that works as compared to learning for data system-- websitehearing on the continues. we are continuing our coverage online at www.c-span.org. the house is returning next. members will consider two bills.

the speaker: the house will be in order. prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, reverend john adams, first baptist church, mississippi. the chaplain: may we pray. our father, we bow before your majestic throne today, we acknowledge that you're in heaven and we are on your good earth. our prayers are given for each

one in this chamber that your love and wisdom be in each life. today we pray for our speaker and each legislator that your hands will guide their hands. father, i know today that the best thing i can do for these men and women is to pray for them. give them courage to make the right decisions that the laws come -- decisions. let the laws coming forth from these hallowed halls be pleasing to you. allow these men and women to have a breath of fresh air today and have the spirit of god's son in helping others. we ask your blessings on the united states of america. in the name of god's son we pray, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1,

i the journal stands approved. ms. foxx: pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. of peaker: those in favor approving the journal aye. those opposed, no. ms. foxx: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question are postpone the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. mr. broun: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from mississippi, recognize -- is

mr. none lee is recognized for ne minute. to nunnelee: i would like recognize our guest chaplain. he's a native of mississippi and currently senior pastor at first baptist church. his wife.d by his he's spoken throughout the south and around the country sharing a 13-part series about the judeo christian heritage of america he presently serves as executive director of the moral action of mississippi and a national organization, the moral action of the baptist missionary association. we are honored to have him here today and we deeply appreciate his service to our lord and the

people of mississippi. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. broun: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: now more than ever, americans are feeling the pain of obamacare. this law is hurting americans with higher premiums an cancellation notices. if it is left in place, our country will suffer under the new wave of spending it will create. this destroyer must be stopped. just last week the house passed a symbolic bill that nibbled at the edges of the problems caused by obama kaye. but you cannot fix a law that will increase our debt and limit health care options for millions of americans. i was one of only four republicans to oppose this bill

because we can't fix the president's broken promises in obamacare. instead, we must pe re-peel obamacare for goode -- we must repeal obamacare for good. i introduced legislation that would do just that. we must stop wasting time trying to keep obamacare in place. we must repeal it immediately. the patient option act is the solution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. the concept -- mr. blumenauer: the con soacht a world toilet day can make us giggle and blush. the world cannot afford to be squeamish, make jokes or change the subject about the

fundamental issue of access to sanitation. 2.5 billion people live without it, which leads to 700,000 premature deaths each year and it's getting worse. instead of solving this global crisis, the numb living without access has increased by 700 million people. today we want to renew our commitment to helping unfortunate people around the world to have access to sanitation which we all take for granted. i appreciate the gates foundation and other n.g.o.'s like water aid for stepping up to help solve the dilemma and i call on my colleagues to support h.r. 2901 which congressman poe and i have introduced, the water for the world act, so that the united states can play a greater more effective role to save lives around the globe. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. rodney from winston-salem, north carolina pays $500 for a month -- a month for a insurance plan that covers -- covers his wife, his son and himself. he received the same unwelcome news that's startled millions of other american the health insurance he likes will be canceled because the suits in washington think his preferred plan is lousy. the most similar government sanctioned obamacare plan will cost rodney's family $1,139 each month. more than their mortgage payment. understandably, rodney is sickened by this news. i worked very hard my entire life to take care of my family and provide for all their needs. how am i supposed to continue to support them with the government forcing me into a situation i cannot afford? rodney closed his letter asking me, if you do nothing else,

please do everything in your power to make our voices heard. house republicans are doing that every day for rodney and americans like him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: it's important for people to know that in states where the governors embraced the affordable care act and set up websites, enrollment is exceeding expectations. in connecticut over 13,000 have enrolled in the first six weeks and the pace of enrollment is accelerating. in the last two weeks they enrolled more than they had enrolled in the prior month. on saturday i was at an enrollment fair, there were eight of them across the state, a full waiting room of people waiting their turn to get their number to sit down and get help in terms of signing up with a

plan. 20 minutes. that's all it took to sign up far plan. i spoke to mary lyn weaver who said, i'm going to have health insurance after three years of being without it. it took her 20 minutes to sign up for the anthem blue cross plan. the message is, if you fix it, they will come. that's what this congress should be fixing it, so the waiting room i saw in connecticut are going to be get help across the country. it is time to get -- help people get insurance not scare them and destroy a plan that provides them hope. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize baylor regional medical center plano on their latest accolade, the 2013 malcolm baldridge national quality award. mr. johnson: the nation's

highest honor for performance excellence plu innovative practices and visionary leadership. for nearly a decade, baylor-plano has provided north texas with high quality, compassionate care. their superior satisfaction rate and dedication to training the best and brightest go unmatched. baylor-plano's success and patient-centered care is a testament to the endless possibilities when you have choice and freedom on your side. it's an honor to congratulate baylor-plano's employees, medical staff and volunteers for doing their part to keep texas' bigger and better reputation intact. i wish them continued success. god bless you and i salute you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute.

ms. tsongas: in 1989, my late husband paul was the first to introduce legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. i agreed with him then -- with him then and still feel strongly today. employees should be judged by their ability to do their job. i was proud to cast one of my first votes in support of the passage of the employment nondiscrimination act, an effort spearheaded by the relentless barney frank. while it passed in the house in 2007 it did not move in the senate. on november 7, the u.s. senate made history by passing enda. it is time for the house to act, pass enda and pass protections to end employer discriminations. for the sake of dignity, and

equality, let us vote. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: orally administered cancer drugs are becoming the new standard of care as opposed to i.v. given chemo they arity pi drugs. unfortunately, insurance policies have not kept pace with the science. typically, inch v. chemotherapy is covered as a medical benefit while oral chemotherapy is covered under the prescription drug component this creates a disparity in coverage and a financial disincentive to choose oral a chemotherapy. cancer patients should choose a course of treatment based on what they and their doctor believe will work best.

that's why i introduced the cancer drug coverage parity act that would require insurance plans to provide coverage for oral chemotherapy at a cost no less favorable than traditional chemotherapy my bill has 68 bipartisan co-sponsors. i urge my colleagues to join us to support the development of these promising new treatments to patients who need them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman ms. hahn: even with the difficulties of the health care website, we are seeing great things coming out of this affordable care act. across the country millions of people who lacked affordable health care options yesterday are checking out their new options today. this law is working. i continue to hear scores of success stories from. marilyn, whos a breast cancer survivor, was paying nearly $1,300 a month for her anthem

blue cross coverage. now she's saving $500 a month. w the healthcare.gov website has had problems that we are fixing, know the california exchange is being a model. cover california is working and people are signing up. we led the nation in our readiness for this new law and newly lee lease -- newly released numbers show that 131,000 californians have already enrolled in new quality health plans on cover california. more that any other state exchange. let's work together to make this a reality for all americans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman now is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i pause today to think about history. i thought a lot about the

anniversary of the -- 50th anniversary of president kennedys' assassination, and today is the 150th anniversary of the gettysburg address. i thought i should bring words to us from the address. the world can never forget what the soldiers of gettysburg did. it is for us the living rather dedicated here to the unfinished work for which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. it is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great tasks remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. this nation under god shall have a new birth of freedom and government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth. i'm proud to serve in this house where john kennedy served. i'm proud to serve in this house where abraham lincoln served. it's my opinion that part of that work was providing equality

and freedom and fairness, and i believe president lincoln would support the aaffordable care act and health care for all. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. many of our constituents had still recovering from the reckless tea party shutdown. now it's our time to help grow the budget and create jobs. budgets are a statement of our values and priorities as a nation. our top priority in passing a budget must be to end the harmful across-the-board budget cuts known as sequester, and extend emergency unemployment compensation which millions of jobless workers rely on. this will end at the end of december if we don't do this. although our you economy has improved, there are still four million people in this coni interest that have been unemployed for six months or more. these same individuals already experienced reductions in their benefits due to sequestration and automatic snap food stamp

cuts as of november 1. tea party republicans have refused to create jobs, they have cut job training, and now they are ready to pull the plug on this vital life line. this is morally wrong and economically stupid. i urge the budget conferees to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program for at least an additional year and to repeal the sequester. we need a fair and balanced budget that reflects our values. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. tomorrow will mark the 50th anniversary of the executive order of president kennedy which established the presidential medal of freedom. 500 exceptional individuals have received the award in these 50 years. tomorrow, 16 will be honored, including president bill clinton. for us in hawaii it is noteworthy that the hawaii born president will be honoring

senator daniel k. inouye. in his press release the president recognized the senator for his lifelong public service, including the highly decorated 442nd regiment in world war ii for which he he was awarded the highest military honor, the congressional medal of honor. it is, however, most noteworthy that when asked how the senator wanted to be remembered, senator inouye said, very simply, that i represented the people of hawaii honestly and to the best of my ability. i think i did ok. were his words. he was a true american, a humble man, and truly deserving of the highest civilian honor of this great country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virgin islands rise? mrs. christensen: address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. is recognized for one minute. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker. despite the fact that the robust provisions passed in the house will significantly reduced in

the senate, the people of the virgin islands are benefiting many ways from the affordable care act. as an example a physician related to me that the insured 21 to 25-year-olds kept her practice afloat and the insurance rebate and tax credits for small businesses enabled her to provide insurance for her employees without requiring contributions from them. in addition, seniors and people with disabilities save an average of $647 on medicines. health centers in my districts were able to make services. children with sickle cell, asthma and diabetes could be insured. every newborn could get an important home visit, and medicaid dollars will enable us to provide for half of our uninsured. we still have work to do, but the affordable care act has already made a positive difference in the lives of many of our constituents. the a.c.a. is helping americans and all of the states and territories and we'll continue to build on its successes not yield to republican opportunism

and obstructionism. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. harris: mr. speaker, the train wreck and broken promises of the president's health care reform act continue. the gentleman from connecticut earlier said that we were hysterical. mr. speaker, my constituents are hysterical about these broken promises. alan from hartford county writes about his 31-year-old son. his 31-year-old son can't get a full-time job because employers won't hire people full-time because of the affordable care act. he writes, quote, i'm writing today to voice my concern as a parent and to report that my 31-year-old son's health insurance premium will be tripling. currently he has his own blue cross care first plan and was recently notified it was going to be canceled and his premium will go up from $200 a month to

600 per month. mr. speaker, this is a train wreck. parents and families are hysterical. they can't afford a $600 premium for a single person working a part-time job. canceled policies and skyrocketing premium costs are two broken promises. america deserves better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my republican friends continue to obsess with repealing a law that is making a difference and will make a significant difference in the years to come. i want to address some of the benefits that have accrued to my congressional district in north carolina. 8,000 young adults now have health insurance through their parents' plan. 150,000 individuals now have health insurance that covers preventive services without any

co-pays and co-insurance or deductibles. 138,000 residents of my district are saving money due to the a.c.a. provision that is prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20% of their premiums on profits and overhead. because of these provisions, 13,000 people in my district received a rebate of $87 per family last year, $158 per family the year before. although republicans have been relentless in their efforts to dismantle and discredit obamacare, the facts are uncontroverted. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? the gentlelady is recognized for ne minute. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, today

we mark the 35th anniversary of the massacre of jonestown. prior to september 11, this was the deadliest event in u.s. history, excluding wars and natural disasters. more than 900 innocent people were killed after being seduced by the charismatic but deeply disturbed jim jones. mr. speaker, among the dead was congressman leo ryan, the first congressman to be cincinnatied in the line of duty. he went to guyana out of concern for the safety of his constituents there, most of them re of african-american descent. congresswoman jackie speier, who was then on congressman ryan's staff, was shot five times and had to wait 22 hours for assistance. today i introduced a resolution honoring their extraordinary bravery and calling on the

speaker to establish protocols to memorialize members who die in the line of duty. out of the tragedy of jonestown, true heroes were revealed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina -- new york rise? without objection, is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, we all know about black friday and cybermonday, but i am proud to support giving tuesday. a national day dedicated to charitable giving and volunteerism. on december 3, giving tuesday will harness the collective power of charities, families, businesses, and individuals to transform how people think about, talk about, and participate in the giving season. launched by the 92nd street y in

new york city in the district that i'm privileged to represent last year, giving tuesday inspires americans to take action to improve their local communities and strengthen our country. thousands of partners in all 50 states are joining in this national movement of individuals and organizations that believe that everyone, whether you are a large donor or individual volunteer, has a role in helping to solve the challenges our communities face every day. americans are the most charitable people in the world, and giving tuesday is a day for us as a nation to celebrate our spirit of generosity. i urge everyone to spread the word about giving tuesday to your constituents and together we can celebrate the giving season and aid the important work of charities and organizations. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. speaker. my son played basketball and i went down to see his game as often as i could, and on one occasion we are driving around in his car, we are in a busy intersection, and the car stops. i didn't know what was wrong, but eventually i realized that he simply didn't have gas in it. i was not happy. but i didn't stand outside of the car and continue to talk to him about the fact that the car stopped running and needed gas. what we did we tried to get some gas, get the car out of the busy intersection because a lot of people were trying to get bye. it would have been no value for me to stand there and lecture him or talk about how horrible the situation was. we wanted to fix it. that's the same thing with the affordable care act. there are some problems. i think it would be crazy for anybody to say there are not

problems, but the law's already been passed by congress, signed by the president, upheld by the supreme court of the united states. we would be infinitely better off if we gave our time to repairing the problems that are there as opposed to standing in the intersection talking about how bad it is. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the entleman from utah rise?

mr. bishop: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 419 for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 419, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2b of rule 18, 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 ofed offer 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 divide and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. the bill shall be considered for amendment. in lieu of an amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill and amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rule committees print 113-26 shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill as hi aeamended shall be considered as the original bill for purposes of 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 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, with the time equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. 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 adopt 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. section 2. at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of bill h.r. 2728, recognize state's authority to regulate oil and gas operation 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 waved. 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 recourses -- resources and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on science and technology. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lufe the amendment in the nature of a substitute 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 pribted 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 opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the con clufingse 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 amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instruction. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is reck thesed for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. for purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the -- you guys settled on who will do this one? the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during the consideration of theres.s lution all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. i ask that all members have five ledge -- five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: this resolution provides far structured rule for the consideration of h. reform 1965, federal lands, job, and energy security act, as well as for consideration h.r. 2728, the protecting states rights to promote american energy security act. the rules provided for each bill to allow for one hour of general debate controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member on the committee of natural resources except on h.r. 2728, the committee on science, space, and technology will control 20 minutes of the hour provided. the rule makes in order eight amendments for h.r. 1965, five amendments for h.r. 2728. in both cases the number of amendments to be offered by democrats outnumber those offered by republicans. a number of amendments filed and not made in order violated house rules either by not being germane, or by violating cut-go. 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'm pleased to stand before the house to support this rule as well as the underlying pieces of legislation which are both important bills aimed at making the united states more energy independent. i appreciate the hard work of the spon -- sponsors, mr. lamb born of colorado, mr. flores of texas, as well as the chairman

of the natural resources committee, mr. hastings, as well as the chame of the science committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. these are significant pieces that will move our nation forward and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time a as he may consume. mr. polis: i thank the jelled from utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. nor body to spend the final week baffer week-long break, one of the final weeks of the year, 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 this institution is as unpopular as it is. rather than taking on immigration reform, rather than protecting americans from employment discrimination, both bills that passed the senate with strong majorities including

many republicans, we are instead debating a bill to move backwards rather than forwards. h.r. 1965 and h.r. 2728, the federal lands jobs and energy security act and the so-called protecting states rights act to promote energy security, circumvent future federal regulations design to keep people safe and healthy by handing over jurisdiction to states without any words of guidance regarding hydraulic fracturing. we'll talk 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 the country, these bills will not become law. similar legislation to h.r. 1965 was considered last congress, it was not o posed by the president

and not brought up by the senate yet here we are debating it again in the houps when we have real business to take care of. these are not the smishes constituents are calling in demanding i take action on. mr. speaker, they are demanding that i work to fix our broken immigration system. they're demanding that i work to balance the budget. they're calling in demanding that we work to improve upon health care delivery in this country and yet instead, we're discussing bills that are detrimental to the economy of the district 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 offroad vehicle recreating. this bill sets arbitrary deadliners in b.l.m. to approve

drilling applications and requires the b.l. nomplet lease at least 25% of the lands nominated by the oil and gas industry each queer. in addition the underlying bill offers millions of acres of public throoned lease for companies trying to develop a fuel source that's not 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 veil and breckenridge and winter park, colorado. people from across the country come to enjoy skiing in winter, our outdoor recreation, hunting, fish, whitewater 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. we are -- it will hurt our ability to atrack tourists from the rest of the country if we don't have the adequate

safeguards around the federal lands which are part of eagle and summit county and which our economy relies on. now, on h.r. 1965, i did offer several amendments to try to improve these bills but only one amendment was made in order under this rule. i'm pleased that at least my amendment with representative jared huffman is in order which requires a study and report to congress about the impact of flooding on leaks and spills from pipelines. my district recently fell victim to horrendous floods. we call it our 100-year flood. in boulder, lair her and well county. a number of drilling operations were impacted and we're continuing to assess the damage not only, of course, with regard to drilling operation -- operations and p ten rble contamination but our people are digging out with regard to their homes and offices as well.

september floods in colorado cause unprecedented levels of destruction to thousands of oil and gas facilities in northern and ian colorado. as a result, 4 -- over 43,000 gallons of oil and over 26,000 of produced water spilled from the tanks, wells and pipe lines into the flood watt. that's why i join representative defazio in sending a let own october 25 to chairman hastings requesting a hearing to fully understand the consequences resulting from the flooding. now that hearing hasn't been scheduled yet but i'm hopeful that we can resolve this issue, hold congressional hearings, make sure that not only insofar as this issue affect misdistrict but also other districts that might be subject to planned parenthooding that house drilling operations. with regard to the oil shale amendment, i'm disappointed the other amendment i offered with mrs. napolitano was not made in order. it would have simply required a

study. u.s. geological survey would have studied the impact of leasing on water in the west. my friend from utah knows walter in the west is a very important thing. it's -- gold is for looking at, water is for fighting over. when we look at the impact and the potential impact that very heavy use of water would have and some of the extraction techniques being explored for oil shale production we need to look at the impact that would have for water for agriculture, homeowners and 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 usage. many of the test processes use enormous amounts of water to develop oil shale. it's concerning because the largest known deposits of oil shale are in the green river formation including portions of colorado, utah, and wyoming, all

three of our states experiencing over the last several years drought conditions and have scarce water resources relied upon by our residents and farmers. 30 million users of water including farmers, ranchers and municipalities depend on water from the colorado river basin. my amendment would ensure we have a better understand og how growing water oil shale use could pollute or otherwise impact through the quantities used the water available for other purposes. now i'd like to turn to h.r. 2728. hydraulic fracturing or fracking, is a national issue. it's something that we need to address here in congress. it's 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. in this election last -- this month, earlier here in november, four of the five largest municipalities in my district,

fort collins, boulder, lafayette and broomfield passed issues that put bans or moratoriums on fracking. never before in my time in public service have i ever seen an issue that's been on the number one issue on the ballot of four of the top five municipalities. it was scheduled to be on the ballot of the fifth but was deferred, the petitions to put it on that ballot were deferred and we expect it will be on the ballot in loveland at some point the citizens continue with their push for an initiative there. . it's a great thing for american energy independence, it's a great thing for american manufacturing, it's 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, is occurring very close to where

people live and work and where they raise families. and yet our state has -- doesn't have any meaningful regulation to protect homeowners. now, it meets the definition of having tracking tsh-fracking rules, it does. unformed 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 ability to enact real penalties for violations of our laws. and their charge is not first and foremost to he protect homeowners in families and health. that's led to this backlash which is why even very conservative towns in my district, one of the towns that had a five-year moratorium on tracking, elected a very conservative mayoral candidate by a 60-40 margin, which is not unusual for this town. these are folks who are fundamentally voting conservative voting for a conservative mayor who won, that

same election that same year, they passed a moratorium on tracking in broomfield county. this is -- fracking in broomfield county. this is of great concern to the people in my district. the growth of fracking without 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 relate to federal lands, namely b.l.m. lands, which are an important part of the equation. to address the impacts that go beyond any particular communities such as keeping our air free from pollution, keeping pollution out of our lungs, and our waterways, and our drinking water. now, 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 tracking. we have a state issue and the state has actually threatened to sue some of these same municipalities for that ban. that's not a federal issue. 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's not what they need. they got plenty of that. the opponents of thee ballot initiatives spent millions ofle toars educating my constituents about how wonderful fracking is. that's not what they are asking for. if we could take some of that money a ply to to recapturing gases from the well sites and ensuring 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's not what we have seen to date, and this bill will not help bring it about. for almost five years i represented colorado's second congressional district. in that time i have witnessed expo tension growth in natural gas extraction in and around our district. i met with too many families and communities that have been force interested 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 try to ask oil and gas company not to frak near a school in eerie d.d. erie, colorado, but the response i got from my office after two letters continue to be a form layic response from their tones we have a right to frak -- frack here an we will. many families are fleaing those communities -- fleeing those communities. not because they haven't done everything they can creating a lot of great literature, advertising, that's not why families are fleeing. they are fleeing because they don't want to live next to an oil rigor have their kids go to hool next to a tracking -- fracking pad. no amount of marketing or information that will change their minds. that's the fundamental flaw in

the reasoning process that many in the oil and gas industry have had to date. while i have heard many stories from families about getting fracked, and as a result have introduced the breathe act in the last congress and the frack act requiring disclosure of fracking fluids. removing the exemption it has from the clean air and water act, i, unfortunately, got to experience fracking first hand here in this last year. i'm going to further yield to yself in the well. for more than a decade i have had a peaceful family farm, about 50 acres where my father-in-law lives. that's our house there.

and 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 the rules committee hearing, chairman sessions and chairman hastings, spoke about a www.frackfocus.org that

reveals all the chemicals used during the fracking process. but it's 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, and will you see that, of course, many of the ingredients of the fracking fluids are noncontroversial. we know they are largely water, sand, and quarts. uary not talking about that. that's not the issue. if you see they have proprietary listed next to several vague terms. they have surficants here, proprietary. people in the neighborhood don't know what environmental contaminant to measure for or look for. again from a marketing perspective, the oil and gas companies are saying it's not leeching into ground water, there's not surface spills.

but they at the same time are refusing to provide the information that would allow the independent verification of their claims and safety. when i looked up the drilling site near my house on frackfocus. there were many ingredients listed as primary. because of the lenient policy of frackfocus, 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 that would have reversed the 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 release large volumes of toxic substance in the air. we have to talk about the concentration of this. well county, colorado, close to 50,000 wells. any particular fracking pad, the emission profile is small, but you have a dozen, 200, it limits the area. the profile will look like a factory or even a coal burning plant than it does something that can be rounded down to zeer he row. we need to look at the fact that the concentration of thousands of well heads in the 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 amount is critical because there's significant evidence that oil and gas wells and their asoshated infrastructure, including heavy truck traffic and diesel engines, contribute to air pollution.

chemicals such as benzene and 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 oil and gas industry causes air pollution, oil and gas operators are still exempt from the basic protection of the aclean air act. i offered 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 that live near factories and who live near coal burning plants. we have 55 sponsors for the breathe act, it has not received a hearing or markup, and on the party-line vote yesterday in the rules committee, 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 interior to issue regulations to minimize fugitive methane

emissions on pub lake 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 and 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 with when it 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, wind, we are for oil, we are for gas. we are for hydro. we want to make them all work. but just as there would be a zoning process around creating a windmill in a residential neighborhood that's 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 nd 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 necessaryic 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 and clean water act, and ensure that we have an extraction industry that is consistent with the public health. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: 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 . fracturing of oil that is a policy that started in 1940's in the state of texas, so i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas who is the sponsor of the second bill to discuss that particular portion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. >> 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 deposed duplicative federal regulations on the very technology that has facilitated the shale energy revolution, that's hydraulic fracturing. mr. flores: states have a proven record in regulating the hydraulic fracturing for over 60 years. obama administration officials are on the record stating it is safe and states have a strong role in its regulation. . the proposed b.l.m. regular ligs of hydraulic fracturing on federal lands appears to be a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. the bill i proposed along with mr. cuellar would correct this overreach by prohibiting the

interior department from enforcing their proposed regulations in states that 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 have a -- having a primary role in developing onshore energy resources has contributed immeasurably to our shale revolution. however in imposing another federal one size fits all only hampers domestic energy production. the federal government already takes 10 times longer to issue an energy activity permit than state dofments 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 five years, federal -- natural gas production on federal lands is down over 20% and the rest of the country has seen dramatic increases. states are better able to decide how to craft environmentally

responsible regulation is that reflect their needs. this is why innovation continues to thrive on state and private lands while decreasing on federal lands. e new b.l.m. regulations are only the beginning of federal overreach that will hamper energy production. this energy revolution has created hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs in the industry. more importantly, however, energy from abundant, safe, affordable, clean natural gas has put america in a position to be globally competitive to create millions of middle class jobs while simultaneously, meaningfully, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions as we've seen over the last decade or so. today's rule provides for legislation that helps us responsibly develop taxpayer-owned 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 urge support for the underlying legislation. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's tile has expired. the gentleman from utah reserves, the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague from colorado for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule and to he two underlying bills. these bills are themselves solutions in search of problems. they tear down environmental protuxes and 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 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 impact 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 fracks approve as recently as this year. but federal regulators and the public only recently became aware of these activities thanks to foya requests released last summer. we -- foia requests released last summer. we know very little about the impacts of these on the marine sirmente. they have been approved with

decades of -- decades-old permits that are woefully inadequate. that's why i offered an amendment 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's done offshore or on shore, 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 bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield himself such time as he may consume.

mr. bishop: you know, when ronald reagan was first elected president, he talked to his national security advisor, i believe his name was richard allen, and said, his policy for foreign affairs would be, we win and they lose. it shocked his national security advisor because they've been talking about managing communism or co-existing with communism. this was the frs time anybody had come up with a specific and precise rationale and policy for the nation. but president reagan also realized for him to actually enact his goal, he first had to fix the economy, which 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 winning the cold war he also recognized that if he was going to fings those economic problem, he had to have a reliable and affordable source of energy.

that indeed was one of the problems that caused the situation they were in other the carter administration. earlier this year we brought a couple of bills forward, one for the defense authorization act and the defense appropriation act and i said at the time we 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. they are interrelated. one of the thing this is administration appears to have forgotten is the interrelation between improving our economy and improving energy production at the same time. 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 thems and not only that, much of it has also been involved in scandals. and also, it can cannot be done at the time you were attacking traditional forms of energy.

that is why we are here. one of the realities is that the -- oddly enough at this particular time we are producing more energy in america than we have for a long time. whether one goes -- and the numbers are all over the place depending on what the starting date is of the surveys, whether you go to an industry like the western energy alliance or a neutral entity like the congressional research service, they're all saying basically the same thing. there is a slight increase in offshore energy production on federal lands. there is not an increase on onshore energy production on federal lands, depending on, once again, what base you're using. and our increase in production which is true, has almost all come from private lands, state-owned lands and native american lands in this country. now the fact that we are closer to energy independence is nice. but that is not our goal. that's a -- that's simply an

infamous goal we should have. the goal should be to reduce the amount of energy coming into this clint and become manager 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, when a family goes into a room they don't have to worry about turn og then light impacting their kids' college education fund. so even low income families can realize they can heat their homes in the winner system of one can travel from point a to point bambings in your car and realize it is affordable system of jobs actually are plentiful, especially spinoff jobs. it's not those who are necessarily working at the site at which you're developing energy but the spinoff job the trucker going to and from, bringing product into or away from the site. those doing the motels and restaurants that are feeding the workers, those working on main street that are providing food and resources to those providing

the services to those particular workers. and in western states like the state of utah, it is essential lso to our education fund. if you were to look at this particular chart, chart on the top states in red are the states that have the hardest time, the slowest growth in their education funding. chart on the bottom, the stuff in red is what is owned by the federal government. 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 a proper education system. what that comes to in gross terms is over the last 20 years, western states, predominantly public land states, have increased their education fund big 35%. the rest of the nation, which has very little public land has increased their education fund big 68%. they are doubling the growth.

but simp -- what simply matters is states in the west who are public land states have a difficult time of funding their education system when they are prohibited from being able to develop a lot of the resources which are found in those western states. that's 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 articular process. whether one likes it or not, to vote against these bills, unintentionally harms kids and harms education in the west. if our funding for education in my home state is going to be effectively increased, it's got to come from development of the natural resources in my state and not putting impediments in the way of the state moving forward. s the map of significance that i showed you. everything that is red is that which is owned by the federal

government and you find, we have the predominance of it here in the west in my state. there is a difference of 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, simply means a company goes out, they contact the property owner, get the right to do exploration, then if they find something which they wish to buy either the land or mineral rights and go ahead and toyota. on the red areas, the public land areas, the process is far, far different. it's been said on this floor that this bill would allow oil companies to go wherever they want. that is an overstatement. it's not quite accurate. in the red areas, what happens is, first the federal government pays the department of interior. -- the federal government, the department of interior, will establish a plan to establish which areas are proper for

drilling and mining. not all areas are. not all become part of the regional management plan. only those areas with potential for economic development with oil and gas are listed in the r.m.p. then it goes through a nepa process. nce the nepa process for the r.m.p. is completed, they decide which that are listed as potential energy areases will be leased by the federal government. then they will be let out to bid that goes through a nepa process before finally a company can bid on lands an go through and try to find out if it is worthy to develop and if they wish to develop, they have to go through an application for drilling. now, in most states, the white area, that application for drill big itself takes between 15 to 30 days. in the red area, that application has been ampling over 300 days which is where the

unfairness takes place. the bill, the first bill in this rule, would say ok let's split the difference and say 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 r.m.p. to the knee pa process to the -- to the nepa process to the lease, to the leasted by to the second nepa process, there's opportunity for citizens to have input. free speech access to input that costs the department money to access that, which is true, but it is part of their job so we accept it. however, when the bid is actually made or a protest is made thoo bid, that is extra work for the department which in every other areas of government we have a fee when a citizen action requires extra work to expedite the paperwork for that type of protest or policy or that tiche request. the companies that do an a.p.b. are already charged that by the department of interior.

they pay a fee of $6,500 every time after the 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 chear step. but if you're actually going to do a challenge of this, you should also pay a fee because this challenge requires extra work and extra expense by the part of the department and that is put at a $5,000 fee. $6,500 to request the permitting process to start, $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 of the administration or department of interior has withdrawn leases that have gone through all those steps i indicated and were effective and were put into motion. first thing this administration did is withdraw 77 leases in

utah. it had a catastrophic effect upon the 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 those release of those withdrawal of releases. i got a letter from one of the kids living there, she was in junior high. she asked me to please do something about it because her father wasn't working on the wells or the sites of those leases, he was one of the truckers. private contractor who was driving, taking stuff into the sites and trucking stuff out their family had been doing well. they bought a house, some property and she had her cream of finally having a horse -- dream of finally having a horse. she pled what they had done to

those 77 leases so she could simply keep her horse. didn't happen. she lost the horse. her father lost his job. they lost the land. have to go to salt lake city to find employment. once again, going through the process, the interior process identified 800,000 acres that were susceptible and appropriate for economic drilling development. there were those already existing leases or intermingled within existing leases but they were 8 -- there were 800,000. the administration offered 144,000. and then before the lease actually went out to bid, they withdrew almost 100 of those 144,000 because they found a question if their mind as to what the impact might be. now, i recognize -- this could be legit mate -- the federal government only owned this land since the mexican war.

obviously there are things that can slip somebody's taxi in the first 180 years of looking -- attention in the first 180 years of looking in this property, only 144,000 acres have been put out to bid. that is only 5% that is acceptable for this kind of development. now, we're 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% figure is only 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, eye den fice native american interests and -- identifies native american interests on native american lands are going to be respected by the federal government. they take four score and seven years ago we started a fracking process in the united states,

give or take a score, but this fracturing process has so far worked. we have a list of those from the e.p.a., from the interior department, from both energy secretaries, the last two interior secretaries, former .p.a. administer, the -- administrator, the b.l.m. administrator saying there are no identifiable problem with what states are doing with fracturing, that states have the experience doing it. the language is clear. sometimes people say there is no regulation because they can't find a specific regulation to mention. if you have rules and regulations that talk about well bore 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 into that and they do know how to protect that area. the actual question, though, 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 what the gentleman from colorado wishes to see in his own state. i would be more than happy to allow him to do whatever they wanted to do, if they want to cancel all kind of fossil fuel development in the state of colorado, i'd be happy to allow him to do it. i don't want that in my state. the conventional wisdom is only people in washington, d.c. have the broadview to make decisions for the entire -- broad view to make decisions for the entire nation. that's a ridiculous statement. states are just as competent. there are many smart people that live and resides in states. there are environmental quality that live in utah as they do in washington. if a state does not want to make these kinds of decisions,

not to have these kind of rules, then allow a national precedence. no problem. if a state is willing to be independent, 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 kind of provisions. you see, one of the things that the good g is gentleman from colorado is happening in his state. if his state wants to ban all development of fossil fuels, that's fine. this bill's adoption -- let me finish. 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 to do what the state of utah wishes to do. we are not talking about defamation of the enormous tracks of federal land. the state has -- there are

within the federal campus over 650 million acres, that's 1/3 of america that the federal government owns. 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 -- this is identified as potential for economic development, is only 38 million acres. but on those 38 million acres, on those 38 million acres, allow the states to make sure what the state wants on our local areas are respected and what happens on federal, public lands is fair and equitable to what happens on private lands in nonfederal states. with that i reserve the balance of my time and i look forward to anything that the gentleman from colorado has to say. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado.

mr. polis: yielding myself 30 seconds to respond. to be clear, there's not an effort in colorado, as the gentleman insinuated as somehow preventing extraction of fossil fuels in colorado. in fact, quite the contrary. because of the fact of meaningful state regulations, many cities and counties are banning extraction and four of the five biggest cities have moratoriums on fracking precisely because there are insufficient federal and state guidelines. it's hurting the very prospects for the extraction industry that the gentleman aspires to assist but not safeguarding people's homes and families. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: nothing of the dialogue that we heard is mutually exclusive from creating jobs, from providing a growing economy and having a sustainible environment and maybe having even a national

energy policy. this should not be a conflict between who's red and who's not in terms of land and the ability to use the 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 amendment to make this legislation what it should be. i have always advocated for natural energy policy. today i rise and to discuss the amendments that i offered to try to bring people together. i listened to a discussion of pays e the industry $6,500. i venture to say that the amendment i offered would have been a fair one. it's to eliminate that amount. could have been a compromise. make it a $1,000 fee. in actuality, this blocks

individuals from even expressing their viewpoint even though they've been able to go to the rules -- through the process of comment. i did get an amendment in which will help ensure that legislation should it become law would not allow or be interpreted in such a way that it unfairly burdens or -- burdens injured parties seeking relief. my amendment, number 2, shall -- indicates there shall not be contrued 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, the right to protest. other amendments that i had was also an amendment to protect individuals, farmers and ranchers and small business by removing the provision in the bill prohibiting recovery of attorneys' fees prubte to the equal access. that amendment was made in order, created a level playing field. can i get -- mr. polis: i yield the gentlelady 15 seconds.

ms. jackson lee: another amendment that i offered in 2728 would have made it career that the deference applied to fracking operations conducted on state lands but not on federal lands. this was a good amendment that did not make it -- a number of amendments did not. some of my amendments did. i want to say thank you, but i believe that we can work together for a national energy policy that works for all of us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: and the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i appreciate -- let me give myself 30 seconds, if i could -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: what the bill does does not restrict any kind of free speech opportunity for individuals. they still have the right of comment totally free in any of those processes, from the r.p.m., to nepa, to the lease, to the lease bid, to the second nepa, to the a.p.d. so that is their only -- when

an effort actually causes an additional expense to the government which is typical and standard is that fee going to be initiated to try and cover the costs to the federal government. it is my pleasure now to yield two minutes to the sponsor of the first of the two bills, the gentleman from colorado who has a bill that will ensure that the standards become fair and equitable for everyone throughout this nation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. 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. 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 into state and local issues that my colleague has raised, the distance of setbacks and things like that, the hope we cannot miss main point. the main point, 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's on state and private lands. my colleague from colorado, it's a private land scenario that he's dealing with. federal lands need to catch up. there are billions of acres of

federal lands, including offshore -- i know we're going to consenvation on on-- conservation on onshore -- we have not kept up with production but this has been a bright spot for our economy. 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 a utility bill, then we need to pass these three bills this week. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamborn: thank you. 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, for how to treat the water that comes back up from a fractured well.

yes, let's look at those things. let's -- and let's also look at the state role and not think that the federal role has to take over as we have some in this administration 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's what these job bills are about this week. it's about the economy and jobs. so we will get into a discussion later today, tomorrow and thursday on making sure that the environment is protected, making sure that everyone else has their rights protected but let's create jobs. that's what these bills are going to do. that's why i'm proud to be a sponsor of the bill that comes up later this afternoon and we'll be talking more about that. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah reserves. he gentleman from colorado.

mr. polis: i would inquire the gentleman has remaining speakers or is prepared to close? mr. bishop: i am prepared to close. mr. polis: i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: if we despeet the previous question i'll introduce an amendment to make sure we don't go home until we have passed certain bills. i would like to submit for the record a recent polythat the denver post published in an article this past summer that states that 30% of coloradores. dents favor protecting build -- colorado residents favor protecting wilderness lands and 30% support more drilling. if i can submit that for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: it's been 144 tais and 13 hours since the senate pass and immigration reform bill. we introduced a bill here in the

house. ach day we postpone this costs money, $5 billion so far. i would support allowing that revenue to keep the loopholers in oil and gas industry open, something i long opposed but if i pass immigration reform, would accept that pay-for to keep that open for the next several years. the immigration reform bill would increase our g.d.p. by 3.3%, raise american wages by $470 billion and create an average of 121,000 jobs for americans each year system of rather than take up a job creating bill for americans that reduces our deficit, we're 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. let's take an example. the solvency of the social security system. as the social security administration estimates, close to 2/3 of the eight million people who are here and don't have documentation currently work underground. no surprise, they're not allowed to work aboveground in official jobs with payroll deductions. neither they nor their payroll -- their employers are legally able to declare their earnings or pay their payroll taxes. today only 37% of undocumented imgrants pay social security taxes. experts stim we lose about $20 billion in payroll taxes each year. we'll continue to lose that money until we pass h.r. 15 and pass comprehensive imgation reform they have senate has acted, trong republic support, strong democratic support, bipartisan imuation reform, last june, 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 committee. the time is now. we're here today, we're here tomorrow, we're here two more weeks. if we need to come back, let's do it. the country is demanding we create jobs, comprehensive mmigration reform will do that committee the couldn't vi demanding we reduce our deficit. comprehensive immigration reform will do it. securing our borders, protecting our country from terrorists, law enforcement, the faith community ll support immigration reform. again, the poll i mentioned, 60% want to protect the environment, 30% are for more drilling. i urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the remainder of my time. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i appreciate the poll that was presented into the

record but that is why i would submit that the superior department has a resource management plan. those r.m.p.'s are established in the first place so incompatible relationships and entities are not put in the same area. it's why you can have both. what the two bills before us that would be brought to the floor under this rule allow states to have a say in what is going on because states are competent. they are closer to the problem. they should have a state -- 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 area on my maps, would be treated fairly, treated closer to what is happening on the white states where there is little public land this is also though, up with of the things i want us not to lose focus, it's not about drilling or not drilling, it's 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. so they can drive from point a to point b and afford it system of that people can have jobs, so that my little -- that little middle schoolgirl in my state can actually have a place for her horse. that is what these bills are about. and more importantly for western states, the public land states, to allow us to generate the revenue we need for 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 act adequately, fund their educational systems, will be sighmied. it is important if you care about kids, you have to provide this kind of resource for the western states. that's why these two bills are not just rehashes, these two bills are essential for those of us who live in the west. i would encourage everyone here for the sake of the education

system of western kids, i would encourage everyone support not only the rule but to support both underloying bills that are important. these are -- this is a fair rule, it's appropriate legislation, good bills, fair rule, i urge their adoption. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous quone the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote on the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any vote on question of adoption. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]