[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 165 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7201-H7211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1965, FEDERAL LANDS JOBS AND ENERGY
SECURITY ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2728, PROTECTING
STATES' RIGHTS TO PROMOTE AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY ACT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 419 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 419
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. 1965) to streamline and ensure onshore energy
permitting, provide for onshore leasing certainty, and give
certainty to oil shale development for American energy
security, economic development, and job creation, 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 amendments specified in this section and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 113-26 shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further
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 further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
any further amendment 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.
2728) to recognize States' authority to regulate oil and gas
operations and promote American energy security, development,
and job creation. 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 amendments specified in this section and shall not
exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources and 20 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources now printed in the bill, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-27 shall be considered as adopted in the
House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the
purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further
amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except
those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further
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 further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), 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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a
structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands
Jobs and Energy Security Act, as well as for consideration of H.R.
2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security
Act. The rule provides for each bill to receive 1 hour of general
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, except that on
H.R. 2728, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will control
20 minutes of the 1 hour provided for.
The rule makes in order eight amendments for H.R. 1965 and five
amendments for H.R. 2728. In both cases, the number of amendments to be
offered by Democrats outnumber those to be offered by Republicans. A
number of those amendments which were filed and not made in order
violated the House rules either by not being germane or by violating
CutGo. So this is a very fair and generous rule and will provide for a
balanced debate on the merits of these important pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House to support this
rule, as well as the underlying pieces of legislation, which are both
important bills aimed at making the United States more energy
independent.
I appreciate the hard work of the sponsors, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado,
Mr. Flores of Texas, as well as the work of the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), as
well as that of the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith). These are significant pieces that will move our
Nation forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, for this body to spend the final week before a week-long
break, one of the final weeks of the year, the third-to-last week of
the legislative year, considering messaging bills that aren't going
anywhere is a disservice to this country and one of the reasons that
this institution is as unpopular as it is. Rather than taking on
immigration reform, rather than protecting Americans from employment
discrimination, both of which bills passed the Senate with strong
majorities, including many Republicans, we are instead debating a bill
to move backward rather than forward.
H.R. 1965 and H.R. 2728, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security
Act and the so-called Protecting States' Rights to Promote Energy
Security Act, circumvent future Federal regulations designed to keep
people safe and healthy by handing over jurisdiction to States that
have any guidance, even a few words of guidance, regarding hydraulic
fracturing. We will be talking about the example and what this means in
my home State of Colorado in
[[Page H7202]]
a few moments. But neither bill will become law. Unlike immigration
reform, unlike ENDA, which would end workplace discrimination against
gays and lesbians across our country, these bills will not become law.
Similar legislation to H.R. 1965 was considered last Congress. This
legislation was opposed by the administration. It was not brought up by
the Senate, and yet here we are debating it again in the House of
Representatives when we have real business to take care of.
These are not the issues that my constituents are calling in
demanding that I take action on. They are demanding that I work to fix
our broken immigration system. They are demanding that I work to
balance the budget. They are calling in demanding that we work to
improve upon health care delivery in this country; yet, instead, we are
discussing bills that are detrimental to the economy of the district
that I represent and destroy jobs.
Let me discuss H.R. 1965 first. This bill's central premise is to
allow oil and gas companies to drill wherever and whenever they want to
drill on public lands. This bill is completely irresponsible and
prioritizes the needs of the oil and gas industry over every other use
of our public lands, including the drivers of jobs in my district:
hunting, fishing, skiing, and off-road vehicle recreating.
This bill sets arbitrary deadlines for the BLM to approve drilling
applications and requires the BLM to lease at least 25 percent of lands
nominated by the oil and gas industry each year.
In addition, the underlying bill offers millions of acres of public
lands for lease to companies that are trying to develop a fuel source
that has not even proven to be viable--oil shale--without regard to the
impact on water or our local economy or environment.
I represent the district that includes popular destinations like Vail
and Breckenridge and Winter Park, Colorado. People from across the
country come to enjoy our skiing in winter, our outdoor recreation, our
hunting, our fishing, and white water rafting. When you use areas of
land for extraction and you create oil rigs, the heavy truck traffic
and roads associated with the extraction industry, people are less
likely to want to come visit for these other purposes. It will hurt our
ability to attract tourists from the rest of the country if we don't
have adequate safeguards around the Federal lands which are part of
Eagle and Summit Counties and on which our economy relies.
Now, on H.R. 1965, I did offer several amendments to try to improve
these bills, but only one of my amendments was made in order under this
rule. I am pleased at least my amendment with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) is in order, which requires the National
Academy of Sciences to study and report to Congress about the impact of
flooding on oil and gas facilities and leaks and spills from tanks,
wells, and pipelines.
My district recently fell victim to horrendous floods. We call it our
100-year flood in Boulder, Larimer, and Weld Counties. A number of
drilling operations were impacted, and we are continuing to assess the
damage, not only with regard to drilling operations and potential
contamination, but of course our people are digging out with regard to
their homes and their offices as well. The September floods in Colorado
caused an unprecedented level of destruction to thousands of oil and
gas facilities in northern and eastern Colorado. As a result, over
43,000 gallons of oil and over 26,000 gallons of produced water spilled
from the tanks, wells, and pipelines into the floodwater.
That is why I joined Representative DeFazio, the ranking member of
Natural Resources, in sending a letter on September 25 to Chairman
Hastings requesting a hearing to fully understand the consequences
resulting from the flooding. That hearing hasn't been scheduled yet,
but I am hopeful that we can resolve this issue, hold congressional
hearings, understand how this issue affects my district, but also
affects other districts that might be subject to flooding that house
drilling operations.
With regard to the oil shale amendment, I am disappointed that the
other amendment I offered with Mrs. Napolitano was not made in order.
It would have simply required a study. The U.S. Geological Survey would
have studied the impacts of oil shale leasing on the quantity and
quality of water available in the West. My friend from Utah knows that
water in the West is a very important thing. You know, gold is for
looking at, and water is for fighting over. Frankly, when we look at
the impact and the potential impact that a very heavy use of water
would have with some of the extraction techniques that are being
explored for oil shale production, we need to look at the impact that
would have on water that we need for agriculture, for homeowners, and
for recreation. And a simple study would be a first step in doing that.
Unfortunately, under this rule and this closed process, we were not
allowed to bring forth this amendment to discuss a study of how oil
shale production would affect water uses. Many of the test processes
use enormous amounts of water to develop oil shale. It is very
concerning because the largest known deposits of oil shale are in the
Green River formation, which include portions of Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming, all three of our States experiencing over the last several
years drought conditions and have scarce water resources that are
relied upon by our residents and by our farmers.
Thirty million users of water, including farmers, ranchers, and
municipalities, depend on water from the Colorado River basin. My
amendment would ensure that we have a better understanding of how much
water oil shale would use and could pollute or otherwise impact through
the quantities used of the water available for other purposes.
Now, I would like to turn to H.R. 2728. Hydraulic fracturing, or
fracking, is a national issue. It is something that we need to address
here in Congress. It is something my constituents are demanding of me
that we address here in Congress, but H.R. 2728 is not what my
constituents had in mind.
{time} 1245
In this election this month, earlier here in November, four of the
five largest municipalities in my district--Fort Collins, Boulder,
Lafayette, and Broomfield--passed measures that put bans or moratoriums
on fracking.
Never before in my time in public service have I ever seen an issue
that has been the number one issue on the ballot in four of the top
five municipalities. And I should add, it was scheduled to be on the
ballot of the fifth, but it was deferred. The petitions to put it on
the ballot were deferred, and we expect it will be on the ballot at
Loveland at this point if the citizens continue with their push for an
initiative there.
We have seen tremendous growth in natural gas development due to
fracking and directional drilling in the last decade alone. That is a
great thing. It is a great thing for American energy independence. It
is a great thing for American manufacturing. It is a great thing for
reducing our energy costs.
In Colorado alone, 50,000 wells have been drilled, and many more have
been drilled nationally. These drilling activities, however, in a
district such as mine, a district that is an extraction district, are
occurring very close to where people live, work, and where they raise
families, yet our State doesn't have any meaningful regulation to
protect homeowners.
It meets the definition of having fracking rules; it certainly does.
Unfortunately, the fracking rules are overseen by an oil and gas
commission that is heavily influenced by the oil and gas industry. They
don't have at their disposal the independence or the ability to enact
real penalties for violations of our laws, and their charge is not
first and foremost to protect homeowners and families and health. That
has led to this backlash, which is why even very conservative towns in
my district--one of the towns that had a 5-year moratorium on fracking
elected a very conservative mayoral candidate by a 60-40 margin, which
is not unusual for this town. These are folks who are fundamentally
conservative voting for a conservative candidate for mayor, who won,
and yet, at that same election, that same year, they passed a
moratorium on fracking in Broomfield County.
This is of great concern to the people in my district. The growth of
fracking without commonsense Federal guidelines, without commonsense
State guidelines, has caused an enormous
[[Page H7203]]
amount of friction between the American Dream of homeowners in my
district and our Nation's need for energy.
State and local rules are an important part of the equation, but we
also need standards at the Federal level, particularly as relates to
Federal lands--namely, BLM lands--which are an important part of the
equation to address impacts that go beyond any particular community,
such as keeping our air free from pollution, keeping pollution out of
our lungs, our waterways, and our drinking water.
Some State and local laws addressing oil and gas extraction are
woefully unprepared. The extraction industry hit before they had the
chance to even create a local regulatory framework, or they have one
that is woefully outdated and relates to the extraction technologies
that were prevalent decades ago rather than the new extraction
technologies that are being deployed today.
Colorado is trying to update its oil and gas rules, but they really
haven't done anything to create a meaningful framework to protect
homeowners and families, which is why four of the five largest
municipalities in my district have either banned or put a moratorium on
fracking.
We have a State issue, and the State has actually threatened to sue
some of these same municipalities for that ban. That is not a Federal
issue, but this has been an enormous issue in my district. The citizens
in my district want more protection, not less, when it comes to
fracking.
The industry reaction has been extremely counterproductive. The
desire for my citizens to see more protection--somehow the industry
interprets this as the citizens need more information or need more
marketing about how great fracking is. That is not what they need. They
have got plenty of that. The opponents of these ballot initiatives, the
oil and gas initiatives, spent millions of dollars educating my
constituents about how wonderful and harmless fracking is. That is not
what they are asking for. If we could take some of that money and
instead apply it to recapturing gases from the well sites and ensuring
that we have closed systems for the water recovery instead of the
marketing campaigns, we would actually make progress with regard to
increasing consumer confidence and the confidence of my citizens in the
process. But that is not what we have seen to date, and this bill will
not help bring it about.
For almost 5 years, I have represented Colorado's Second
Congressional District. In that time, I have witnessed exponential
growth in natural gas extraction in and around our district. I have met
with too many families and communities that have been forced from their
homes and devastated by nearby fracking activity.
Fracking has occurred hundreds of feet from homes, schools, and
playgrounds. I have been powerless to stop it. We tried to ask an oil
and gas company not to frack near a school in Erie, Colorado, Red Hawk
Elementary, but the response that I got at my office after two letters
continues to be a formulaic response from their attorneys that ``we
have the right to frack here and we will.''
Many families are fleeing those communities not because of lack of
information, not because the oil and gas company hasn't done everything
they can to have wonderful ambassadors in our community creating a lot
of great literature, advertising all over our airwaves. That is not why
families are fleeing. They are fleeing because they don't want to live
next to an oil rig or have their kids going to school next to a
fracking pad or oil rig. That is just common sense. There is no amount
of marketing or information that will change their minds, and that is
the fundamental flaw in the reasoning process that many in the oil and
gas industry have had to date.
I have heard many stories from families about getting fracked, and as
a result, I had introduced the BREATHE Act in the last Congress and the
FRAC Act, requiring disclosure of fracking fluids, removing the
exemption that fracking has from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act, the small-site exemption.
I, unfortunately, have gotten to experience fracking firsthand here
in this last year. For more than a decade, I have had a peaceful family
farm, about 50 acres, near Berthoud, Colorado, where my father-in-law
lives. That is our house there. Fracking, without any notice to us,
because, of course, it wasn't required under State law, occurred
hundreds of feet from our home. In July, overnight, without any
warning, a towering drill rig arose, literally across the street from
where my father-in-law lives. You can see it right here.
The sounds of the 24-hour-a-day-and-night operation led us to invite
my father-in-law to have to stay with us in Boulder in our apartment on
our couch during the active phase of the drilling process. The rig was
spewing black smog and making loud noises at all hours of the day. And
when the drilling rig went up without notice or warning, our little
dream and our life became a nightmare and was thrown into turmoil.
Last night, at the Rules Committee hearing, Chairman Sessions and
Chairman Hastings spoke about a Web site, www.fracfocus.org, that
supposedly reveals all the chemicals used during the fracking process.
But FracFocus is actually not revealing at all. It gives operators sole
discretion to decide what information they display and what they don't
display.
This is actually an example of a well. This is the one that is very
close to our house. You will see that, of course, many of the
ingredients of the fracking fluids are completely noncontroversial. We
know they are largely water, sand, and quartz. We are not talking about
that. That is not the issue. As you will see, they have ``proprietary''
listed next to several vague terms. They have surfactants here,
proprietary. So people in the neighborhood don't even know what
environmental contaminants to measure for or to look for.
Again, from a marketing perspective, the oil and gas companies are
saying it is not leaching into groundwater, there are not surface
spills; but, at the same time, they are refusing to provide the
information that would allow the independent verification of their
claims and safety.
When I looked up the drilling site near my house on FracFocus, there
were many ingredients that were listed as proprietary, including
surfactants and polymers; and because of the lenient policy of
FracFocus, the company that drilled near my house withheld the only
information that we were actually interested in in terms of what was
being used in the ground.
We need to look at a commonsense approach to fracking. The
constituents in my district are demanding it. We could have voted on
such a balanced approach to fracking. I introduced, as an amendment to
H.R. 2728, the BREATHE Act. The BREATHE Act was identical to a bill
that I introduced earlier this Congress. It would have reversed the oil
and gas industry's loophole to a provision in the Clean Air Act that
protects the public from small air pollution sources that might
individually be de minimus but, in the aggregate, released large
volumes of toxic substance into the air.
We have to talk about the concentration of this operation. In Weld
County, Colorado, there are close to 50,000 wells. Again, for any
particular fracking pad, the emission profile is small; but, if you
have a number, a dozen, two dozen, 100, in a limited area, the emission
profile is going to look a lot more like a factory or even a coal-
burning plant than it does something that can be rounded down to zero.
We need to look at the fact that the concentration of thousands of
wellheads in a very limited geographic area has a profound potential
impact and cumulative impact on air quality that affects our health and
our quality of life.
My amendment is critical because there is significant evidence that
oil and gas wells and their associated infrastructure, including heavy
truck traffic and diesel engines, contribute to air pollution.
Chemicals such as benzene and volatile organic compounds and methane
are associated with oil and gas production sites and should not be
subject to an exemption from the Clean Air Act. Despite the growing
proof that the oil and gas industry causes air pollution, oil and gas
operators are still exempt from the basic Federal protection afforded
by the Clean Air Act.
I offer this amendment and introduced the BREATHE Act because people
who live near oil and gas developments deserve the protections of the
[[Page H7204]]
Clean Air Act, just as other Americans do who live near factories, just
as other Americans do who live near coal-burning plants. We have 55
sponsors for the BREATHE Act, yet it has not received a hearing or a
markup; and on a party-line vote yesterday in the Rules Committee, it
was not allowed to be considered as an amendment to this bill.
Another amendment I helped offer to the underlying measure would also
improve the legislation. The amendment I offered with Mr. Holt allows
the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations to minimize fugitive
methane emissions on public lands.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that often leaks during the
drilling and transportation of oil and gas. In fact, methane leaks are
so common in oil and gas drilling that we have rural areas in the Upper
Green River Basin in Wyoming that have recorded higher concentration
levels than the worst pollution days in downtown Los Angeles.
Fortunately, there are already control technologies available to
minimize air pollution in operations. If the oil and gas companies
would use just some of the money that they spend on lobbying and on
marketing and on all the wonderful advertising that they are doing on
our airwaves in Colorado and, instead, upgrade their facilities to
recapture methane, I think we could actually see some progress on this
issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up for
consideration later in the afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are calling for real solutions in
Congress. The people of the Second Congressional District are for an
all-of-the-above approach to energy. We are for solar. We are for wind.
We are for oil. We are for gas. We are for hydro. We want to make them
all work. And just as there would be a zoning process around creating a
windmill in a residential neighborhood that is 100 feet tall right near
your home, there should be a zoning process around the extraction of
oil and gas, especially near where the constituents of my district live
and work.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a messaging bill that might help the
majority's relationship with oil and gas companies, but what we really
need is a balanced approach that ensures that we can develop our
domestic oil and gas resources in a way that doesn't destroy jobs in
districts like mine and protects the health of Americans across our
country.
These bills fall short on that account. And despite our effort to
amend them, the rule doesn't allow many of the most important
amendments that would remove the exemption from the Clean Air Act and
Clean Water Act and ensure that we have an extraction industry that is
consistent with the public health.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the rule that we have before us is
about two bills. The first bill deals with fairness for those who live
in public land States as to the ability to process oil and gas leases.
The second bill deals with fracking, the fracturing of oil that is a
policy that started in the 1940s in the State of Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Flores), who is the sponsor of the second bill, to discuss that
particular portion.
{time} 1300
Mr. FLORES. I thank Mr. Bishop for the time to discuss this rule and
the important underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, everyone, Republicans and Democrats, like to talk about
clean, affordable natural gas. Yet, the Bureau of Land Management has
proposed duplicative Federal regulations on the very technology that
has facilitated the shale energy revolution, and that is hydraulic
fracturing.
States have a proven record in regulating hydraulic fracturing for
over 60 years. Obama administration officials are already on the record
stating that hydraulic fracturing is safe and that States have a strong
role in its regulation.
The proposed BLM regulation of hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands
appears to be a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.
The legislation that I have cosponsored with Mr. Cuellar, H.R. 2728,
would stop this Federal overreach by recognizing States' authority to
regulate hydraulic fracturing and prohibit the Interior Department from
enforcing its proposed regulations in any States that already have a
regulatory protocol for this technology.
There are already existing Federal regulations that apply to other
energy activities on Federal lands. The tradition of States having a
primary role in developing our onshore energy resources has contributed
immeasurably to our shale energy revolution, however, and imposing
another Federal one-size-fits-all-approach only hampers domestic energy
production.
The Federal Government already takes 10 times longer to issue an
energy activity permit than States do. Why would we want to give these
bureaucrats any more flexibility or tools to deter activity on
taxpayer-owned lands? After all, over the last 5 years, natural gas
production on Federal lands is down over 20 percent, and the rest of
the country has seen dramatic increases.
States are better able to decide how to craft environmentally
responsible regulations that reflect both the geology and the water
needs of their States. This is why American energy development
continues to thrive on private lands and State lands, despite the
decrease on Federal lands.
If left unchecked, the new BLM regulations are only the beginning of
more Federal overreach that will eventually hamper production on
private land.
We are in the midst of an energy transformation, Mr. Speaker, in the
way that we produce energy in this country. This energy revolution has
created hundreds of thousands of well-paying American jobs in the
industry.
More importantly, however, energy from abundant, safe, affordable,
and clean natural gas has put America in a position to be globally
competitive in manufacturing, where we can create millions of great
middle class jobs while simultaneously meaningfully decreasing
greenhouse gas emissions, as we have seen over the last decade or so.
Today's rule provides for the legislation that helps us responsibly
develop our taxpayer-owned energy resources, and we will later consider
legislation that will bring energy to the marketplace.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I urge support
for the underlying legislation.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the two
underlying bills. In fact, these bills are, themselves, solutions in
search of problems. They tear down environmental protections and they
restrict public participation in an attempt to expand oil and gas
production.
But the truth is, oil production on Federal lands has gone up
significantly since 2008, and Federal regulations have not stopped
States from implementing their own fracking rules.
These bills are nothing more than reckless giveaways to big oil and
gas companies that put American families and the environment at risk.
H.R. 2728, for example, would preemptively prohibit the Federal
Government from setting even minimal safety standards for fracking.
Fracking, whether onshore or offshore, poses serious environmental and
public health risks that we don't fully understand now.
We know very little about the environmental and public health impacts
of onshore fracking, and we know even less about offshore fracking.
Offshore fracking has been occurring for over 20 years off the
California coast, with at least four fracs approved as recently as this
year.
Federal regulators and the public only recently became aware of these
activities, thanks to FOIA requests released last summer. We know
virtually nothing about the size of these fracs, the chemicals being
used, or the impacts on the marine environment.
They have been approved with categorical exemptions and decades-old
permits that are woefully inadequate, and that is why I offered an
amendment to H.R. 2728 to stop these activities until a full
environmental review is conducted. Unfortunately, my amendment was not
made in order, which is disappointing.
If oil companies get to inject millions of gallons of fracking fluids
into
[[Page H7205]]
our public lands, then the least we can and must do is study the
impacts of those activities. Whether it is done offshore or onshore, we
have a responsibility to ensure that fracking is safe, but the bills
before us this week greatly undercut this crucial responsibility.
So I urge my colleagues to stop this reckless giveaway to Big Oil,
and oppose this rule and the underlying bills.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
When Ronald Reagan was first elected President, he talked to his
National Security Advisor--I believe his name was Richard Allen--and
told him that his policy for foreign affairs was going to be ``we win
and they lose.'' It shocked his National Security Advisor because they
had always been talking about managing communism or coexisting with
communism. This was the first time somebody had actually come up with
such a specific and precise rationale and policy for the Nation.
But President Reagan also realized, for him to actually enact his
goal, they first had to fix the economy, which, as strange as it seems,
was worse than the economy we have today. With double-digit inflation,
double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, he had to first
fix that before he could go on to his goal of actually winning the Cold
War.
He also recognized that if he was going to fix those economic
problems, he had to have a reliable and affordable source of energy,
and that, indeed, was one of the problems that caused the situation
they were in under the Carter administration.
Earlier this year we brought a couple of bills forward, one for the
Defense Authorization Act and the Defense Appropriations Act, and I
said at the time that the reason we had those here was because it
allowed and empowered our State Department.
Foreign policy is whatever we are willing to fund as far as military
growth. They are interrelated.
One of the things this administration appears to have forgotten is
the interrelation between improving our economy and improving energy
production at the same time, although they have done well in trying to
forward green energy solutions.
Unfortunately, as much as that is a positive and proper approach,
most of what they have done has failed to reach the goals they
established for themselves, and not only that, much of it has also been
involved in scandals. Also, it cannot be done at the time you are
attacking traditional forms of energy.
So that is why we are here. One of the realities is that, oddly
enough, at this particular time, we are producing more energy in
America than we have for a long time. And the numbers are always all
over the place, depending on what the starting date is with these
surveys. Whether you go to an industry like the Western Energy Alliance
or a neutral entity like the Congressional Research Service, they are
all saying basically the same thing. There is a slight increase in
offshore energy on Federal lands. There is not an increase in onshore
energy production on Federal lands, depending, once again, on what base
you are using, and our increase in production, which is true, has
almost all come from private lands, State-owned lands, and Native
American lands of this country.
Now, the fact that we are closer to energy independence is nice, but
that is not our goal. That is simply an infamous goal that we should
have.
The goal should be to reduce the amount of energy coming into this
country and becoming more energy independent so we can actually help
people, so that we can come to the point where we are producing enough
energy from this energy-rich Nation to make sure that we have
affordable electricity, so when a family goes into a room, they don't
have to worry about turning on the light, impacting their kids' college
education fund; so that even low-income families can realize they can
heat their homes in the winter; so that one can travel from Point A to
Point B in your car and realize it is affordable; so that jobs actually
are plentiful, especially spinoff jobs.
It is not those who necessarily are working at the site in which you
are developing the energy, but the spinoff jobs: the trucker that goes
to and from bringing product into or away from the site, or those who
are doing the motels and the restaurants that are feeding the workers,
those who are working on Main Street that are providing food and
resources to those who are providing the services to those particular
workers.
In Western States, like the State of Utah, it is essential, also, to
our education fund. If you were to look at this particular chart, the
chart on the top, the States in red are the States that have the
hardest time, the slowest growth in their education funding.
The chart on the bottom, the stuff in red is what is owned by the
Federal Government. I hate to say it, but there is a relationship
between the amount of public lands owned by the Federal Government and
the inability to try and fund the proper education system.
What that comes to, in gross terms, is over the last 20 years,
Western States, the predominantly public land States, have increased
their education funding by 35 percent. The rest of the Nation, which
has very little public ground, has increased its education funding by
68 percent. They are doubling the growth of it.
What simply matters is that States in the West that are public land
States have a difficult time of funding their education system when
they are prohibited from being able to develop a lot of the resources
which are found in those Western States. That is one of the reasons why
we have a difficult time in funding our own education system and why
the first bill in this rule is asking for Western States to be treated
fairly in this particular process.
Whether one likes it or not, to vote against these bills
unintentionally harms kids, and it harms education in the West. If our
funding for education in my home State is going to be effectively
increased, it has got to come from development of the natural resources
that are in my State and not putting impediments in the way of the
State moving forward.
This is the map of significance that I showed you. Everything that is
red is that which is owned by the Federal Government, and you find--
glory be--we have the predominance of it here in the West, in my State.
There is a difference in how energy is developed in the red areas, as
opposed to the basically white areas. If you were trying to develop
areas in the white, which has very little Federal land, it simply means
a company goes out, they contact a property owner, get the right to do
exploration, and then, if they find something which they wish, they buy
either the land or the mineral rights and go ahead and do it.
On the red areas, the public land areas, the process is far, far
different. It has been said on this floor that this bill would allow
oil companies to go wherever they want. That is an overstatement. It is
not quite accurate.
In the red areas, what happens is, first, the Federal Government, in
this case, the Department of the Interior, will establish a regional
management plan to establish which areas are proper for economic
development, for drilling, and for mining. Not all areas are, so not
all areas become part of the regional management plan, and only those
areas that have potential for economic development in oil and gas are
the ones that are listed in the RMP.
Then it goes through a NEPA process. Once the NEPA process for the
RMP is completed, then the Interior Department decides what areas that
are listed as potential energy development areas will actually be
leased by the Federal Government.
Then they are let out to bid. That also has to go through a NEPA
process before, finally, a company can bid on lands and go through and
try to find out if it is worthy to develop. If they wish to develop,
then they also have to go through an application for drilling.
Now, in most States, the white area, that application for drilling by
itself takes between 15 to 30 days. In the red area, that application
has been averaging over 300 days, which is where the unfairness takes
place.
The first bill that is in this rule would say, okay, let's split the
difference, and we will say you make the decision within 60 days;
plenty of time to make that particular decision.
It is also noted that, in all of these processes I went through, from
the RMP to the NEPA process, to the lease, to the lease bid, to the
second
[[Page H7206]]
NEPA process, to the APD, there is opportunity for citizens to have
input, free speech access to input.
Now, that costs the Department money to access that, which is true,
but it is part of their job, so we accept it.
{time} 1315
However, when the bid is actually made or a protest is made to that
bid, that is extra work for the Department, which, in every other area
of government, we would require a fee when some kind of citizen action
requires extra work to expedite the paperwork for that type of protest
or that type of policy or that type of request.
The companies that do an APD are already charged that by the
Department of the Interior. They pay a fee of $6,500 every time they
have a request to drill. This bill codifies that. But also it says
that, if you are going to challenge or protest one, this is not the
opportunity for citizen input that you have along the process each and
every step. But if you are actually going to do a challenge of this,
then you also should pay a fee because this challenge requires extra
work and extra expense on the part of the Department, and this is put
at a $5,000 fee. It is $6,500 to actually request the permitting
process to start and $5,000 if you want to protest it.
In my State, unfortunately, we have seen examples where, on what I
consider to be a whim, the President or the administration or the
Department of the Interior has simply withdrawn leases that have gone
through all of those steps I indicated and were effective and were put
into motion. The first thing this administration did was to withdraw 77
leases in Utah. It had a catastrophic effect upon the Uinta Basin in my
home State, where unemployment skyrocketed immediately after that was
done, not only because the leases were withdrawn, but the private
companies that were doing their work on private lands also saw the
handwriting on the wall and wished to no longer go forward with that
because of the implications of the withdrawal of those leases.
I got a letter from one of the kids who was living there. She was in
junior high school. She asked me to please do something about it
because her father was not working on the wells or the sites of those
leases. He was one of the truckers, a private contractor who was taking
stuff into those sites and trucking stuff out from those sites. And she
was so happy because her family had been situated. They were doing
well. They had finally bought a house and bought some property, and she
had her dream of finally having a horse. And she wrote to me, pleading
to see if we could change what this administration had done with those
77 leases so she could simply keep her horse. It didn't happen. She
lost the horse. Her father lost the job. They lost the house. They lost
land and had to go back to Salt Lake City to find employment.
Recently, in this same area, once again going through the process,
the Interior Department identified 800,000 acres that were susceptible
and appropriate for economic drilling development. They were those that
were already abutting existing leases or intermingled within existing
leases. But there were 800,000 acres. When they came up with the lease
process, the administration decided to only offer 144,000; and then
before the lease actually went out to bid, they withdrew almost 100,000
of those 144,000 because they had found a question in their minds as to
what the impact might be.
Now, I recognize this could be legitimate. I mean, the Federal
Government has only owned this land since the Mexican War. Obviously
there are things that can slip somebody's attention in the first 180
years of looking at a piece of property. But nonetheless, only 44,000
acres were put out to bid. That is 5 percent of the total that was
identified as acceptable for this kind of development.
Now, we are not talking about wilderness areas or national park areas
or conservation areas; only areas that were susceptible and appropriate
for this concept, which is why the 25 percent figure is really kind of
a modest figure of what should be the case and should be taken.
If we were to pass these two bills, it is very easy to realize that
the desert could bloom again because that is the purpose. These bills,
for the first time, identify Native American interests and make sure
that Native American interests on Native American lands are going to be
respected by the Federal Government. They take it.
Four score and 7 years ago, we started a fracking process in the
United States--give or take a score. But this fracturing process has,
so far, been working. We have a list of those from the EPA, from the
Interior Department, from both Energy Secretaries, the last two
Interior Secretaries, a former EPA Administrator, the current
Administrator, former BLM Directors who have all said that there is no
identifiable problem with what the States are doing with fracturing.
The States do have this experience in doing it.
The language is very clear. Sometimes people say, well, there are no
regulations because they can't find a specific regulation. It mentions
the word ``fracturing.'' But to be honest, and not trying to be too
wonkish, if you have rules and regulations that talk about wellbore
construction or drill site integrity, that is what is necessary to
ensure the health and safety of individuals. And States do know how to
go do that, and they do know how to protect that area.
The actual question, though, is, if we are coming up with rules for
fracturing--and this deals with the bill that Representative Flores was
addressing--where should the decision be made on how to implement those
rules? Should it be made here in Washington or should it be made in the
State where the situation exists?
I have a great deal of empathy for what the gentleman from Colorado
was saying was what he wished to see in his home State. I would be more
than happy to allow him to do anything he wanted to do. If, indeed,
they want to cancel all kinds of fossil fuel development in the State
of Colorado, I would be more than happy to allow him to do that. I just
don't want that in my State.
And unfortunately, the conventional wisdom is always that only people
in Washington, D.C., have the broad view to make decisions for the
entire Nation. That is a ridiculous wisdom. That is inaccurate. States
are just as competent. There are as many smart people who live and
reside in States, their Department of Environmental Quality, which we
have in the State of Utah, as live here in Washington. They can make
these decisions. They can do it well.
If a State does not want to make these kinds of decisions, does not
want to have these kinds of rules, allow a national rule to take
precedence. No problem. But if a State is willing to be independent and
make decisions for themselves, we should allow them to do it because
the States are just as good and, unfortunately, often better than the
Federal Government in making these kinds of provisions.
You see, one of the things that is happening--the good gentleman from
Colorado did talk about what is happening in his State. And once again,
if his State wants to ban all kinds of these activities, if they want
to ban all development of fossil fuels, that is fine.
This bill's adoption does not stop Colorado from doing anything that
Colorado wishes to do. Not passing this bill will stop the State of
Utah from having primacy and doing what the State of Utah wishes to do.
Look, we are not talking about the decimation of enormous tracts of
Federal land. Within the Federal campus, there are over 650 million
acres. That is one-third of America that the Federal Government owns.
Of those 650 million acres, 450 million acres are already set aside for
preservation and conservation and will never, never have any kind of
development or any kind of drilling taking place on those 450 million
acres.
The amount of area that has been identified as potential for economic
development is only 38 million acres. But on those 38 million acres,
allow the States to move forward to make sure that what the State wants
on our local lands is respected and that what happens on Federal public
lands is fair and equitable to what happens on private lands in non-
Federal States.
With that, I look forward to anything the gentleman from Colorado has
to say, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
To be clear, there is not an effort in Colorado, as the gentleman
insinuated,
[[Page H7207]]
to somehow prevent the extraction of fossil fuels from occurring in
Colorado. In fact, quite to the contrary. Because of the lack of
meaningful State regulations, many cities and counties are banning
extraction; and four of the five biggest cities I represent have
moratoriums or bans on fracking precisely because there are
insufficient Federal and State guidelines. So it is really working with
counterpurposes and hurting the very prospects for the extraction
industry that the gentleman aspires to assist by not having adequate
regulation to safeguard people's homes and families.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct that none of the dialogue that
we just heard is mutually exclusive from creating jobs, from providing
a growing economy, having a sustainable environment, and maybe having
even a national energy policy. This should not be a conflict between
who has read and who has not in terms of land and the ability to use
Federal lands and education. We can do both. And what I believe is
happening is that we are trying to take sides without looking
constructively at everyone's amendments to make this legislation what
it should be.
I have always advocated for a national energy policy. Today I rise to
discuss the amendments that I offered to try to bring people together.
I listened to the discussion.
Since the industry pays $6,500, we must let individual protesters pay
$5,000. I would venture to say that the amendment that I offered would
have been a fair one. It is to eliminate that amount. It could have
been a compromise, make it a $1,000 fee. But in actuality, this blocks
individuals from even expressing their viewpoint even though they have
been able to go through the process of comment.
I did get an amendment in which will help ensure that the
legislation, should it become law, will not apply or be interpreted in
such a way that it unfairly burdens injured parties seeking relief. My
amendment No. 2 indicates that this shall not be construed to abridge
the right of people to petition for the redress of grievances in
violation of the first article of the amendment to the Constitution, a
right to protest.
Another amendment that I had was also an amendment to protect
individuals, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses by removing the
provision in the bill prohibiting recovery of attorney fees pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act. That amendment was made in order to
create a level playing field.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 15
seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. There are a number of other amendments that I
offered to H.R. 2728. One would have made it clear that the deference
accorded to State law under section 44 of the bill applied only to
fracking operations conducted on State lands but not to Federal lands.
This was a good amendment that did not make it. A number of amendments
did not. Some of my amendments did, and I want to say thank you. But I
believe we can work together for a national energy policy that works
for all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule governing debate on H.R.
1965, the ``Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act,'' and H.R.
2728, the ``Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy
Security Act.''
As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the
nation, I have always been mindful of the importance and have strongly
advocated for national energy policies that will make our nation more
energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's
economy strong.
I am not pro- or anti-fracking. I strongly am ``pro-jobs'' and ``pro-
growing economy'' and ``pro-sustainable environment.''
Volatile energy prices threaten economic security for millions of
middle class Americans and hits consumers hard, raising gas prices and
straining budgets for millions of American families.
It is a familiar story, but in order to restore lasting security for
middle class families we need a sustained plan for American energy, not
false promises of quick fixes.
That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal
brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when
they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.
Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to
improve them by offering constructive amendments.
That is why I offered several amendments for the Rules Committee to
consider in reporting the bills covered by this rule.
Three of my amendments were made in order by the Committee and for
this I wish to express my appreciation to Chairman Sessions and Ranking
Member Slaughter hearing the bills before the House.
Four other amendments that I offered were not made in order by the
Committee, which I regret very much since I believe strongly that each
would have made genuine improvements to the bills.
For the benefits of all Members, I will describe these amendments
briefly.
Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 1965, ``Federal Lands Jobs and Energy
Security Act''
Jackson Lee Amendment #1 would have eliminated the new $5,000 filing
fee that creates a higher barrier for individuals, small businesses or
communities to protest agency actions taken pursuant to the bill.
A filing fee of this magnitude would unduly burden the ability of
farmers, ranchers, homeowners, communities, and small businesses
aggrieved by agency action to seek redress to vindicate their rights or
obtain a remedy for a legally cognizable injury.
Although the Committee did not make in order Jackson Lee Amendment
#1, I am pleased that the Rules Committee made in order Jackson Lee
Amendment #2, which will help ensure that this legislation, should
become law, will not applied or interpreted in such a way that it
unfairly burdens injured parties seeking relief.
Jackson Lee Amendment #2 provides that this legislation:
``[S]hall not be construed to abridge the right of the
people to petition for the redress of grievances, in
violation of the first article of amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.''
We should never take for granted the precious and unique right--even
for democracies--of citizens to hold their government accountable and
answerable to the judiciary for redress for legally cognizable
injuries.
I am also pleased that Rules Committee made in order Jackson Lee
Amendment #3, another amendment offered to protect individuals,
farmers, ranchers, and small businesses by removing the provision in
the bill prohibiting recovery of attorney fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act.
This amendment levels the playing field and conforms the bill to
current law and practice.
Since its enactment in 1980, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)
has enhanced parties' ability to hold government agencies accountable
for their actions and inaction.
EAJA also helps deter government inaction or erroneous conduct and
encourages all parties, not just those with resources to hire legal
counsel, to assert their rights.
The EAJA is used to vindicate a variety of federal rights, including
access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits, as
well as to secure statutory environmental protections.
The EAJA promotes public involvement in laws have a significant
impact on the public health and safety such as the National
Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
2. Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 2728, ``Protecting States' Rights to
Promote American Energy Security Act''
I offered several amendments to H.R. 2728, the ``Protecting States'
Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act'' that address State and
Federal interest in developing and enforcing fracking regulations.
The first of these, Jackson Lee Amendment #1 to H.R. 2728, would have
made it clear that the deference accorded to state law under section 44
of the bill applied only to fracking operations conducted on state
lands but not to federal lands.
My amendment would not impact the ability of states to approve
fracking on state or private lands.
I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make this
amendment in order because it would have markedly improved the bill.
Before offering this amendment I canvassed and consulted key
stakeholders in my district and was advised by them that a patchwork of
50 separate sets of legal rules and regulations governing fracking
operations on federal lands was inefficient, expensive, and unduly
burdensome. I agree. My amendment would have ensured that there would
be only a single, uniform standard governing fracking operations
administered by the Department of Interior.
Federal lands are held in trust for the benefit of the American
people. They are a source of national pride as well as a source of
revenue for a wide range of industries, which include ranching,
logging, mineral extraction (including oil and gas), and tourism.
[[Page H7208]]
I am hopeful that this amendment will be reconsidered by the Senate
or the bicameral conference as the bill makes its way through the
legislative process, particularly since the Rules Committee also
declined even to make in order another version of the amendment,
Jackson Lee Amendment #2, which required only that the Secretary review
and approve state fracking law before permitting it to govern fracking
operations on federal land.
Mr. Speaker, fracking is a new and promising mining technique that
has proven to be very effective and profitable for oil and gas
extraction processes. This appears to be good news for our nation's
energy and economic but the technology is still in its infancy.
That is why I am also pleased that the Rules Committee made in order
Jackson Lee Amendment #3, which provides that the Secretary of the
Interior shall annually review and report to Congress on all State
activities relating to hydraulic fracturing.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendments made in
order under this rule.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, if I
could, simply to say that what the bill does, does not restrict any
kind of free speech opportunity for individuals. They still have the
right of comment, which is totally free, in any of those processes from
the RPM to the NEPA to the lease to the leased bid to the second NEPA
to the APD. So that is there only when an effort actually causes an
additional expense to the government, which is typical and standard.
That fee is actually going to be initiated to try to cover the costs to
the Federal Government.
It is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the sponsor of the first of the two bills, who
has a bill that will ensure that the standards become fair and
equitable for everyone throughout this Nation.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague from Colorado who has
raised some concerns about the issue of hydraulic fracturing. And we
all agree. There is a place for reasonable regulation; there is a place
for the surface rights of homeowners and businesses in the area of a
well to have their safety and health protected; and we would all agree
with that.
In Colorado, we really do have a pretty comprehensive and well-
thought-out system of regulations. Some of the objections may really
get more into State and local issues that my colleague has raised, the
distance of setbacks and things like that, but I hope we will not miss
the main point.
The main point: these bills are before the House this week. We want
to improve the American economy. We want to create more jobs. Energy is
one of the bright spots in an otherwise anemic economic recovery. And
if you look at where the energy production is really taking off, it is
on State and private lands. For my colleague from Colorado, it is a
private land scenario that he is dealing with.
Federal lands need to catch up. There are billions of acres of
Federal lands, including offshore. I know we are going to concentrate
on onshore, but we have not kept up with energy production, and yet
this has otherwise been a bright spot in our economy.
So if we want to create jobs for the American people--and these are
some of the best paying jobs--if we want to have an expanded
manufacturing base, if we want the cost of energy to consumers to be as
low as possible so that they can go out and spend their hard-earned
money on everything else that they need for their families and not have
as high of a utility bill, then we need to pass these three bills this
week.
{time} 1330
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, there is a place to talk about reasonable
regulation that has to be in place for the drilling process, for the
capture of gas, and for how to treat the water that comes back up from
a fractured well.
Yes, let's look at those things; and let's also look at the State
role and not think that the Federal role has to take over completely,
as we have some in this administration who would like to do.
But the bottom line is we need American jobs. We need a stronger
economy. We need lower prices so people keep more of their hard-earned
money. That is what these job bills are about this week. It is about
the economy and jobs.
So we will get into a discussion later today, tomorrow, and Thursday
on making sure that the environment is protected, making sure that
everyone else has their rights protected; but let's create jobs. That
is what these bills are going to do. That is why I am proud to be a
sponsor of the bill that comes up later this afternoon that we will be
talking more about.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire whether the gentleman from
Utah has any remaining speakers. If not, I am prepared to close.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have no further speakers.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to make sure we don't go home unless we finish
the budget by December 13.
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 Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. I will submit for the record, as well, a recent poll. The
Denver Post published an article this past summer that states that 65
percent of Colorado residents favor protecting wilderness parks and
open space and our Federal lands for future generations and 30 percent
support more drilling.
It has been 144 days and 13 hours since the Senate passed its
immigration reform bill, S. 744. We have introduced H.R. 15 here in the
House. Each day that the House refuses to take up reform costs the
country $37 million. Already there is more than $5 billion in potential
lost revenue so far.
If we can take up immigration reform and pass it, I would even
support allowing that revenue to be used to keep the loopholes for the
oil and gas industry open--something that I have long opposed. But if
we can pass immigration reform, I would accept that pay-for as a way of
keeping the oil and gas loopholes open for the next several years.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the
comprehensive immigration reform bill would increase our GDP by 3.3
percent, raise American wages by $470 billion, and create an average of
121,000 jobs for Americans each year. So rather than take up a job-
creating bill for Americans that reduces our deficit, we are taking up
a bill that hurts the economy and hurts jobs in districts like mine.
The longer we fail to act on immigration reform, the greater the cost
to the American people. Take the example of the solvency of the Social
Security system. As the Social Security Administration estimates, close
to two-thirds of the 8 million undocumented people who are here
currently work underground. No surprise. They are not allowed to work
aboveground in official jobs with payroll deductions, and neither they
nor their employers are able to legally declare their earnings or pay
their payroll taxes.
Today, only 37 percent of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security
taxes. Experts are estimating that our Nation loses about $20 billion
in payroll taxes each year. We will continue to lose that money until
we pass H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform.
The Senate has acted--with strong Republican support and strong
Democratic support--and passed bipartisan immigration reform last June;
and yet the House hasn't had a single moment of floor time for any
immigration reform bill, despite the fact that four have been passed
through the committee.
The time is now. We are here today, we are here tomorrow, we are here
2 more weeks. If we need to come back, let's do it.
The country is demanding that we create jobs. Comprehensive
immigration reform will do that. The country is demanding we shore up
our entitlement programs. Comprehensive immigration reform will do
that. The country is demanding that we reduce our deficit.
Comprehensive immigration reform will do it. Securing our borders,
[[Page H7209]]
protecting our country from terrorists--law enforcement, the faith
community all support immigration reform.
In closing, I want to again state the article I am submitting for the
record says 65 percent want to protect our environment and 30 percent
are for more drilling.
The people have spoken. These bills are out of touch. It is time to
take up comprehensive immigration reform.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
[From the Denver Post]
Poll of Westerners on Drilling on Public Lands: 65% Protection; 30%
Drilling
(By Bruce Finley)
A new poll finds that 30 percent of the residents of
Colorado and the western United States favor oil and gas
drilling on public lands, while 65 percent support protecting
wilderness, parks and open space for future generations.
Results of the poll done by Hart Research Associates were
presented Monday by the policy group Center for American
Progress, which with the Wilderness Society was launching a
campaign for balance.
``This is a case where Washington's policies and rhetoric
are still locked in a drilling-first mind-set, but westerners
want the protection of public lands to be put on equal
ground,'' said John Podesta, chairman of the Center for
American Progress, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
``Voters do not see conservation and development of public
lands as an either-or choice. Instead, they want to see
expanded protections for public lands--including new parks,
wilderness and monuments--as part of a responsible and
comprehensive energy strategy,'' Podesta said.
U.S. domestic oil and gas production has reached record
levels, with more than 37 million acres of public land leased
to companies for drilling. Polling and focus group
discussions were conducted in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico,
Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Nevada in April and
May.
The poll asked participants to state what they regard as a
very important priority, and 65 percent said permanent
protection of public lands. Results showed 63 percent
prioritized ensuring access to public lands for recreation,
while 30 percent favored ensuring access to oil and gas
resources.
The poll found that 29 percent supported use of public
lands for grazing livestock.
Western Energy Alliance officials in Denver cited a
different poll. It found that more than 78 percent of voters
nationwide favor increased development of oil and natural gas
in the United States.
Voters have a favorable view of ``how oil and natural gas
in produced in America,'' said Tim Wigley, president of
Western Energy Alliance in a statement. ``Almost one in four
(24 percent) chose federal lands over state or private
lands.''
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I appreciate the poll that was presented into the Record; but that is
why, I would submit, the Interior Department has a resource management
plan. Those RMPs are established in the first place so that
incompatible relationships and incompatible entities are not put in the
same area. It is why you can actually have both.
What the two bills before us that would be brought to the floor under
this rule do is allow States to have a say in what is going on, because
States are confident. They are closer to the problem. They should have
a say and a stake and make a statement in this particular issue.
If these bills were brought to the floor, public land States in the
West--the red areas on my map--would be treated fairly and treated
closer to what is happening in the white States, where there is little
public land.
This is also, though, one of the things that I want us not to lose
focus on. It is not about drilling or not drilling. It is what is the
purpose of developing our energy resources, that is, to make sure that
people can heat their homes and have lights in their houses, that they
can drive from point A to point B and afford it, and so that people can
have jobs so that that little middle school girl in my State can
actually have a place for her horse. That is what these bills are
about.
More importantly, for Western States, the public land States, is to
allow us to generate the revenue we need from the resources we have in
our State to fund an education system. If these bills are defeated, the
ability of Western land States to adequately fund their educational
systems will be stymied.
It is important. If you care about kids, you have to provide this
kind of resource for the Western States. That is why these two bills
are not just rehashes. These two bills are essential for those of us
who live in the West.
For the sake of the education system of Western kids, I would
encourage everyone to support not only the rule, but support both
underlying bills. They are important. This is a fair rule. It is
appropriate legislation. They are good bills and a fair rule. I urge
their adoption.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 419 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment unless the House as
adopted a conference report on S. Con. Res. 8, establishing a
budget for the United States Government by December 13, 2013.
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
notion 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 rile, 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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, 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 on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 194, not voting 13, as follows:
[[Page H7210]]
[Roll No. 590]
YEAS--223
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
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
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
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
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
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)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
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
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--194
Andrews
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
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
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
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
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
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Campbell
Cardenas
Davis, Rodney
Gosar
Herrera Beutler
Lowey
McCarthy (NY)
Radel
Rush
Sinema
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
{time} 1402
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama and Mr. CAPUANO 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. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 590 I was
unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted, ``yes.''
Stated against:
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 590, had I been present, I
would have voted, ``no.''
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 196, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 591]
AYES--222
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
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
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
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
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
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)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
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
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--196
Andrews
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
Clarke
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
[[Page H7211]]
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
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
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
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
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Campbell
Coble
Fleischmann
Gosar
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Radel
Rush
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1410
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.
Stated for:
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 591, I was unavoidably
detained--I would have voted, ``yes.''
____________________