Dan Newhouse

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cathey Anderson for the compassion she demonstrated aboard a flight from Nevada to central Washington. Cathey did not think twice before springing into action when she noticed a man in his 70s who was traveling alone. He appeared confused and then lost consciousness. Cathey recognized the signs of a seizure, and she took the initiative to help. She and two other nurses administered medical treatment until the flight landed, and they were greeted by medical crews upon arrival in Yakima. Cathey is a registered nurse and the occupational health supervisor at Energy Northwest. She was awarded the CEO Lifesaving Award for her actions. To Cathey's family and friends, her quick action was not a surprise, because it wasn't the first time she comforted a stranger in distress. I thank Cathey for her willingness to help others around her everywhere she goes. Please join me in recognizing Cathey Anderson for receiving this prestigious award.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, September is National Hispanic Heritage Month, and I am proud to represent central Washington where Hispanic heritage and culture tells the story of many of my constituents and our communities. I have witnessed firsthand how Hispanic Americans contribute to our communities through entrepreneurship, military service, and cultural diversity. I am proud to recognize my Hispanic American friends and neighbors in Washington's Fourth Congressional District. I am also proud to support national appreciation of Hispanic American and Latino leadership and heritage as an original cosponsor of the National Museum of the American Latino Act. I support the establishment of a Smithsonian museum to recognize Latino contributions to American history, life, art, and culture. In the United States, our shared values bring us together, and we cherish our Nation's diverse history. I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating National Hispanic Heritage Month. Recognizing Cathey Anderson for Energy Northwest's CEO Lifesaving Award

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Marc Gallaway from Selah Middle School for being named the Association of Washington School Principals Middle Level Principal of the Year. A lifelong Washingtonian, Marc Gallaway earned his bachelor's degree from Central Washington University and his master's degree from Heritage University in Toppenish. He worked as both a special education teacher and a baseball coach before he came to work at Selah Junior High School in 2005. Mr. Gallaway has served as principal at what is now Selah Middle School for the past 14 years. Every day, Mr. Gallaway nurtures a culture of positivity and teamwork among students and staff. Mr. Speaker, I want to honor Mr. Gallaway for empowering students and teachers to embrace the Viking Way and thank him for his positive influence that he has had on students in central Washington. This award is something that Mr. Gallaway, his students, and fellow faculty and staff should be very proud of. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Marc Gallaway on this significant achievement. Celebrating National Hispanic Heritage Month

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize James Webb, a Yakima native, for receiving the prestigious Louis H. Bauer Founders Award by the Aerospace Medical Association this year. It is not every day that a man born and raised in central Washington is awarded the Aerospace Medical Association's highest honor, and Mr. Webb deserves it. After graduating from the University of Washington, James joined the United States Air Force, where he completed 175 combat missions and received the Distinguished Flying Cross as well as several other awards. James was inspired to research altitude decompression sickness, finding solutions to help astronauts and pilots across the country and around the world. Before receiving the Founders Award, James won five other awards from the association and also served as president. Mr. Speaker, I thank James Webb for his contributions to aerospace medicine. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on this award.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rowdy Barry, Kennewick's own professional bullfighter, on a successful 33-year career. Rowdy grew up around rodeos and has been bullfighting rodeos of all sizes since he was 18 years old. Putting himself between bulls and bull riders requires a true dedication to the sport. Rowdy sacrificed his time, as well as several injuries and broken bones, to keep riders safe and to provide a few additional laughs for the audience. On September 15, Rowdy will be hanging up his bullfighting hat for good at the Othello Rodeo. Earlier this year, he was inducted into both the Kennewick Rodeo and Omak Stampede Halls of Fame. The Walla Walla Frontier Days posters honored him with some of his own artwork. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Rowdy on a career that will not be forgotten in central Washington. I wish him the best in his future. Congratulating James Webb

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kennewick Police Chief Kenneth Hohenberg for 40 years of service to the Kennewick Police Department. Chief Hohenberg began his career as an officer at age 22, making him the city's longest serving employee. He rose quickly through the ranks. He served on patrol, both as a motorcycle cop and a DARE officer, a sergeant, a lieutenant, and then captain. He attended the FBI National Academy, an honor few police officers receive, and was named chief in 2003. Not only is Chief Hohenberg one of the most respected police chiefs in the State, but he is also a widely admired member of our community. He has been named Benton-Franklin United Way Volunteer of the Year, Kennewick Man of the Year, and Tri-Citian of the Year. In central Washington, we know him as a man who is constantly looking for opportunities to help and always willing to serve in and out of the police department. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Ken Hohenberg for his tremendous service to the city of Kennewick and to Washington's Fourth Congressional District. Congratulating Rowdy Barry

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to transfer title of certain Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) assets to the Kennewick Irrigation District (KID) in Central Washington. This straightforward legislation, in accordance with a December 2017 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Kennewick Irrigation District and BOR, will transfer title of works beginning at the KID's head gate and extending 40 miles east. The transfer includes the conveyance of land and project facilities and should be completed no later than two years after the enactment. In working toward a successful transfer, the KID will include an Environmental Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act as well as all necessary Endangered Species Act review, National Historical Preservation Act review, and a hazardous materials review. The KID and BOR have also committed to ensure that all stakeholders, tribal concerns, and local interests have a seat at the table throughout the process. In addition to ensuring the proper reviews are completed, KID will repay their allocated share of construction costs to the federal government. Throughout Central Washington, there are several irrigation districts which work to manage and maintain reliable water supplies to cities, farmers, tribes, and recreational interest and they have done so successfully for many decades. The KID is no different. By completing this title transfer we can ensure there will be a safe, reliable, and efficient water supply for the next generation.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

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

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage with my good friend and colleague from the State of Massachusetts, especially on a particularly important issue such as carbon tax. It is my feeling and the feeling of the majority of this House that we need to move away from aggressive taxes and top-down Big Government regulation. We need to get behind innovative-centric solutions that remove bureaucratic barriers to clean, affordable, and reliable energy technology and allow for real global carbon emission reductions. Our affordable and reliable energy supply must be the focus, along with a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. A carbon tax simply would not yield those kinds of results. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying legislation, H. Con. Res. 119, which is simply this: Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows An Amendment to H. Res. 1001 Offered by Mr. McGovern At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 2. 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. 12) to modernize voter registration, promote access to voting for individuals with disabilities, protect the ability of individuals to exercise the right to vote in elections for Federal office, 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 respective chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on House Administration, the Judiciary, Science, Space and Technology, Veterans' Affairs, Oversight and Government Reform. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 12. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. We are prepared to close on the Republican side.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Will the gentleman yield? MR. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Maine, as well as the gentleman from Vermont, getting back to the debate at hand. I just want to share a few things that I have learned from a recent poll conducted by the Institute for Energy Research. They found that a resounding 85 percent of respondents agreed that we should not make energy more expensive. Even more tellingly than that, though, when asked whether they trusted the Federal Government to spend the money from a tax on carbon emissions wisely, only 18 percent of the respondents felt that they would, while 74 percent said that they did not feel that way. An overwhelming 73 percent of respondents agreed that the last thing that we need is higher taxes or more bureaucracy. And, lastly, 85 percent of respondents feared that consumers will wind up paying the cost associated with a tax or regulation, exactly what we have been saying. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the American people remain profoundly skeptical of government intrusion into the free markets, and like I said before, a carbon tax would be wrong for our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, as tempting as that sounds, I think that the adequate 30 minutes per side is enough for both of us.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on this side of the aisle, but before I reserve my time, I just want to remind my good friends on the other side of the aisle that my colleague and good friend from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, did offer this amendment in the Appropriations Committee just last week. We did spend a great deal of time debating and discussing this idea. As the good chairman from the Rules Committee said, and I will repeat, of the funds that were appropriated, there were $380 million appropriated for the Election Assistance Commission, which was the last of the final payment of the $3.65 billion originally authorized under the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Of these 2018 funds, there are still 39 percent of these dollars available to the States. There is no crisis. The money is available to States that want those dollars for assistance. In fact, to date, my latest information, Mr. Speaker, there are still 19 States yet to submit an application. So there is no crisis. There is help available. States have an opportunity to receive the resources necessary to make sure we have what all American people want, that our elections are held with the utmost honesty and integrity. Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, getting back to the resolution at hand about moving away from regressive taxes and top-down, Big Government regulation, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not yield for any other purpose.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), my good friend.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side seem to be focused on closed versus open rules. We hear that time and time again. They are ignoring that the structured amendment process has routinely been used by both parties when they were in the majority. This majority has made it a priority to make in order amendments for floor consideration, which, I might point out, a majority of those amendments have been Democratic-sponsored or cosponsored. In fact, as of July 12 of this year, Republicans in this Congress, the 115th Congress, provided for the consideration of more than 1,650 amendments on the House floor: 745 of those were Democrat amendments; 630 were Republican amendments; and 280 were, proudly, bipartisan amendments, Mr. Speaker. So by no means are we stopping the process. That doesn't even count the thousands and thousands of submissions that Members make, both Republican and Democrat, to committees for consideration. Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the fact that this is a totally closed process. It is open for participation by every Member of the House who represents constituents across this country. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1001, providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 119, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. The rule provides for consideration of the concurrent resolution under a closed rule. Mr. Speaker, my district in central Washington demonstrates the strength in utilizing a diverse portfolio of energy sources, while also working on the forefront of energy innovation in clean energy solutions for the future. From the mighty Grand Coulee Dam, which is the largest hydroelectric power producer in the United States, to the Chief Joseph Dam, to the series of lower Snake and lower Columbia River dams, our region is undoubtedly blessed with low-cost, clean, reliable, and renewable hydropower. In fact, hydropower provides our State with almost 70 percent of our energy needs. Improvements made to this technology to improve the efficiency, the safety, and the productivity of hydro demonstrate the importance of constantly improving our energy technologies. Now, while we do rely heavily on hydropower, Washington also utilizes an array of other energy sources, both produced and imported, including oil, natural gas, coal, and a number of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. My district is also blessed with the only nuclear generating station in the Pacific Northwest, and that is the Columbia Generating Station, which is operated by Energy Northwest. Columbia produces 10 percent of the electricity generated in Washington and is a reliable, clean energy producer not dependent on weather conditions like some renewables are. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, while I am sure you are fascinated by this brief rundown of Washington State's source of energy, you may be wondering why I am speaking about such matters with the resolution before us today. The resolution says, quite simply, that it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy--a simple statement. And while I could be spending my time listening to many ways a harmful tax would harm our economy and the American people, I thought I would also offer a demonstration of the many resources we have at our disposal for strengthening America's energy dominance. Many of my colleagues, much like myself, support what we can call an ``all of the above'' energy approach. We believe government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be placing the thumb on the economic free-market scale. A carbon tax would be exactly that, a devastating hammer to what is currently an economy on the rise. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by the majority whip, Representative Steve Scalise from the great State of Louisiana, to oppose a carbon tax carbon tax as a solution to address carbon emissions and climate change, because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it simply is not a solution. However, that is not to say that I oppose reducing carbon emissions. My constituents and the people of the great Pacific Northwest most certainly want a clean, healthy environment, and we should be doing everything we can to limit emissions. But a burdensome new tax that would fundamentally bring our innovative energy sector and growing economy to a standstill is not the answer. Further, a carbon tax fails to recognize the diversity of our Nation and the different energy resources that exist in the United States. Quite frankly, the resources that exist in the State of Washington certainly may not be present in the State of North Dakota or Louisiana or Massachusetts. We should be making clean energy more affordable, not making traditional energy sources more expensive. We should be cutting burdensome regulations that constrain the development and deployment of energy, whether it be nuclear, fossil fuels, or hydropower. These regulatory burdens should be removed and reformed to spur clean energy innovation with the power of markets, not within the hands of government bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, we, in central Washington, have another prize gem in our backyard. I am proud to represent the people that work at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. This premier Department of Energy lab is on the forefront of energy innovation. From enabling safe and sustainable fossil fuel exploration production, transportation, conversion, and end use, to transforming the U.S. power grid to meet economic, environmental, and security priorities for the 21st century, our national labs like PNNL delivers distinctive science and technology solutions for efficient and sustainable energy. I am a proud member of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee where we continue to prioritize strategic energy research and development that will increase U.S. economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness. Congress should continue to work on utilizing and empowering public- private partnerships to rapidly develop new technologies and then let the market catalyze its growth and commercial liability. There are great examples of these efforts taking place in the innovative high- tech communities of the Tri-Cities, Washington, where experts from the private sector are partnering with research and support offered by PNNL to develop grid-scale storage solutions and small modular reactor technologies, fundamentally transforming the future of nuclear power generation and battery storage technologies. Mr. Speaker, my constituents want energy security and want a clean environment. They want economic growth, job creation, and they want to keep their low-cost electricity. The way to a cleaner, more prosperous future for our Nation's energy needs is not through more government bureaucracy. It is through empowering American innovation. That is why a carbon tax is wrong for my district in central Washington State. It is wrong for the entire State of Washington, and it is wrong for the United States of America. We need to innovate, rather than regulate the future of America's energy dominance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

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

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1001 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of legislation that will commemorate the life and service of a young man from central Washington who died serving his country just over a year ago, on July 10, 2017. Marine Sergeant Dietrich Schmieman grew up in Richland, Washington, with his parents, Eric and Susan, and his two brothers, Aaron and Hans. He attended Christ the King Catholic School, Hanford High School, and Columbia Basin College, where he met friends who would remain close to him throughout his entire life. In 2010, with a world of opportunity ahead of him, he chose to dedicate his life to service and enlist in the United States Marine Corps. It was his goal to serve within Special Operations Command. Throughout his service, he received 14 awards and decorations, including several Achievement Medals, Good Conduct Medals, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. He had completed two overseas deployments, serving our Nation during Operation Enduring Freedom. He achieved his goal, honorably serving as a critical skills operator in the U.S. Marine Corps 2nd Raider Battalion at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, when he was tragically killed in a KC-130 plane crash in Mississippi on July 10, 2017. My legislation would designate the U.S. Postal Service facility at 4801 West Van Giesen Street in West Richland, Washington, as the Sergeant Dietrich Schmieman Post Office Building. Dietrich and his fellow servicemembers gave the ultimate sacrifice, and I hope to honor his memory, as well as the memory of the 15 other men and women killed in the crash, with this dedication to their service. Dietrich's strong ties to his family, friends, and hometown continue to be evident. An avid skydiver, Dietrich's death inspired his parents, childhood friends, and fellow marines to complete a memorial skydive over central Washington. He had a tattoo symbolizing his love of the Pacific Northwest and requested that his ashes be spread on Mount Rainier, where his Marine brothers-in-arms will hike this August in his honor. We recently observed the 1-year anniversary of the devastating plane crash, and I know that the designation of this post office will mean a lot to Dietrich's family and to our community, serving as a local memorial and a reminder of the sacrifice he and his fellow servicemembers gave to preserve the freedoms that are the cornerstone of our Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to name this building, which will be visited often by friends and family, after a courageous young man whose life and service deserve this honor.