[Pages H2202-H2208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2824, PREVENTING GOVERNMENT WASTE
AND PROTECTING COAL MINING JOBS IN AMERICA; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 2641, RESPONSIBLY AND PROFESSIONALLY INVIGORATING DEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE
RULES

Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 501 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 501

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. 2824) to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 to stop the ongoing waste by the
Department of the Interior of taxpayer resources and
implement the final rule on excess spoil, mining waste, and
buffers for perennial and intermittent streams, 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

[[Page H2203]]

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 an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-41 modified by the amendment printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. 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.
2641) to provide for improved coordination of agency actions
in the preparation and adoption of environmental documents
for permitting determinations, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-39. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of March 6, 2014, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure addressing
loan guarantees to Ukraine.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Florida is recognized for 1 hour.

{time} 0915

Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. 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. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
rule and the underlying bills.
House Resolution 501 provides a structured rule for consideration of
H.R. 2641, the Responsibility of Professionally Invigorating
Development Act, known as the RAPID Act. The resolution also provides a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2824, Preventing Government
Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America.
Lastly, the resolution provides suspension authority for legislation
to provide much-needed financial relief to the government of Ukraine.
The resolution makes in order all of the amendments submitted to the
Committee on Rules regarding the RAPID Act. It makes in order half of
the amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules regarding the coal
jobs bill.
Of the amendments made in order, more than half are sponsored by my
colleagues across the aisle. The resolution provides for a robust
debate in the House of Representatives.
In July, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and
Antitrust Law held a hearing on H.R. 2641. The subcommittee reported
the bill favorably, without amendment, by voice vote. On July 31, the
Committee on the Judiciary ordered H.R. 2641 favorably reported without
amendment.
In August, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held
hearings on H.R. 2824. In November, the Committee on Natural Resources,
by a bipartisan vote, voted favorably for the bill and reported it out.
Mr. Speaker, the bills before us today garnered majority support and
bipartisan support for one simple reason: they ensure the regulatory
process works for Americans, as intended by Congress.
Across the Nation, energy and infrastructure projects are being
significantly delayed. In some cases, the environmental reviews have
continued on for a decade or more. According to a study by the Chamber
of Commerce, current delays are costing more than $1 trillion in
economic development; and those delays are also prohibiting the
creation of 1.9 million jobs.
As our country continues to struggle through a lackluster recovery,
ensuring these beleaguered studies are completed would help generate
jobs and create economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, in 2011, President Obama's Council on Jobs and
Competitiveness recommended action to simplify regulatory review and
streamline project approvals to accelerate jobs and growth.
Just this year, in his State of the Union, President Obama called for
permit streamlining. He said action must be taken to ``slash
bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects so
we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.''
News reports like to highlight our disagreements. In fact, it often
seems that there is nothing that we can agree on. That is not true.
Earlier this term, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3080, the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act. That bill passed by an
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 417-3.
The RAPID Act is nearly identical legislation to streamlining
provisions contained in H.R. 3080 and the streamlining proposals from
the President.
The House-passed WRRDA provided a process for Army Corps of
Engineers-led studies to be concurrently reviewed in more of a
parallel, as opposed to a linear fashion by multiple agencies. The
President initiated a similar proposal, where studies had to be
completed within 3 years.
The President and each Member of Congress who supported WRRDA should
support this bill. The RAPID Act is simple. It allows multiple agencies
to study the environmental impacts of a project at the same time.
Because the agencies will have a better process by which to study a
project, the RAPID Act establishes a reasonable and efficient timeline
for completion of the study.
That is it. The RAPID Act provides a better process and a better
timeline. The RAPID Act does not alter or weaken any of our
environmental laws. The RAPID Act does not require that environmentally
sensitive areas be developed.
The RAPID Act does not force agencies to approve projects. It simply
reforms our permitting and regulatory

[[Page H2204]]

process to allow our Nation's most important infrastructure projects to
move forward in a timely manner.
The President has asked for this to happen. 417 House Democrats and
Republicans have supported this already. The bill should pass the House
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. This bill will get Washington
out of the way of our economic growth and put unemployed Americans on a
pathway back to work.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2824, Preventing
Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America. H.R. 2824
stabilizes the out-of-control regulatory scheme involving the
Department of the Interior.
In 2008, after a 5-year exhaustive process, the Office of Surface
Mining finalized a rule to protect our streams from excessive coal
waste. The rule was supposed to go into effect on January 12, 2009.
However, the process was sidelined by a sue-and-settle gambit that
the OSM, under President Obama's administration, used to attempt to
rewrite the already finalized rule.
Since that settlement, the administration has spent 5 additional
years and billed hardworking American taxpayers an additional $10
million attempting to rewrite the rule.
H.R. 2824 is simple. It tells OSM to put in place the 2008 rule,
study the results, and report to Congress. If the study reveals a need
to draft a new rule, then a new rule should be drafted. By putting in
place the already finalized 2008 rule, H.R. 2824 ensures that our
streams are safe while further study is conducted.
It is easy to see why these underlying bills should garner strong
bipartisan support. They are measured and balanced in their approach to
our project study and regulatory processes. For these reasons, Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying pieces of
legislation.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bills.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good
friend from Florida, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Just last week, I found myself standing here, managing a rule for two
very similar bills. At the time, I thought we were on a merry-go-round,
aimlessly moving in useless circles. I will stand by that analogy again
today.
When similar bills came before Congress last session, the Senate
didn't pass them. The President said he would not sign them, as he has
this particular legislation. It seems to me that these measures are a
foregone conclusion.
Ultimately, the same tired talking points might be a fun ride for
some, but they will never actually take you anywhere. This kind of
spinning in circles is a favorite tactic, it seems, of my friends on
the other side of the aisle.
For example, this Congress has already taken 109 antienvironmental
votes. Last Congress, it was 247. These were votes against clear air,
against clean water, and to destroy our planet for future generations.
Under Republican leadership, we have also voted to repeal, as we did
a day or so ago, the Affordable Care Act 50 different times, a law
that, in many respects, has led to millions of Americans signing up for
health insurance that didn't have it before.
And I will continue to ask my colleagues: If you don't like that
particular measure, where is yours that would replace it? And
apparently, nothing is forthcoming, at least until this time.
Based on the frequency of these quixotic votes, it is obvious that my
friends across the aisle have given up or are not interested in
governing or addressing any of the issues that are most pressing to
this Nation.
Consider, for instance, that there are 2 million Americans relying on
Congress to extend unemployment insurance, with close to 200,000 of
them being unemployed veterans who have sacrificed time and again for
our country.
Last week, I said the following:

We should be spending the House's time on extending
unemployment insurance, working on comprehensive immigration
reform, and raising the minimum wage.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to ignore
the plight of middle class and working poor Americans, immigrants
hoping for a better life for their families, and denying the undeniable
impact of climate change, just to name a few.
We should be raising the minimum wage in order to give millions of
hardworking Americans the pay they have earned. Nearly 5 years have
passed since the last increase in the Federal minimum wage. Currently,
a full-time minimum wage worker makes less than $16,000 per year, which
is below the poverty line for a family of two or more.
My friends did not take my suggestions last week, and I doubt they
will take them this week. Instead, we are considering two more
pointless bills that will go nowhere. One of them, the acronym for it
is RAPID. That is correct. Rapidly and fastly, it will go nowhere.
The first of today's bills, H.R. 2641, ignores the fact that, for
more than 40 years, the National Environmental Policy Act has provided
an effective framework for all types of proposed actions that require
Federal approval pursuant to a Federal law, such as the Clean Water
Act.

{time} 0930

H.R. 2641 is based on the assumption that the NEPA environmental
review and permitting process results in project delays.
However, when we considered this measure last Congress, the
Congressional Research Service reported that delays in construction
project approvals ``are more often tied to local, State, and project-
specific factors.'' These factors include ``primarily local/State
agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a
project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope,'' not to
mention the litigation that goes on surrounding these measures.
CRS goes even further, reporting that even most environmental project
delays are not the result of NEPA, but actually due to ``laws other
than NEPA.'' The measure undermines current regulatory protections and
could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing speed over
meaningful analysis.
Now, turning to H.R. 2824, the other measure included in today's
rule, which, like the 50 times that we voted to repeal the Affordable
Care Act, my Republican friends have done that, they have also offered
50 rules which are not open rules in spite of the fact that we began
this session by the Speaker of the House saying that this would be the
most open House that we have had.
H.R. 2824 included in this rule is no more productive than the
previous legislation offered. The legislation would overturn a court
decision in order to block a buffer requirement designed to prevent
damage to waterways from surface coal mining operations. These are
protections that President Ronald Reagan put in place.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that over 500 mountains
have been destroyed by the practice of mountaintop removal mining, more
than 1.2 million acres of forest has been eliminated, and nearly 2,000
miles of streams have been buried or polluted by these mining projects.
I wonder what part of knocking a mountaintop off do people not
understand as destruction, and if it is to be, that it should be done
carefully.
These are protections for all of us in our society. As many as 60,000
additional cases of cancer in central Appalachia are directly linked to
mountaintop removal, and more than 700 additional deaths from heart
disease occur each year.
Last month, West Virginia University scientists published a study
confirming high air pollution levels around mountaintop removal coal
mines, suggesting a link to the higher rates of cardiovascular disease,
birth defects, and cancer that is seen in these communities.
Instead of addressing these issues, H.R. 2824 would reinstate a
George W. Bush administration rule that essentially prohibits the
United States Department of the Interior from implementing any
protections for streams against mountaintop removal and coal mining.
Let me lift the comment of Judge Charles Haden in a case called Bragg
v. Robertson. The judge says:

[[Page H2205]]

When valley fills are permitted in intermittent and
perennial streams, they destroy those stream segments. The
normal flow and gradient of the stream is now buried under
millions of cubic yards of excess spoil waste material, an
extremely adverse effect. If there are fish, they cannot
migrate. If there is any life form that cannot acclimate to
life deep in a rubble pile, it is eliminated. No effect on
related environmental values is more adverse than
obliteration. Under a valley fill, the water quality of the
stream becomes zero. Because there is no stream, there is no
water quality.

The Bush rule in '08 was vacated by the District of Columbia District
Court on February 20, 2014. The Obama administration started to draft
new stream protections upon taking office, into which the minority has
conducted a long, fruitless investigation. Indeed, the years of
investigation have uncovered no misconduct. The only results of the
investigation are wasted time and taxpayer money, sending over 13,500
pages of documents, 25 hours of audio recordings, 19,000 staff hours,
and costing the United States Department of the Interior and Office of
Surface Mining approximately $1.5 million.
We saw an example yesterday in one of our committees investigating
the Internal Revenue Service for something that just simply has not
occurred in any partisan fashion. And I can demonstrate that because,
if one believes that the IRS only went after conservative organizations
within the time period that was being investigated by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, then it was not during that period
that my church, Mt. Hermon AME Church in Fort Lauderdale, received the
same kind of notices that are being complained about; and what we did
was what everybody has every right to do, which is make the necessary
appeal, and we were successful in that regard.
All of these partisan witch hunts need to stop. We are a better
people than this, and we should be about the business of the people of
the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, today's measure exists as partisan talking points,
bumper sticker talk by my Republican colleagues, rather than serious
legislation to move this country forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support for
this rule which will govern debate on important legislation that my
colleague, Doug Lamborn, and I have introduced.
This legislation, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal
Mining Jobs in America, would stop the administration from destroying
thousands of direct and indirect coal mining jobs and stop the price of
electricity in places like Ohio from skyrocketing.
Since the early days of this administration, Mr. Speaker, the Office
of Surface Mining at the Department of the Interior has been trying to
rewrite a 2008 coal mining rule. This rewrite has been fraught with
mismanagement, waste of taxpayer dollars, intimidation of contractors
by OSM employees towards the contractors working on the rule, and even
the Director of OSM demanding that the contractors change the job loss
estimates because it would look bad politically for the administration.
But, look, don't take my word for it. You can go out and read the
Department's own inspector general's report that highlights the
administration's problems rewriting this rule.
This legislation would put an end to this nonsense and implement the
2008 rule. It would save taxpayers millions of dollars that are being
wasted on this frivolous rewrite. It also would protect the thousands
of direct jobs that the administration admitted would be destroyed by
this rule and thousands more indirect jobs that would also be lost.
In eastern and southeastern Ohio, my constituents are the ones mining
the coal that powers the economic engine in the Midwest, not to mention
that America gets over 40 percent of its energy from coal, the State of
Ohio gets over 80 percent of its energy from coal. This rule would put
not only those jobs at risk, but also cause electricity prices to
skyrocket and endanger the low electricity rates that manufacturing in
this country relies on to keep moving forward.
The rule from the Department must be stopped in order to protect
hardworking coal miners across America and to stop the waste of
taxpayer dollars by the Department of the Interior. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this rule today and to support this legislation
when it comes to the floor.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend
from Florida that I have no additional speakers at this time and would
be prepared to close. So I reserve the balance of my time if you have
additional speakers.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of the sages of America who is often quoted is Will
Rogers. One of the things that I paraphrase that he said was: Buy land,
because we are not making any more of that. And I use it as an analogy
for mountaintop mining, knocking off the tops of these mountains. We
ain't making no more mountains. Although I guess we can because in
Florida we have what we call trash mountains. So I guess we can build
something up, but I doubt very seriously that the quality of it will be
of the kind that we see with the mountain ranges of this great America.
Mr. Speaker, these bills are about protecting special interests that
happen to be near and dear to some of my friends across the aisle. We
are here voting on tired, discredited, and destructive policies that
have absolutely no chance of becoming law. This is a failure of
leadership by my Republican colleagues and, quite frankly, a waste of
time. We should not be considering measures that will help destroy this
planet for our children and grandchildren. We need strong environmental
protections to ensure that we have clean air, clean water, and clean
food.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3546, Mr. Levin's bill to extend
emergency unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed across
this country for whom it has run out.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad thing that we
continue to let people languish without fulfilling our responsibility
to them with reference to unemployment insurance. It is a detriment to
this Nation, and it serves us no useful purpose to continue delaying
this particular effort.
While I do have the floor for a moment, I do wish to address
legislation that I hope does come here with reference to our offering
assistance to the people in Ukraine who should have an opportunity to
make their own determination regarding their future and that we should
stand with and, I am sure, are prepared to do so in an effort to assist
them.
Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune of being the president of the
Parliamentary Assembly for the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe. During that time, I went to Ukraine on three
different occasions, and during that time, I had the good fortune to be
the lead monitor after the Orange Revolution; so it is not that I don't
have a clear understanding of much that is going on. But what I hope my
colleagues here will do is recognize that the Baltics, the Balkans, and
the near abroad of Russia and Europe are in need of clarity with
reference to matters and not simpleminded, noncomplex answers to very
difficult problems that Ukraine is now faced with. It is a nationwide,
continuing problem for us.
Mr. Speaker, apparently, we do have some other speaker en route, so I
am required to reserve the balance of my time, as I anticipated I might
be.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we had someone show up, and so
the gentleman from Florida has allowed the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Lamborn) to speak.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado.

[[Page H2206]]

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of the gentlemen for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we just need to adopt H.R. 2824 and the rule supporting
it. This is a good piece of legislation.
Unfortunately, this administration is waging what appears to many of
us to be a war on coal. The stream buffer zone rule that has been
proposed by OSM, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation, is a very
troubling rule. It would have adverse effects on all kinds of coal
mining way beyond what the stated intention is.

{time} 0945

The stated intention is to protect the quality of streams in the
Appalachian area, but this rule goes way beyond that. This would have
the effect of closing down much of the coal mining in that part of the
country. So it is overkill. It is way beyond what is necessary.
The whole rulemaking process, Mr. Speaker, is flawed. We had a very
good rewrite of the rules that was done in the last administration.
That went through millions of dollars of effort, many years of
rulemaking, taking comments, and the end result was a very satisfactory
rewrite of the older rule. Yet, without even letting that fully take
effect, this administration is throwing that rule out and wanting to go
to an overly stringent and unrealistic rule. Let's go back to the last
rule that was done through the proper procedures.
So H.R. 2824 is a good piece of legislation. I commend Representative
Johnson for carrying this piece of legislation. We have looked at this
in detail in our full committee and in the Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources, and this is a much better approach. So I urge the
full House to adopt H.R. 2824 and the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and
will. I will close with what I said yesterday. When I was a child,
Tennessee Ernie Ford sang a song about coal mining. It was that you
load 16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt.
I have been in Appalachia, as have many of my friends. I went to
school in Tennessee, and often had an opportunity to travel to Kentucky
and other areas during that period of time, and I have been in West
Virginia. I have seen the conditions that many people work in.
I would only hope that they know that there are voices here who
believe, just like throughout the rest of this Nation, in spite of the
awesomeness of the work that they do in coal mining--and I might add as
a footnote, there has been no deterioration in the job market with
reference to coal mining--all that is being sought is that coal mining
be done in a safe manner, and that the people living in those
surroundings have the same kind of quality air, quality water, and
quality food that is desperately needed by everybody.
We need look no further than West Virginia and accidents that have
occurred there. Nobody wanted that to happen. Indeed, what we saw were
corporate dodges of people who had taken advantage of smaller
communities. That needs to stop.
I believe my colleagues here want to see to it that we have a
situation where those who are working in these environments have an
opportunity for safety and have an opportunity for clean air in their
regions as well as water and food.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This rule provides for ample and open debate. It makes in order
amendments from both sides of the aisle. Further, it advances bills
that were favorably reported out of committee and will receive
bipartisan support.
The RAPID Act is good for our infrastructure needs. It puts in place
a good process that helps our agencies conduct quality and timely
environmental reviews.
This bill should receive overwhelming bipartisan support. Republicans
and Democrats have supported these same provisions already in this
Congress.
The Florida delegation knows all too well the impact that delayed
studies have on moving our critical projects forward. Port Everglades,
which is in the district of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
has been under review for 17 years. That is too long. It is too much.
It needs to be completed. The study of the project at Port Everglades
is a prime example of Washington bureaucracy crushing America's jobs
and America's future.
The RAPID Act would make it possible to move projects forward while
protecting our environment. Mr. Speaker, the President has proposed a
similar solution. The House passed a similar solution in the WRDA bill.
We should pass this bill and give our infrastructure projects a good
review process.
Our Nation's economy is sagging under an inefficient government. Our
unemployed friends and neighbors are being hurt by our stagnant
regulatory review system. The RAPID Act provides a better process and a
better timeline. It does not change our environmental standards. It
does not require agency approval of projects. It simply reforms our
permitting process.
The coal jobs bill puts in place an already approved rule. It ends
the regulatory limbo that has existed since 2009. It gives certainty to
those who work in the coal industry.
Let's reform our review methods. Let's give our government the tools
and the incentives to move America's infrastructure projects forward.
When we do, we will release economic activity. We will strengthen our
economy, and we will put Americans to work.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bills are good. I urge Members of this
House to vote for the rule, vote for the bills, and move our country
forward.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule for
H.R. 2641, the ``Responsible and Professionally Invigorating
Development Act of 2013, or as some have termed it, the ``Regrettably
Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.''
If the RAPID Act were to become law in its present form, a permit or
license for project would be ``deemed'' approved if the reviewing
agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120
days.
Mr. Speaker, I share some of the frustrations expressed by many
members of the House Judiciary Committee, which marked up this bill
last summer, with the NEPA process.
There is something odd about a system in which it can take half a
year or more to approve the siting plan for a wind farm but fracking
operations regulations can be approved and conducted a few hundred feet
from somebody's home with no community oversight process in just a few
months.
Something is wrong with this picture.
But I strongly believe that this bill is a solution in search of a
problem.
The bill in its current form is an example of a medicine that is
worse than a disease.
There is a major problem with the section that my amendment
addresses, namely automatic approval of projects with the need for
positive agency action.
I expect to speak on my amendment shortly but suffice it-to-say, this
bill goes out of its way to ensure that some projects might be
prematurely approved.
That's because under H.R. 2641, if a federal agency fails to approve
or disapprove the project or make the required finding of the
termination within the applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or
180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically
deemed approved, deemed approved by such agency.
This creates a set of perverse incentives. First, as an agency is up
against that deadline and legitimate work is yet to be completed, it is
likely to disapprove the project simply because the issues have not
been vetted.
Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the
complexity of issues that need to be resolved necessitates a longer
review period, rather than an arbitrary limit.
So if H.R. 2641 were to become law the most likely outcome is that
federal agencies would be required to make decisions based on
incomplete information, or information that may not be available within
the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would
have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.
In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.
Mr. Speaker, the new requirements contained in H.R. 2641 amend the
environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), even though the bill is drafted as an amendment to the APA.
The bill ignores the fact that NEPA has for more than 40 years
provided an effective framework for all types of projects (not just
construction projects) that require federal approval pursuant to a
federal law, such as the Clean Air Act.

[[Page H2207]]

I urge my colleagues to reject this Rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 501 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3546) to provide for the extension of certain unemployment
benefits, 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 among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3546.

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. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 191, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 99]

YEAS--219

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAYS--191

[[Page H2208]]

Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--20

Chaffetz
Collins (NY)
Crawford
Diaz-Balart
Gosar
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hinojosa
Johnson, Sam
Jones
King (IA)
McAllister
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Ryan (WI)
Schneider
Schwartz

{time} 1018

Messrs. SCHRADER and RUPPERSBERGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 99 I was not present
due to unavoidable air travel delays. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 190, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 100]

YEAS--225

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAYS--190

Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Chaffetz
Collins (NY)
Crawford
Gosar
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hinojosa
Johnson, Sam
Jones
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Roskam
Schneider
Schwartz

{time} 1028

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________