give people that opportunity. I am very happy that we have been able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule that we are considering today allowing for consideration of three very important pieces of legislation that I think will protect our national security interests abroad and hold the administration accountable for sanctions lifted under the Iran nuclear agreement. It will ensure that mining communities and hardworking families are not crushed by another crippling Federal regulation, and it will help protect our rural western communities by providing much-needed relief from the burdensome waters of the United States rule.

Although we may have different viewpoints and differences of opinion, I believe this rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that are important to our country's future.

I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 583 as well as the underlying bills.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 583 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 6. 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. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076. ____ 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. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source