Dan Newhouse

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. It was, let's see, more like 6 hours ago that it was in the hopper.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I am not questioning the good lady's credentials from the farming State of Minnesota. But certainly given time, as this process moves forward, she will become intimately familiar with this law as it is being interpreted. It is already happening in other parts of the country, and I would offer this amendment to help preclude the wrongful use of the law and ask my colleagues for strong consideration. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, with the few seconds I have left, I would certainly thank the gentleman from Idaho, as well as the lady from Minnesota, for sharing their concerns. I certainly look forward to working with my colleagues. I would urge support and look forward to a continuing effort to move this to a conclusion that we can all accept. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment on an issue that is critical to livestock producers not just in my State and in my district, but across the whole country. Last year, a group of folks in my area, environmental activists, sued several dairies in the Yakima Valley in Washington State, claiming that the dairies were responsible for ``open dumping'' under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976--or, as it is most commonly referred to, RCRA--because of manure storage and management issues on their farms. The big issue is what law the activists were suing the dairies under. There are many laws and regulations, both at the State and Federal level, which are appropriate mechanisms for protecting and ensuring our Nation's waters are kept clean, but the problem I see is that RCRA is not one of them. RCRA was a law designed to govern solid wastes and prevent open dumping. The major application of this law is regulating landfills. It was never intended to regulate animal waste. In fact, the EPA, in its initial 1979 regulations for RCRA, expressed that the law ``does not apply to agricultural waste, including manure and crop residue, returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners.'' I don't know how much clearer we can get that manure storage and handling were not intended to be governed under this law. Unfortunately, though, a Federal judge in Spokane, Washington, agreed with the group and stretched the definition of ``solid waste'' to apply to manure nitrates, contrary to the law and Federal regulatory code, and held the dairies responsible for open dumping because of how they stored and handled animal waste. Mr. Chair, my amendment does nothing to prevent EPA from enforcing the current regulations under RCRA. It does nothing to change the Clean Water Act rulemakings, nor does it prevent EPA from issuing or enforcing Clean Water Act regulations. All my amendment does is prevent EPA from issuing and expanding new regulations under RCRA that would reflect the interpretation of this current law. Mr. Chair, no one is saying that livestock producers--like every American--don't share in the responsibility of good stewardship of our environment and our resources. They certainly do. But there are appropriate laws and regulations intended to govern this, and there are ones that are not appropriate for this purpose. Simply piling additional layers of regulation on producers and giving activists new litigation tools to target our Nation's farmers and ranchers is not what Congress had in mind when passing the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. We, as Congress, have a responsibility to make that clarification, and that is what I am seeking to do with this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the good gentleman from Kentucky for his work on this bill. I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015, and urge my colleagues to support its adoption. This amendment, which I am proud to introduce with my friend and colleague from the State of Washington, Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, would very simply direct the Environmental Protection Agency to consider hydropower as a renewable energy source when issuing, implementing, and enforcing any final rule regarding carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants under the Clean Air Act. EPA's misguided proposed clean power plan, which the Agency announced in June of 2014, attempts to regulate and reduce the amount of carbon emitted from the power sector by setting emission guidelines for each individual State. Under the proposed rule, my home State of Washington would be responsible for an unattainable 72 percent reduction in its carbon emissions by the year 2030. To put this into context, the State of Iowa would be required to reduce carbon emissions by 16 percent, the State of Kentucky by 18 percent, and the State of North Dakota by 11 percent. I believe the proposed clean power plan would have devastating consequences for each and every State, as well as for the country at large, which is why I am proud to cosponsor and support H.R. 2042. Mr. Chairman, the requirements placed on Washington by this misguided rule are simply unachievable. It will hurt our families and our small businesses by raising the cost of electricity, and it will cost our economy billions of dollars just to comply. My amendment would seek to provide a reality check to EPA and highlight the effect this regulation would have on such States as Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and South Dakota, which are blessed with abundant sources of hydropower, a nonemitting energy source. However, under the EPA's plan, hydropower is not treated as a renewable energy source, despite the fact that the Obama administration has recently been touting the potential of hydropower as part of its all-the-above energy strategy. In fact, Mr. Chair, last April, Secretary Moniz discussed the importance of hydropower and described it as a renewable in an address to the National Hydropower Association. In his remarks, the Secretary stated: ``We have to pick up the covers off of this hidden renewable that is right in front of our eyes and continues to have significant potential.'' Yet, despite this public praise for hydropower and recognition of it as a renewable, the EPA decided to push a plan that explicitly neglects hydropower as a renewable in favor of other sources, such as wind and solar. Additionally, the EPA's plan uses the year 2012 as its baseline for each State's carbon reduction goals, and this will also negatively impact my home State and others in the Northwest. In 2012, Oregon and Washington experienced unusually high levels of rainfall, unfortunately, unlike this year, which led to a sharp increase in hydropower production; and, therefore, we used less energy from fossil fuel sources. As a result, the proposed rule seriously underestimates the average amount of carbon used by my State in its power production which, in reality, is much higher than the EPA 2012 baseline. Because hydropower is not viewed as a renewable, we will have to utilize impractical amounts of other renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, to meet the EPA's goals. Mr. Chair, the effects of this decision in States with large amounts of existing hydroelectric power, such as mine, Oregon, South Dakota, and Idaho, are significantly disadvantaged under the rule and will not get credit for their existing hydroelectric generation and infrastructure. However, my amendment would address this issue by directing EPA to simply recognize hydropower as a renewable energy source. This would in no way restrict the goals of H.R. 2042, which I fully support, nor would it negatively affect other nonhydropower States. It just highlights the misguided rule put forth by the Agency. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Newhouse-Herrera Beutler amendment and the underlying bill, and I urge the amendment's adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying trade promotion authority bill. Look at my State of Washington. We have jobs, economic growth, and increased exports because of trade. Those benefits and the example of that can be applied to our entire Nation. By passing TPA, Congress will set priorities to ensure that any agreement levels the playing field with our trading partners and creates jobs here at home. Without it, the administration will be setting those priorities, and we, Congress, will have no say and little oversight. In my State, we export coffee, many agricultural products, aircraft, footwear, and software. We export, fully, 30 percent of our apples, 60 percent of our hops, and over 85 percent of our wheat. TPA is about instructing our trade negotiators to reduce the trade barriers that American farmers and manufacturers face so that we can create and sell openly around the world. Right now, our American wines face very stiff tariffs in Japan, but Chilean and Argentinean wines face none. Our beef faces a 38 percent tariff; oranges, 16 percent. TPA will instruct our trade negotiators to work on lowering these tariffs. The reason to vote on TPA and why it is so important is that it will make the deal public and give the American people several months to review any negotiated deal. Without passing this, there is no review period. The deal can stay secret. Some have objected that their voices have not been heard on this matter, but for months, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Rules Committee have considered dozens of amendments to three different trade-related bills. There has been ample time for debate. Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are critical to our economy. Without it, our country will continue to face enormous barriers; but with it, we can grow our businesses, create more jobs, and ensure the American economy remains the most competitive and strongest in the world for decades to come.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the chairman for yielding his time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule and the underlying trade promotion authority granted by H.R. 1314. As a member of the Rules Committee, I can affirm that the committee heard and seriously considered many amendments and concerns from both Democratic and Republican Members late into the night. This rule has been very fair, deliberative, and interested parties have been given ample opportunity to weigh in on it and on the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, as you just heard, I come from the State of Washington, which is the most trade-benefited State in the country. If my colleagues want to see the benefit trade brings and the jobs it creates, they only have to look at my State. We export coffee, aircraft, footwear, software--you name it. We also have an enormous agriculture industry. In Washington, we export fully 30 percent of the apples we grow, more than 85 percent of the wheat, 75 percent of the hops. Right now, consumers around the world are enjoying a brand new crop of fresh Washington State cherries, but the trade success story I want to share with you today is about potatoes. Prior to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement that the Congress passed and the President signed in 2011, we shipped $53 million worth of french fries to South Korea. After that agreement was passed, that value rose to $83 million--a 57 percent increase in just 2 years-- largely attributed to the trade barriers that were lowered. For the record, that potato industry supports fully 24,000 jobs in my State. Those are good-paying jobs which are all supported by trade. Trade promotion authority is about creating a fair playing field for American producers so we can create more jobs here at home. Most people may not know this, but, right now, American wines face 50 percent tariffs in Japan. Chilean and Argentinean wines face no tariffs at all. Our beef faces a 38 percent tariff--our oranges, a 16 percent tariff. TPA will instruct our negotiators to work on lowering these barriers to U.S. products. Mr. Speaker, Americans produce some of the finest products in the world, and if given the chance to compete fairly, I believe they can. I have no doubt that we can outperform almost any competitor in the world, but we can't continue to allow other countries to stack the deck against us, which is happening right now. By granting the President the power to negotiate a treaty and by Congress telling him what priorities must be negotiated, we can create a fair playing field and create those jobs we need here at home. I understand there are concerns about the privacy surrounding the TPP deal. I share those concerns, which is why I have personally gone and reviewed the text of this deal three times now.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. The reason this vote on TPA is so important is that it will make the deal public. It will give the American people at least 2 months and as much as 5 months to review any negotiated deal. That is months to tell their Members of Congress whether they should support the deal or not. Without voting on TPA, there is no review period. The deal can stay a secret. Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are critical to our economy. Without TPA, our country will be left disadvantaged against other countries, and we will be left to trade with one arm tied behind our back. With it, we can open new opportunities for our businesses. They can grow and create more jobs, and we can ensure that the American economy remains the most competitive, strongest economy in the world for decades to come.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the good gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

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

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), another fine member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), another member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, just let me say before I turn to some of my colleagues who have joined me on the floor that I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts. These are important issues, especially when we are talking about appropriations for the Defense Department. We do need an AUMF, and I remain committed to work with the gentleman from Massachusetts to accomplish that; that we should have that open debate and that discussion through the committee system. This is not the vehicle. But we will do that. We need to do that, and I agree with the gentleman. Today, I am very happy to have with me several people who would like to speak on this issue. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Reclaiming my time after that 10-second question, the Agriculture Committee has had ample time for debate on that question. We are bringing forward what is a very critical decision that has to be made in a very limited timeframe, and so it is an appropriate approach to addressing this issue. Mr. Speaker, the issues we are considering today have serious consequences for the security and economic well-being of our country, which is why I am urging my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills. H.R. 2685 is an important measure that funds our Nation's national defense and its critical national security programs. It provides the resources needed to continue our essential military efforts abroad and addresses the vital needs of our men and women in uniform. An effective, well-equipped, well-trained military is in the best interest of all Americans and is indispensable to the common defense of our country. This bill includes vital funding for the U.S. military and intelligence community as they remain engaged in responding to these challenges abroad. This bill also makes difficult budgetary choices that will help us save taxpayer dollars wherever possible, but it does so without undermining the safety, the security, and the success of our troops and their families. With the rise of ISIS, the continued presence of al Qaeda, the emergence and growth of terrorist groups in North Africa, near systemic instability across the Middle East, and the ongoing situation in Ukraine, our military must remain strong and ready to address evolving threats both at home and abroad. Our highest national priority should always be the protection of our country, and the funding levels in this bill will ensure our military remains the most capable, prepared, and exceptional armed force anywhere in the world. To me the choice is clear. What side are we on? We choose to be on the side of our troops, and I am proud to support this bill and the important funding it provides our Nation's military, security, and our courageous men and women in uniform. This rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act, a measure that warrants immediate and serious consideration by both Houses of Congress, because the ramifications of doing nothing will be severe and could imperil many sectors of our country, from ranchers and grape growers to manufacturers and exporters. With only 37 days left to respond, the threat of retaliation is very real. My friends on the other side of the aisle may argue that we have more time to address this issue, but the reality is time is simply running out. For over 7 years, we have been trying to rectify this issue. WTO's latest verdict, handed down on May 18, is our fourth and final loss in the court proceedings. Now both Canada and Mexico have publicly stated they will retaliate against the United States, and the official request for retaliation is set to occur on June 17. This is not an idle threat. It is not saber rattling. Last week, Canada announced that it will seek $3 billion in retaliatory measures, and Mexico stated it will be seeking tariffs totaling $635 million. Even before retaliation, COOL has had a negative economic impact in many areas across the country. Tyson Foods has a plant in my district, and given the proximity to Canada, this plant in Pasco depends on Canadian cattle. However, under COOL, the plant cannot commingle U.S. and Canadian cattle. They have to be run in separate lines, and the plant has to use multiple labels depending on the origin of those cattle. COOL has increased the Pasco facility's operating costs due to the requirements and inefficiencies involved with the segregation of the cattle; and with less animals available across the Pacific Northwest, the plant is currently operating at less than 40 hours per week, leading to less money being put into the local economy from less compensation from employers. Mr. Speaker, COOL threatens the trade relationships we have with two of our biggest markets for the export of U.S. meat and agricultural products. If we don't repeal the requirements of COOL, we are in violation of our WTO obligations. As I said, we could face billions of dollars in retaliation that would hurt farmers and ranchers, small businesses, and, yes, American consumers. We need this legislation now in order to prevent those retaliatory actions and to bring the United States into compliance with our WTO obligations, which can only be done by repealing these provisions. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the discussion we have had over the last hour. Although we may have some differences of opinion--we usually do-- I believe this rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that are important to the future of our country. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 303 and the underlying bills.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts for a 10- second question.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and let me say thank you to the gentleman from Massachusetts and the points he raises. I enjoy serving on the Rules Committee with Mr. McGovern. Let me just say, this Congress, we are on track to be one of the most productive Congresses in many, many years, and part of the reason is the use of the compound rule, which provides for separate consideration of each underlying measure under a single rule. It helps expedite legislative business. Consideration of one rule allows the House more time to debate the underlying measures. It has given us the opportunity to achieve that efficiency and that effectiveness and productivity.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize someone who is a very familiar voice to readers of The Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle newspaper, which is located in Okanogan County, in my district, in the State of Washington. Elizabeth Barta Widel is one of the most senior journalists in the Pacific Northwest. For 61 years, she has shared her love of the outdoors, her photography, and her passion for all things concerning the Okanogan community. Since 1954, Elizabeth has written a column for the Chronicle, titled, ``Exploring the Okanogan.'' So far, she has written almost 2,900 columns on an array of topics, and she continues to add to that number regularly. Through sharing her stories, her down- to-earth words of wisdom, and her curiosity of the world around her, Elizabeth has shown a profound connection with the Okanogan Valley and has inspired generations of readers and those who know her. Please join me in celebrating the contribution and dedication of this remarkable lady, an explorer of things great and small.