Joe Neguse

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor and thank Chief Rick Bashor for his storied career and dedication to serving his community in Lafayette, Colorado, and wish him the best on his well-earned retirement. Born and raised in Boulder County, Chief Bashor has dedicated the last 43 years in service to the Lafayette Police Department, earning the distinct honor of being the longest-serving chief in the history of the City of Lafayette. Throughout his career with the Lafayette Police Department, Chief Bashor oversaw significant changes to the community and the department. He has served as a Police Officer, Field Training Officer, Detective, Master Firearms Instructor and Armorer, Sergeant, Field Training Sergeant, SWAT Negotiator, Lieutenant, Administrative Commander, Operations Commander, and finally, for the last 15 years, as Chief of Police. When Chief Bashor first joined the service in 1983, the population of Lafayette was around 10,000. The population has tripled since then, and the police department has grown from 18 sworn officers to 51. Chief Bashor has overseen sweeping changes to the department as they adapted to the needs of a growing community. Chief Bashor led his department through tumultuous times, including adjusting to the needs of a modern police force and navigating the COVID-19 pandemic. When he took on the role of Chief of Police, Chief Bashor committed to leaving the department better than when he found it, and I believe he's done just that. It has been an honor to work with Chief Bashor and to have him represent and serve the people of Colorado. On behalf of Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, I thank and honor Chief Rick Bashor for his invaluable contributions and service to the community of Lafayette. We thank Chief Bashor and we wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor this week debating three Congressional Review Act resolutions that would overturn balanced, forward-looking resource management plans, or RMPs, that have been carefully developed over the past 4 years. Now, with all due respect to my friend and colleague, the chairman, I heard a lot of slogans, a couple of references to Moscow. I will just say that the CRA before this body is very simple. It is an effort by House Republicans to do something that has never been done before in the history of the Congressional Review Act, which is to overturn a resource management plan. Why, you might ask, Mr. Speaker, do Republicans intend to take this unprecedented step? It is simply because they would like to open up millions of acres in Montana, North Dakota, and elsewhere to coal extraction. That is it, very simple. We can probably dispense with, I guess, the hour of debate that we are allocated for purposes of these CRAs. It doesn't really get more complicated than that: Balanced resource management plans were developed in consultation with the communities and States at issue, and this Republican Congress has decided that it is of the utmost priority to, via legislative action, overturn resource management plans that, by the way, Mr. Speaker, could simply be reversed with a phone call to the Secretary of the Interior. Last time I checked, the Secretary of the Interior happens to be the former Governor of North Dakota, so insofar as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so invested in overturning this resource management plan, perhaps they should call the former Governor of North Dakota, who now works 2 miles from the U.S. Capitol as the Secretary of the Interior, and ask the agency to follow the process by which a resource management plan is historically reconsidered. Instead, we are here on the House floor debating a CRA on the resource management plan, a giveaway to some of the biggest mining and oil companies on the planet. That is how House Republicans have decided to spend our time on the floor today. There are a lot of priorities, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents back in Colorado believe this House should consider. Reversing the draconian and cruel healthcare cuts that House Republicans pushed through just a mere 7 weeks ago is at the top of the list. I can tell you what is not on the list: CRA resolutions to overturn resource management plans so that more coal extraction and mining can be done in Montana. That is not on the list of priorities of my constituents, and I suspect that is the case for the vast majority of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Miles City Resource Management Plan update, it is just important contextually to say that it was a very extensive and inclusive public comment period. BLM provided a 90-day public comment period, two public meetings, a 30-day public comment period, and a 60-day review period for the Governor. BLM directly contacted over 40 private landowners, all, according to BLM, to help refine and guide development of that RMP amendment. That robust public input was instrumental in shaping a plan that reflects the values of the communities it impacts. I want to go back to, I guess, a core point that the ranking member articulated previously, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if perhaps the chairman knows. It is a fairly empty Chamber here. I don't see any other Members. Maybe he might engage in a bit of discourse here in a colloquy. I am trying to understand why the CRA is necessary, given that the Interior Department retains the ability to amend and modify these resource management plans in any way that the Secretary deems necessary. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire through you as to whether the chair could help us better understand why they have decided to pursue the CRA rather than simply amending the resource management plan. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve for response and that colloquy.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, facts matter. Under President Trump, Americans are paying more for their electricity than ever before. Energy costs right now are higher than they have ever been. They are increasing at twice the rate of inflation. As Republicans preside over an economy in which everything is getting more expensive, spare us lectures about energy costs. Healthcare is more expensive. Groceries are more expensive. Energy costs are going through the roof. Seriously? Their answer to all of this is more coal. That is it. That is the sum total of the Republican response to the cost-of-living crisis in the United States of America today. From Arkansas to Colorado to Minnesota and everywhere in between, more coal is their prescription, Mr. Speaker. In Colorado, we certainly don't think that is a prudent approach. I will say I regret that the Speaker didn't indulge me in the colloquy that I had hoped I could engage in with the chairman whom, of course, I greatly respect. Mr. Speaker, he did reveal the plot here in his answer as to what the impetus was for the CRA. Of course, it is not as simple as amending or modifying the resource management plan. The reason House Republicans are pursuing this tool is to prevent not just this Department of the Interior but any Department of the Interior into perpetuity from issuing a resource management plan that is in any way substantially similar to the one that is at issue here. That is what this is about. That is this effort. I don't think my colleagues on my side of the aisle will be confused by the chairman's arguments. Just in case, I want to make sure it is crystal clear for the record that a vote in favor of this CRA is not a vote to modify or amend the resource management plan. It is a vote to prevent the agency and subagency, in the case of the BLM, from promulgating any resource management plan that remotely tries to do something similar to what has been done here. Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague. Again, on the other side of the aisle, they have their ideological reasons for pursuing that. It is more coal. Again, that is the sum total. It is two words. In my view, I think most Americans would think and agree that this isn't how we should be spending our time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was trying to keep track, and I lost track at some point, but my colleague from Minnesota I think said the word ``Biden'' eight times, if I am not mistaken. Mr. Speaker, if you couple that with references to the prior administration, then that jumps up to 12 or 13. It is unclear to me when Republicans are going to stop complaining and actually do something to address the challenges that face our country. They spend more time talking about Joe Biden than they do about reducing costs. Every sentence from that side of the aisle, Biden, a verb, an adjective, and more coal. That is essentially the sum total of every sentence. By the way, my colleagues, I suspect, are watching from their offices. I know that more of my colleagues are going to come to the floor here to engage in debate on, I don't know--how many CRAs are they putting on the floor today, three, four, or five? That is all we do around here are CRAs. I encourage them as they are watching to, please, when they come to the floor, maybe spend some time talking about their affirmative vision for the country and not so much time talking about the prior President. Republicans are in charge. Republicans have a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate and the Presidency, and we spend all of our time on the House floor doing CRAs or resolutions of disapproval, the weakest vehicle that this House could consider. Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware of this, but the House has been on vacation for like the last 6 weeks. Republicans recessed us out of session early, a 6-week vacation for Republicans. Finally, we are back in Washington, September, 10 months into the Trump Presidency, and this is how you choose to spend your time, with resolutions of disapproval and reversing resource management plans for North Dakota? Of all of the concerns of the people in Arkansas or Colorado, this is the priority? It is a shame, Mr. Speaker. It is deeply disappointing and disheartening, I suspect to most Americans, to those who might be watching C-SPAN, to learn that this august body in the world's greatest democracy is wasting its time debating resource management plans issued by the prior administration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I will give a brief closing because, as I said, I think all we are doing today are these resolutions of disapproval, so I am going to have more opportunities, apparently, to make this argument. I encourage my colleagues to dispense with what, in my view, are actually very dishonest arguments about these resource management plans. I think fundamentally they should continue the work that was done by the prior administration through an open and a transparent process. That is the way these resource management plans are meant to be developed. I get it. I understand that my Republican colleagues have disagreements about the resource management plans. That is understood. Mr. Speaker, call Secretary Burgum. Call the BLM director. I don't think there is a BLM director 10 months into the administration. Call whoever is running the show over at the BLM now and ask them to reopen the process. Mr. Speaker, listen to the Tribes, listen to the American people, and update the resource management plan. That is the way it is done. Using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the plan is the wrong approach. I understand why it may seem easier for Republicans to just bring the hammer down and use this blunt instrument, but all you will be left with, Mr. Speaker, are smashed pieces, and you will forever close the ability of these agencies to protect some of the most treasured lands in our country, lands that belong to the citizens of this country, to you, Mr. Speaker, your children, your grandchildren, and the future generations. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the CRA, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As promised, we are back debating another Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution. This time, as was referenced, it is in regard to the resource management plan for the central Yukon in the heart of Alaska, governing over 13 million acres of public land in central and northern Alaska, some of the most culturally significant landscapes in the United States. This region includes the central Yukon River watershed and the Dalton Highway corridor, areas that are vital to both biodiversity and community survival. These lands are also interconnected with the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They are home to caribou, salmon, and sheep species that Alaska Native and rural communities depend on for food and cultural traditions. The existing RMP sets strong protections in response to declining populations of these important species. It created 3.6 million acres of areas of critical environmental concern. I will also mention here that the one voice we haven't heard from on the House floor is from the Tribal communities impacted by both the resource management plan and this particular resolution to reverse the resource management plan. These lands promote community health, support sustenance, and sustain the wild food economies that numerous Alaska Native communities rely on. The current resource management plan is the result of over a decade, 10 years, of work between the Tribes in the central Yukon as well as the Bureau of Land Management and other stakeholders. Six Tribes worked as cooperating agencies in the development of this plan. I know I have belabored this, Mr. Speaker, but it merits mentioning again. Rather than simply amending the resource management plan, doing the hard work required in the agency to perform the consultations necessary to then change the RMP, if folks have concerns, good faith concerns about the contours of that resource management plan, that is the way to do it. Instead, my colleagues have chosen to use the Congressional Review Act, a very blunt instrument. Using the CRA, unlike pursuing an administrative update, would lock out--lock out--Tribal engagement in BLM's existing processes. Using the CRA to overturn an RMP would also ban the agency not from issuing this resource management plan but from issuing any resource management plan like it. That is reckless. I understand that my colleagues have a disagreement with respect to the contours of this resource management plan. My colleagues should work through the Department of the Interior to change it. That is the way that it should be done. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot on the line with respect to the fate of this particular CRA resolution before us. I mentioned before that we are in uncharted territory because the House has not pursued this type of vehicle to overturn resource management plans in the past. It is unprecedented. It is important for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize the gravity of taking this step. It is one that I would hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might reconsider. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the resolution for those reasons, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman read from a letter there. I will read from a letter that I think the Speaker might find interesting. This is a letter from the Tanana Chiefs Conference in opposition to this resolution. Who is this conference made up of, you might ask, Mr. Speaker? It is made up of 37 federally recognized Tribes and villages across the Yukon River Basin. These Tribes served as cooperating agencies in the RMP development process working to ensure protection for critical salmon habitat and other interests, and they endorsed the RMP after extensive consultation. They oppose this resolution, among many others. Mr. Speaker, I do say that it is important to recognize what this resolution, which I think the chairman, if I am not misquoting him, called a hammer, will do. My view is very simple. This hammer that Republicans have proposed risks precluding these agencies from engaging in any type of rulemaking or resource management planning that is substantially similar to the resource management plan before us. I will give a simple example of what that looks like in practice. This Central Yukon Resource Management Plan opens up 11 million acres to selection by eligible Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans under the Dingell Act. For those who are watching, the resource management plan allows and enables Alaska natives who served our country so bravely during the Vietnam war to access upwards of 11 million acres of lands at issue. Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. By passing this resolution of disapproval, this CRA vehicle, it is not simply eliminating that provision, along with all the other provisions in the resource management plan, it is potentially risking the ability of a future administration, including this one, from issuing any resource management plan that provides a similar benefit. What happens when a court 2 years from now, 3 years from now, or 5 years from now rules that the Republican resolution that you all are poised to pass today precludes the BLM from giving any access to native Vietnam-era veterans in accessing this land? When we call this a blunt instrument, that is what we are referencing. I understand that my colleagues disagree with a variety of different components of the resource management plan. They are fortunate that the Secretary of the Interior happens to be a former Republican Governor of North Dakota, and I imagine if they call him that he will pursue a reopening of this resource management plan. However, taking this step, foreclosing the ability of those Alaska natives who are Vietnam-era veterans from being able to access these lands and precluding that kind of benefit into perpetuity by virtue of using the CRA is reckless. There is no other word to describe it. I would hope my colleagues would, again, reconsider and follow the process of regular order. That is the way to pursue the changes that they seek. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not in the predictions business, but I can confidently predict--and it is why one of the reasons this exchange is so important--that this particular exchange will appear in litigation 2 years from now, 3 years from now, 5 years from now, or 10 years from now. This is untested. The Congressional Review Act has never been used before to repeal a resource management plan, so we don't know how a Federal court is going to construe this Congress' decision to en masse disapprove of a resource management plan that did provide for the allotment for Alaska natives who are Vietnam-era veterans to access these lands. I understand the chairman is making the case here on the floor. He made it during the debate on the Rules Committee. I remember this back in July. He maintains that this congressional resolution of approval is just limited to the energy portions of the resource management plan. That is not what the resolution says. The resolution of disapproval disapproves of the resource management plan in its entirety. I understand that the statutory provisions that provide Alaska natives with the ability, those who are Vietnam-era veterans to access these lands, remains codified. That is not up for debate. The problem is that Republicans have decided to disapprove, to use this blunt instrument of this particular allotment, or rather access that the prior administration as was noted, included in this resource management plan. We have no idea how a Federal court is going to construe the actions of the Congress as it relates to the different component pieces in the resource management plan if and when a future administration, including this one, decides to take that step. It is one of the reasons why a Congressional Review Act or rather, the Congressional Review Act has not been deployed in this way previously because it is risky. My colleague from Alaska seemed very upset. I don't disagree. I share his frustration. I support, by the way, the legislation that he mentioned. The legislation he was referencing is not the bill that is before this Congress. I don't quite understand the impetus behind extending the time as he noted to 5 years while you are simultaneously passing a resolution disapproving of a resource management plan that provided the very access to these lands that you purport to want, but that is for him to explain. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Again, not to belabor the point here, but I do think that last exchange was instructive and revealing. I remember very well the debate that this House engaged in a mere 3 months ago, 2\1/2\ months ago, regarding the budget bill and the terrible cuts to Medicaid that this Chamber, Republicans, passed, and that the President signed into law. I remember after that legislation was signed into law, several of my Republican colleagues, including one Republican Senator in particular, bemoaning the Medicaid cuts that he had just voted for. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with Mark Twain's old adage that history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. It does feel a little bit like deja vu because in the case of these CRAs, I have no doubt that several of my colleagues, including several of my colleagues who are championing these resolutions, will find that down the road they will regret being so vociferous in their support for the resolutions of disapproval of these resource management plans when a Federal court decides that the agencies, the BLM, the Department of the Interior writ large can't protect or, rather, enact protections in the way that it had in the past because Republicans decided to use this blunt instrument. I think we are going on hour number two here. I believe we have another hour of debate on another resolution of disapproval that will be coming up next. For all the reasons I have articulated, I would hope my colleagues will oppose this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, more coal, more coal. That is their answer again, for the third time. Their answer, apparently, to every question is more coal. Frustrated with energy costs going up across the board, State to State, community to community, more coal is their answer. Health insurance costs going up, grocery prices going up, and the economy in free fall? More coal. I don't know what piece of legislation we are going to be debating tomorrow, but I suspect it will involve coal production. It is bordering on obsession for the House Republican Conference, and it would be comical if not for the real-world consequences for my constituents and your constituents, Mr. Speaker, and for Americans across the country who are dealing with the real cost-of-living crisis and who expect more from this Congress than yet another disapproval resolution 10 months into the Trump Presidency, laser focused on passing resolutions of disapproval of agency actions by the Biden administration--real sense of priorities. It is disappointing, Mr. Speaker, deeply disappointing. If one digs into this particular resource management plan, I think you will find that using this blunt instrument, as I have called it during our prior debate, in this instance is probably the most insidious of all. There are a couple of reasons why. One, the resource management plan that was adopted replaced a plan that was nearly 40 years old. This resource management plan provided a modern framework that balances responsible energy and mineral development with the protection of wildlife habitat, water resources, cultural sites, and recreational opportunities. It provides a stable and predictable framework to guide and balance the multiple uses of our public lands and resources based on the needs of today and into the future. It is important to recognize that even if one disagrees with the way in which this resource management plan balances public land uses--and I understand there are good faith disagreements with the resource management plan. The chairman mentioned our mutual good friend, my dear friend, Kelly Armstrong, now the Governor of North Dakota. I recognize we may disagree with the nuances of the resource management plan, but, again, the broader point here is that the CRA is not the proper vehicle for registering one's objection to a resource management plan. Why is that? It is because using the CRA does not return the resource management plan to the status quo. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act outlines the proper process for updating a resource management plan. That is a process that centers on the voices and needs of local land users, while preserving regulatory certainty. By contrast, the CRA strips the public out of the process, and it throws public lands into chaos. What do I mean by that, Mr. Speaker? Here is what I mean. If Congress passes this resolution, if the President signs this resolution into law, it will call into question all the leases, all the permits, and any other related authorizations that stem from the resource management plan. Grazing permits, resource development projects, transmission rights-of-way, all of those leases and permits, and so on, will be tied up in litigation if this resolution is passed. It makes no sense to me why my colleagues have chosen to take this approach and endanger grazing permits in North Dakota when there is a much easier way to do this. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of the Interior is the former Governor of North Dakota. It is true that he could simply change this. He could, through administrative fiat, modify the resource management plan for the State for which he served as the chief executive. He could do that now, and it would not call into question any of the permits or leases. Instead, House Republicans have taken this approach, and I don't think it is going to achieve the stated objective of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--far from it. Again, I hope my colleagues might reconsider. I don't have the Secretary of the Interior's phone number, but I suspect my colleagues do. They can call him. I am sure they can get this worked out, and we can save you, Mr. Speaker, and the few Americans watching on C-SPAN from this stale debate over yet another resolution of disapproval. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague from North Dakota disagrees with the resource management plan. As I said, there are good faith reasons my colleagues have in opposition to the resource management plan. There is a way to register that opposition. Change the plan. Modify it. Amend it. Edit it. Call the former Governor of North Dakota. Chairman Westerman noted he objected to this plan when he was Governor. Give him a call. He is now the Secretary of the Interior. Ask him to modify this plan. That would be the way for one to register their objections. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen a very different approach. Again, I am just leveling with my colleagues. They are putting at great risk grazing permits and leases that have been issued pursuant to that resource management plan. This story is not going to end with the President's signature on the CRA. Litigation will immediately follow. It is unclear to me why House Republicans would prefer that outcome, unless, of course, they are bereft of substantive ideas and an affirmative vision for solving the cost-of-living crisis that so many of our constituents are facing that they have made the decision that it is better to spend their time on disapproval of Biden administration-era rules. That is the only conclusion I am left with. Perhaps my colleague from Oregon will expound on that Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, unless I can convince the chairman to have a final colloquy, I suppose I will conclude as well. Mr. Speaker, using the CRA to overturn land use plans, as I have said previously, does take us into uncharted territory. It is not, as some have suggested, a way to return us to the way that we used to manage public lands in North Dakota or elsewhere. The resolution pulls the rug out from under all public land users. It calls into question the validity of grazing rights, permits, transmission rights-of-way, and other permits and authorizations that are premised on the land use plan being nullified. It disregards the Tribes, local land users, communities, and businesses who provided input over years to craft a modern plan to guide land and resource management for these respective States. Instead, it puts the courts in charge of deciding the day-to-day management of lands and minerals in North Dakota and beyond. Mr. Speaker, even if one disagrees with the resource management plan for North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska, the way to change it is through an administrative review and a public process and not through a blunt and inflexible tool like the CRA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to keep local voices and land managers in the driver's seat by voting ``no'' on this CRA resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, D.C., could politicians come to the floor and brag about cutting $9 billion from rural radio stations while 2 weeks ago they voted to increase the deficit by $4 trillion. Spare us these lectures. For years, Republicans have lectured us and the country about so- called fiscal responsibility, the deficit, the debt, and then they have the audacity to increase the deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the 800 billionaires that my Republican colleague from Pennsylvania is so carefully tracking. It is shameful. This bill, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, is a war on rural America. They are closing rural hospitals by virtue of the bill they passed 15 days ago. Now they will close rural radio stations in the chairwoman's district in North Carolina and in my State, Colorado, the western part of my State that I have the privilege of representing. There are rural radio stations across the country that help constituents during wildfires and during floods. It is shameful. It should be rejected, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle), my colleague and the ranking member. I also thank Chairman Westerman for his support and his team and his staff for giving us the opportunity here to consider a number of bills that are bipartisan, common sense, and certainly mean a lot to the folks who I represent out West. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, I represent Colorado's Second Congressional District. It is an incredibly large geographical district. It is a district that spans across more than 8,000 square miles. It is larger than eight States on the eastern seaboard and spans 12 counties and over 55 towns. I have the privilege of representing this incredible district each and every day back home in Colorado. When you represent a district of that size and scale, you learn early on how important it is to be present in your communities to be able to listen directly to constituents, local leaders, the folks on the ground, about problems that you can ultimately help to solve. This bill is a perfect example. It is a bill that has been described well by the chairman and the ranking member that, in effect, would ensure that a number of different water authorities--specifically, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority--would have access, as the town of Minturn already does, to the Bolts Ditch structure. It builds on legislation that we successfully got across the finish line several years ago. It is common sense. It is bipartisan, and it means a great deal to the folks that I represent in western Colorado. I hope that my colleagues can support this measure. I look forward to doing everything that needs to be done to get it to the President's desk.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that Republican leadership has issued a notice to their Members that they aren't required to be on the floor, essentially an informal adjournment, notwithstanding that this amendment vote is pending. Is it appropriate under the Rules of the House of Representatives' procedure or Jefferson's Manual to keep a vote open while simultaneously declaring to Members that they are free to leave?

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, it does, and I appreciate the Speaker's response. Is it customary for a vote to go over 1 hour?

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, my final parliamentary procedure request: Would it be permissible, Mr. Speaker, or would the Speaker entertain a motion to adjourn, given that Republicans don't intend to complete this vote?

Mr. NEGUSE. I thank the Speaker. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that House Republicans have kept this vote open longer than any other Congress in the history of the House of Representatives. At what point will the Speaker ascertain whether this practice is violative of rule XVII with respect to the order of the House or rule XX with respect to the voting procedures of the House?