[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17357-17367]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 17358]]

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 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

[[Page 17359]]

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 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.

[[Page 17360]]

  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 
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

[[Page 17361]]

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 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

[[Page 17362]]

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 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

[[Page 17363]]

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, 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.

[[Page 17364]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 17365]]

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, 
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

[[Page 17366]]

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:

                             [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)

[[Page 17367]]


     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
     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.''

                          ____________________