tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 26, 2014 12:30pm-2:31pm EDT
strongly encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise? ms. edwards: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: thank you, streak. i rise today to recognize women 's history month. it's just a fact that the success of our nation relies on the economic security of women. unfortunately outdated policies are constraining the ability of women to participate fully in our economy. many face a lack of good paying jobs and child care. in fact, 2/3 of minimum wage workers are women and the poverty rate for women is 14.5%, the highest in two decades. women earn just 77 cents on the dollar for, for african-american women -- dollar, for african-american it's only 64 credibilities on the dollar.
that's why house democrats have launched an economic agenda for women. when women succeed, america succeeds. we've got at that raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, increase tip wages that haven't been raised in 23 years, equal pay for equal work, paid sick days and access to quality, affordable child care. women are playing an expanded role in our economy and in our country. it's time we recognize their contribution because when women succeed, america succeeds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. speaker, march is colon cancer awareness month. sadly, colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among both men and women in this country. including over 2,000 ohioans. mr. chabot: but it doesn't have to be. as the american college of gas row -- college of gastro
shows, colonoscopies could prevent over 50% of detects in the u.s. when colon cancer is detected early, the survival rate climbs to 90%. the american cancer society reveals that screenings have reduced the rate of colon cancer instances by 30% over the last 10 years. still, more needs to be done. mr. speaker, as we observe colon cancer awareness month, i urge all americans, particularly those over 50, to talk to their doctor and ask if a screening is right for them. cancer is a killer and colon cancer can be more deadly than most. but we can fight back by taking proactive steps to diagnose and combat the disease at its outset. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the economic women's agenda and to acknowledge women's history month. women's history month is a time
when we pause to recognize the extraordinary contributions that women have made throughout our nation's history. as a husband to my wife nancy, a leader in health care for women, a proud father of two accomplished daughters, and the grandfather of three girls with so much promise, i am absolutely committed to making our country a full range of opportunity available and reality for all of america's daughters. that's why i introduced earlier this month the women's economic bill of rights. because all women have a right to equal pay. all women have a right to fair treatment in the workplace. and to economic and retirement security. the women's economic bill of rights is about standing up in congress to make sure that we strengthen our commitment to advancing women's economic security for current and future generations. i encourage all of my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this resolution because we know that when women succeed, america succeeds.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. harris: mr. speaker, our economy continues to struggle and that means hard working americans are struggling. far too many americans are having trouble making ends meet and government overreach is only making things worse. and the worst example of this overreach is the president's deeply flawed health care law. we just had obamacare's fourth anniversary this past weekend and what do we have to show for it? americans can't keep their plans, even if they like them. families are being forced to pay more for their health care insurance. women are unable to stay with their doctors despite the president's promise. seniors are facing cuts to their hard-earned medicare benefits. businesses are afraid to hire more workers. house republicans have a plan to get washington out of the way, to create an america that works and addressing these problems is a great place to start. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> a couple of weeks ago i was proud to host a women's economic agenda event at the young women's leadership academy in san antonio, texas. it was a great way to celebrate women's history month by having a conversation about what we can all do to ensure that women in our nation are empowered. there were three specific issues that we spoke of that concern our nation greatly. the first one was fair pay, making sure that when women put in a full day's work, they make the same amount of money as men do. the second was family leave. the ability to be able to take time off to be with sick parents or when you have a child. that's extremely important for working women. also child care. mr. castro: many women are unable to take and keep jobs because they simply don't have the child care resources that they need to make sure that they can make sure their
children are safe and also go on to work. it's imperative that the united states congress take up these issues and continue to make sure that there's parity in our society and that women are able to enjoy the same benefits as men. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the entleman from virginia rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: mr. speaker, we rise today to demand action on comprehensive immigration reform. for over a year, we've experienced nothing but broken promises from our republican leadership. the senate did its job, passing a bipartisan bill by a vote of 68-32. speaker boehner, house republicans have refused to consider this responsible proposal, even though it has the votes to pass right now. the reason for this is clear. republicans would rather protect themselves from a primary challenge than address the challenges that face our nation. that's why house democrats have resorted to introducing a
discharge petition this week to demand a vote on immigration reform. this is supposed to be a democracy. comprehensive reform is backed by a majority of the american public, including the business community, labor unions and religious organizations. comprehensive reform would grow our economy, strengthen families and open doors of opportunity for millions of americans who want to embrace the american dream. america's always been a nation of immigrants. continuously revitalized by those who come to our shores to make a better life for themselves and their families. now is the time to pass exrencive immigration reform. thank you -- comprehensive immigration reform. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise -- ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. march is a time to honor our foremothers. democrats know that the biggest challenge to attaining complete
equality is economic justice. my daughters are growing up in ago an america where women still make just 77 cents to every man's dollar. this wage discrimination is compounded even further when you consider that women also represent nearly 2/3 of minimum wage workers and often have jobs with no sick leave. if women have to choose between their jobs and their families, clearly we still have a lot of work to do. first we must extend unemployment benefits. women struggling to find work need that bridge to help pay the bills while they look for work. we must also increase the minimum wage. fight wage discrimination by passing the paycheck fairness act. and extend paid family and medical leave to all women by passing the family act. this agenda is a perfect way to celebrate women's history month and honor all americans who have fought for equality and fairness. as president obama said, when women succeed, america succeeds. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico ise? without objection, the
gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lujan grisham: mr. speaker, march is women's history month and i rise in memory of a trail blazer, georgia lee luck, the first woman to ever represent new mexico in the house of representative the. georgia was electriced in 1946 and served congressional district one, my district. georgia's in our history books as a woman who wasn't afraid of a fight. she grew up on a farm in carlsabad, went to highlands university in las vegas, new mexico. she came to washington to fight for better education and better care for veterans. as a school administrator, she had seen the effects of book shortages and overcrowded classrooms on young students. as a mother of three boys who all fought in the second world war, she knew all too well the challenges faced by those returning from war. georgia served on the veterans affairs committee and worked across the aisle to make sure that veterans received the benefits provided to them in the g.i. bill of rights. she fought for federal aid to
education, hot meals for students and helped establish what we now know as the of education and she did so much more. mr. speaker, the only third congresswoman in new mexico's history, i am determined to carry on georgia's fight. a fight for better care for veterans and a better education for our students. when women succeed, america succeeds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lujan grisham: i yield ack. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 524 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 92, house resolution 524, resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b 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. 1459, to ensure that the national environmental policy act of 1969 applies to the declaration of national monuments 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 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. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such 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 amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of march 27, 2014, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15 relating to the following. a, a measure addressing the medicare payment system for a physician -- for physicians. and, b, a measure addressing ukraine. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is
recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. for purposes 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the time he may consume. mr. bishop: during the consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only and i ask that all members have five legislative days with which they may revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 1459, ensuring public involvement in the creation of national monuments act. it provides for an hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. the rule makes in order three amendments, two of which are democrat amendments, in addition to a manager's amendment. the rule also wisely provides for same-day authority for the legislative day of thursday to consider the so-called docks fix bipartisan proposal which may come forward for our
consideration, as well as for consideration of measures aimed as spo -- aimed at supporting the people of ukraine against russian aggression and expansionism. so this is an important rule and therefore it deserves our strong support. mr. speaker, i am pleased to stand before the house today in support of the rule as well as the underlying legislation, primarily because it's my bill. and i appreciate the hard work and support of the chairman of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, in forwarding this important bill to the floor of the house for our consideration. i have to admit, mr. speaker, perhaps because the underlying ill is my bill, i've had closer consideration of the discussion, the comments that have been made about it and have taken some of them rather personally. to be honest, i am quite frankly amazed at some of the inaccuracy and the misrepresentation or misinformation, i should say, that has taken place by some outside groups in blogs, on the
internet descriptions, by special interest groups, actually even some members of the board. when i originally saw some of the reports that said this bill would stop any more -- creation of any more national parks, nothing could be further from the truth. president can't create national parks. only congress can. it has nothing to do with national parks. eventually they changed to say, well this will stop the creation of national monuments. again, that charge is simply reare -- is simplyry ding louis. the he is --ry dick -- simply ridiculous. the essence of this bill is simple. it says the president shall be treated like everyone else. congress, if they're going to make any kind of land decisions, must have an open process where they have an open process. any agency of the federal government, if they're going to make some kind of land designation, they have to go through nepa, national environmental protection act, policy act, i'm sorry, go through the process which provides for input, public discussion and public advise about it. .
the overwhelm one who can't do that, and he cannot, is the president. when the administration testified about this bill in the committee i was amazed because they said the president should not have to go through the open process of obtaining public input on his decisions because even though the entire federal branch has to, he's only the head of the federal branch, he's not the federal branch. i'm sorry, that just does not make sense to me. the idea is, everyone including the president, should ask for public input. one of the groups, the national resource defense council, brought on their blog that the nepa was the magna carta of environmental laws. they wrote much like the magna carta protkted people from dangers, nepa protects people by providing transparency in federal projects. both the magna carta and nepa expose the ideals of public participation in democracy by
giving citizens a voice in government decision. in a different bill yesterday, in a different committee, the administration testified against the bill saying it would stop public comment about this particular issue. and that's, i'm sorry, is why i get so confused about the rhetoric about this particular bill. what we are asking is for a president before he uses his authority to go through nepa. to provide for public comment and concept. if nepa is the magna carta and it provides for citizen voice and democratic decision, how can you then say that this bill which provide for nepa for that kind of public policy would eviscerate one of america's bedrock conservation laws? this is simply intellectual gymnastics of the highest level. either getting public input is good, in which case we should pass this bill, or getting public input is bad, in which case there's a lot of things we should change around here.
i happen to think getting public input is good because it does one thing. it solves the problem before they develop. in our state we have had a national monument that was designated by presidential proclamation for almost 20 years now. we are still dealing with issue of what kind of grazing rights were or were not included in that proclamation. what kind of roads were or were not opened. even though we tried to solve the problem because the president had no concept of what trust lands were in that area. not all of those changes have -- exchanges have yet to be consummated. another of the monument the president proposed, the president recently proposed, they have already come to us and say there are problems within the boundaries of that monument. we have found private property we didn't know existed. we don't know whether there's provisions in there to allow that to go on, but we are not sure how you accomplish that. we are not quite sure which land management agency is responsible for the administration.
those issues are all the issues that could be settled before you make the designation and if indeed the nepa process was required, those would be the issues that would be brought up, they would be understood, they would be dealt before you make the initiative. so, i have had people tell me that this is actually the no more national monuments bill. it would stop national monuments. patenly false. false premise. it's a scare tarktic, not an argument. it is incredibly wrong. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i am a here with my good friend from the rules committee, mr. bishop, discussing, he made a passionate case and he cares deeply, as do many of us about issues affecting our public lands under the antiquities act. the real antique here is our
outdated immigration system. that's the antique. when i have my town hall meetings in my district across colorado and join my friends across the country, what i hear from my constituents is not let's alter the process whereby a president might designate something as a national monument. that's not the number one issue. that's not the number five issue. what my constituents demand, what colorado demands, what our nation demands is we relace our antiquated, out of date, ill-conceived, completely dysfunctional immigration system with one that works for our country. with the principal of securing our borders, with the principal of creating jobs for americans, reducing our deficit. ensuring people who work here pay taxes. ensuring that companies have a responsibility to authenticate and verify that their employees are here legally. that is what the country needs. it's what more than 75% of the american people support. i am he' proud to say, mr. speaker, that we have a -- i'm
proud to say, mr. speaker, that we have a bipartisan immigration reform bill. h.r. 15. if we were to advance that bill to the floor of the house, it would pass tomorrow. it would pass the next day. but instead of that bill being even presented in rules committee for a vote and despite my repeated desires to the chair of that committee, to the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, mr. goodlatte, mr. bishop has witnessed over a period of months, saying when will you bring forward this bill, when will you bring forward this bill? when will you fix our broken immigration system? despite that we have not advanced one single immigration related bill that addresses any one of the flaws in the immigration system to the floor of the house this entire legislative session. so our pasheens is wearing thin, mr. speaker. and i have great respect for
you, mr. speaker, for the majority leader, mr. cantor. great respect. and i understand it's the prerogative of the majority party to control the bills that are being debated on the floor. but in the absentence of leadership, mr. speaker, in the absence of you bringing a bill forward that allows us to fix our broken immigration system, we the members of this body, democratic and republican, have no choice but to take it upon ourselves to bring this issue forward to the floor of the house. i'm going to tell you a little bit about, mr. speaker, the way we can do that. these are the rules of the house. i strongly recommend them as bedtime reading, mr. speaker. fortunately they have a provision called the discharge petition that he provides a way that the members of this body -- that provides a way that the members of this body, 21 out of the 435, meaning the majority of the members of this body, can sign a discharge petition for the bill, and that means despite
a speaker or majority leader that he refused to schedule that bill for debate, if it gets a majority of members to sign the discharge he petition, it goes right to the floor for a straight -- discharge petition, it goes right to the floor for a straight up or down vote. that's all we are asking for. i'm confident h.r. 15 would pass tomorrow if we had that opportunity. i call upon my colleagues, democratic and republican, to sign the discharge petition. mr. speaker, i call upon my friends across the country to inform their members of congress that they want to see action on this important issue. in no way, shape, or form should this detract from the passion mr. bishop has for obscure provision of the antiquities act and the nepa process and establishment of public monuments, but this simply isn't the issue that galvanizes our country. this isn't the issue that reduces our deficit by $200 billion, or $900 billion over two decades. whatever we do to the
antiquities act, does not create 150,000 jobs for american citizens, does not boost g.d.p., is not backed by an unprecedented coalition of labor and business, farm workers, and agricultural companies, of the faith-based community, police and law enforcement, and the business sector. we have the opportunity to do something great for our country, mr. speaker. the opportunity to show real leadership by, of course, encouraging you, mr. speaker, to bring forward immigration reform. and if you prefer to bring forward several components, we will work with you to ensure that we can address some if not all the issues within our broken immigration system. the but failing your leadership, mr. speaker, failing your leadership, the membership of this body under the rules of the house is asserted itself under a discharge petition to bring comprehensive immigration reform, h.r. 15, immediately to the floor of this house for an up or down vote. i reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i reserve for a moment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: parliamentary inquiry. is the discharge petition the process provided in the house rules to allow a majority of the house without the support of the speaker or the rules committee to bring a measure to the floor that has not been reported by committee? the speaker pro tempore: the discharge process is addressing clause 2 of rule 15. mr. polis: mr. speaker, is it correct that any house member can file a discharge petition if the committee has failed to act on a bill after 30 legislative days? the speaker pro tempore: the chair advises the member is free to consult the standing rules of the house at any time. the purpose of the floor debate at this time is the current rule, 524. mr. polis: mr. speaker, are there any provisions in the current rule that would allow an up or down vote on immigration reform? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not construe the concurrent resolution. mr. polis: mr. speaker, is it true that h.r. 15, the
bipartisan immigration reform bill, has been pending before several committees and has not even faced a vote in committee since it's been introduced in october? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not asking a relevant parliamentary inquiry. mr. polis: mr. speaker, the american people will determine what's relevant and what's not. and, mr. speaker, i think what's relevant here is the fact that this body, which wasn't even in session last week, which is working 9 1/2 hours this week, is simply not addressing the issues that the american people are demanding that we address. mr. speaker, one wonders why perhaps only eight or 12% of the american people approve of the institution of congress, is precisely because the issues that people care about that want us to solve, and it's not a partisan thing, these are the issues that my democratic and republican and independent constituents all want us to solve. they want to make sure we reduce the deficit, secure our borders, implement mandatory workplace
authentication of workers. there's not been a committee vote on h.r. 15. there's not been a floor vote on any legislative proposal to address any dimension of our broken immigration system. and that is why i join my colleagues in signing the discharge petition under the rules of the house to bring forward this bill for immediate consideration of the floor so this body can work its will to finally replace our broken immigration system with one that works. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. i am pleased to see the passion and fervor of the gentleman from colorado on this issue. i wish that that passion and fervor had been a couple years ago when i had an immigration bill on the floor. unfortunately today we have an issue that is extremely important to those of us who
live in the west. and i think my county commissioners, all of whom see this as a very, very critical issue, will take some kind of umbrage saying this is not a significant thing. if you were one of the county commissioners that lives in the west that has control of your land, the entire county, by the federal government, wayne county, for example, has exactly 3% of its county is private property. that's not a small county. the rest is controlled by the federal government. there is the constant fear by these people that the president by a stroke of a pen or picking up a telephone can make a ruling or a proclamation that will change their lives significantly . that will make their economy turn upside-down. and there is not a thing they can do about it, which is the reason we have asked for this bill. to at least give these county commissioners the chance of having public input before the decision is made. that's why this becomes so significant. these county commissioners want
to be treated fairly. as all people want to be treated fairly. and one of the problems they have in being treated fairly is simply this particular archaic act. the antiquities act, the original antiquities act was passed in 1906. now, think about that for a minute. what kind of environmental laws were there in 1906? and also consider the state of the nation in 1906. 190 , the states of alaska and hawaii and arizona and new mexico and oklahoma were not part of the nation. even my state of utah was less than a decade old as a state in this particular nation. a lot is made often about how the grand canyon was created by using the antiquities act. actually, it was. unfortunately it was a monument using the antiquities act, but the grand canyon had actually been a national forest before it was create add monument. when it was created as grand
canyon national park, that was done by congress because only congress has the ability to create national parks. one of the situations we have is the situation is extremely different from 1906 until today. and one of the things also is different is that the antiquities act has been used in the past but it has basically been abused in the future. there are three criteria for which the antiquities act is supposed to be used to create a national monument. it's supposed to have a particular element that needs to be protected. secondly, it has to be in imminent danger of being destroyed. and, third, it has to be in the smallest print possible which meant when they were debating it in 1906 on the floor the debates have clear they were talking about two to -- 200 to 300 acres. president bush created a national -- thousands of acres
of a national monument, fortunately it was in water, but he created one because it had a lot of fish, without ever figuring out what the significance factor was. the president has created a couple of international monuments, our current one, for structures that were already under preservation status. there was no imminent danger. one was 1.9 million acres which is larger than a couple of our small states combined. so the criteria for the use of the president presidential authority has changed -- presidential authority has changed radically. also, the way it has been used has changed radically. look. from the depression era to the beginning of 1976, let us say. roughly a half century. the antiquities act was only used nine times. president roosevelt in his four terms only used it three times. and one of those was reversed by congress. when president carter came into
office, he then used it 15 times in his four years. president clinton then used it 22 times, all of which were in his last four years. president obama has already used it eight times and is counting. it is very clear that we are doing it differently than in the past. all those other uses of the antiquities act were done to designate a specific topic and try to preserve it. what we are finding now is that it is being used as a political weapon, a gotcha effort, a power play, without letting anyone know about it. in the case of the grand staircase, the governor, the morning, at 2:00 in the morning, was explaining what public trust lands were to the white house. at 12:00 the president then designated the grand staircase monument without ever dealing with the issue of school trust lands in those particular areas. what i'm saying is, we need to change something now so that we
are -- because we're starting to use the antiquities act as a political bludgeon and it shouldn't be that way. and in most -- and the most melo and moderate way of doing that is this bill. we're not going to take the power away from the president, but before you use it, you can't surprise people with it. you have to go through the nepa process which requires public comment. public input. which is what every other agency in the federal government has to use, congress has to go through that same process. the only one who is exempt from public comment is the president. that's why this is important. that's why this is vital, especially to people who live in high rural areas that have a lot of federal land in which they are frightened that the president could upend everything simply by the stroke of a pen and they don't have an avenue to give input. this bill gives them input. it is easily the most moderate approach that will ever come about the antiquities act on
this floor and i think it is worthy of supporting the rule and bringing to the floor for a vinyl vote and i reserve the balance of my time -- final vote 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: mr. speaker, let's request -- let's replace the antiquity that is our broken immigration system with one that reflects our values as a country. the hole in our border security is wider than the grand canyon, the gentleman from utah mentions. let's fix that. the hole in our values is wider than the grand canyon, let's fix that. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that honors our american values. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will advise that all time has been yielded for purposes of debate only. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield the gentlelady from california for a unanimous consent request. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that provides an earned pathway to citizenship. the speaker pro tempore: the
chair about devise that all time has been yielded for the purpose of debate only. does the gentleman from utah yield for this? the gentleman from utah does not yield. therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: meeks, i yield to the gentleman from -- mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from florida, the chief sponsor of the bipartisan imgrathes reform -- immigration reform bill, for a unanimous consent request. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites our families and moves our country forward. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from utah yield for the purpose of unanimous consent request? mr. bishop: i do not yield for this purpose. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah does not yield. therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from nevada, a champion of immigration reform, mr. horsford, for a unanimous consent request. mr. horsford: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that
unites our families, keeps our families together, moves our country forward. we demand a vote, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from utah yield for the purpose of unanimous consent request? mr. bishop: may i ask an inquiry. was that for a vote on actually springs or something else? -- on tuley springs or something else? apparently it was something else. i want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. i am not prepared to yield for any other purpose. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah does not yield. therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, we're going to continue to try until the gentleman from utah allows our consent request and i'm proud to yield to the gentlelady from illinois, a true leader on immigration reform, ms. schakowsky, for a unanimous consent request. ms. schakowsky: i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites our families. the speaker pro tempore: the
chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose and therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: would the irchair inquire of the gentleman from utah if he does accept the request? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah indicated he will not accept any requests of unanimous consent. mr. polis: point of parliamentary inquiry. mr. speaker, did -- does the record show a response from the gentleman from utah to the request from the gentlelady from illinois? the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that that is the feelings of the gentleman from utah. mr. polis: further parliamentary inquiry. how does the speaker know the quote-unquote feelings of the gentleman from utah? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman stated he will not yield to any more unanimous consent requests for this purpose. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i would like to yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to bring up h.r. 15 to the gentleman from new mexico, a leader in the fight for immigration reform, mr. lujan. liu xiaobo mr. speaker, i ask unanimous con -- mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i ask
unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that honors our american values. the speaker pro tempore: the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from california, the chair of the democratic caucus, mr. becerra, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the chair first asked the gentleman from california, please remove he badge from his lapel. the gentleman from california now may proceed. mr. becerra: i thank the speaker and the gentleman from colorado for yielding time. i ask for unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that has been held up for more than 733 days, to honor our american values and so that i can wear this tag later on in the future with great pride. i yield back the balance of my. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose. the request can't be
entertained. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentleman from texas, a leader on the fight for immigration reform, for a unanimous consent request. mr. veasey: i ask to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration bill which unites families and moves our country forward. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose, therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be intertained. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: point of parliamentary inquiry. mr. speaker, i did not hear a response on the last four inquiries from the gentleman from utah. i was hoping the speaker could ose the question to him. the speaker pro tempore: the understanding of the chair, the gentleman from utah would not yield for any more unanimous consent requests and they will notter entertained. mr. polis: i would ask the gentleman from utah and i'll be happy to yield him a moment for an answer, how many of us need to come forward and ask for a
vote on replacing the antiquity that is our broken immigration system until you will accede to a simple request for an up or down vote? i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for giving me time, for giving me his time. which i would be happy to talk about the bill that is actually before us and will be here because it's a wonderful bill. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, reclaiming my time. the gentleman from utah chose not to answer the simple question of how many people we need to have to bring up this bill. i know that we can get more people to come down because, guess what? we stand ready to solve the issue of our broken immigration system. we also stand ready as americans, as democrats, as representatives to work with our friends on the other side of the aisle to fashion a solution that works for our country. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 15, the bipartisan
comprehensive immigration reform bill introduced by mr. garcia that's nearly identical to the measure already passed by the senate. we need exrencive immigration reform -- comprehensive immigration reform. and if the leadership of this body, mr. speaker, yourself and the leader, mr. cantor, are serious about wanting to pass a jobs bill or serious about wanting to reduce the deficit, they will act on this bill. because the congressional budget office estimates that enacting this bill reduces our deficit by $900 billion over 20 years. it boosts economic output, raises capital investment in our country and increases the productivity of both labor and capital. 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: without objection. mr. polis: meeks, what we have here -- mr. speaker, what we doing e and what we're
under the rules of this body is we're using another method called the previous question where we in the minority party can actually get a vote, where if we defeat the previous question we can then bring forward immigration reform. h.r. 15. the bipartisan bill. that's all we ask, mr. speaker. is that we ask our friends on both sides of the aisle to join us in a procedural motion to defeat the previous question. since the gentleman from utah has thus far refused to allow a unanimous consent request, although i certainly am hopeful that he will, as more members of this body request that, out of courtesy, at least have an up or down vote on immigration reform, we do have another outlet and that is the previous question, which will be forthcoming. i would like to yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to another leader in the fight to replace our broken immigration system with one that works, the gentleman from texas, mr. green. mr. green: i thank my colleague for yielding to me. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that
provides an earned pathway to citizenship. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose, therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. mr. cohen, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, so that this house can address replacing the real antiquity that is our broken immigration system. mr. cohen: thank you. i appreciate you yielding and i would ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that reduces our deficit by $900 billion over the next two years according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, and $200 billion in the first year and gives people an opportunity to participate in the shadows of government and yet be tax paying citizens out in the front of society and be americans and contribute to our economy and provide workers that we need to be a 21st
century economy that is effective in keeping us as the world's number one economic power. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose. therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. as the chair advised on january 15, 2014, even though a unanimous consent request to be considered a measure is not entertained, elbelishments constitute debate and will combk an imposition on the time of the member who has yielded for that purpose. mr. polis: with due request, the desire we're placing before you is to have a debate about immigration, mr. speaker. not one hour, not half an hour, ot 10 minutes, not one minute. for the last entire year and a half has been scheduled for debate on this important topic, replacing our immigration system with one that works. there's no desire to embell itch or debate through -- embellish or debate through motions. there's a desire to debate the merits of the bill. we can accomplish that in three
ways here, mr. speaker. we can defeat the previous question and bring up immigration reform. the continued enthusiasm from my colleagues can convince mr. bishop to allow for the unanimous consent request to bring up h.r. 15. or, third, my colleagues can sign the discharge petition now at the desk and once that petition reaches 218 votes, it will advance immediately to the floor. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from new mexico for a unanimous consent request. ms. lujan grisham: i ask unanimous consent to bring up the -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. al green, a leader in the fight to replace our broken system with one that works for purposes of unanimous consent request.
mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that provides earned citizenship and earned -- an earned pathway to citizenship. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent would like to entertain -- the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to ask how many more of my colleagues need to urgently request that this bill come forward before you would kindly consider a unanimous consent request to allow this bill to be debated on, even recognizing you may be opposed to it and others may support it, at least allowing us to have that debate, how many more members need to come forward and request that for you as a courtesy to consider that? i'm happy to yield for an answer. mr. bishop: i again appreciate the gentleman from colorado giving me the opportunity to speak about the issue that's at hand. i would even be happier if you would give me an opportunity to
speak about a good immigration bill which is mine. since that's not the case, let me bounce once more to the issue -- mr. polis: reclaiming my time, mr. speaker. the gentleman from utah has immersed in the arcane aspects of antiquities law. i understand his passion for it. i truly do. we've had many great discussions. i have with the gentleman from utah about managing our public lands which are a big part of his district and certainly a big part of the district i represent. but the true antiquity in the rume is our broken immigration system. the gentleman from utah has the ability to allow us through unanimous consent request to bring up h.r. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, to the floor of the house to solve this issue. every member of this body, democratic and republican, has the ability to sign a discharge petition once it reaches 218 signatures. no member, not the speaker, not the majority leader can prevent that bill being voted on in a straight up or down vote.
it's time to simply demand a debate, demand a vote on comprehensive immigration reform. today, mr. speaker, we have a chance to act on legislation. it's already passed the senate with more than 2/3 majority, including support from the home state of the gentleman from utah, the senior senator. we passed a bill that the president would sign. we have a chance to pass bipartisan legislation that reduces our deficit, that secures our borders, that requires workplace authentication and i'm proud to say, mr. speaker, this morning congressman garcia filed a discharge petition on h.r. 15, finally allowing the membership of this body to go around a speaker, a majority leader that are unwilling to address the issue of immigration to bring forward our solution, our bipartisan solution, h.r. 15. now, again, i and many members of this body are happy to consider other proposals.
the gentleman from utah has mentioned he has a proposal. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have a number of proposals. some have passed through the judiciary committee. but not one immigration bill has been debated or voted on in this entire year and a half of a legislative session. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from california, a leader and the fight for immigration reform for purposes of a unanimous consent request, the gentlelady, mrs. napolitano. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker, for allowing me to bring up unanimous consent to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform that reduces our deficit by $900 billion, this is in american values, reform bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: well, mr. speaker, i
think reduces our deficit by $900 billion is a good idea. i really do. i think the american people agree that reducing our deficit by $900 billion is a good idea. and all that stands in the way of us reducing our deficit by $900 billion is allowing this request to move through, i certainly urge my friend from utah to reconsider. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: let me reserve for a moment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. the majority of the american people, regardless of where they stand in the ideological spectrum or their party, democrats, republicans, independents, greens, libry tarians all agree -- libritarians all agree that time to pass immigration reform is now. 81% support immigration reform. another poll showed that 72% are republicans support the package of reforms that are included in the senate,
bipartisan package and the house bipartisan package. so what are we debating here, mr. speaker? are we simply refusing to discuss any solutions? mr. speaker, we've offered unanimous consent request after unanimous consent request which the gentleman from utah has not agreed to one of those and, mr. speaker, others, you've read his mind and assume he hasn't agreed although we haven't heard from him on each of those. we filed the discharge petition. i hope that soon has 218 votes, but very soon, mr. speaker, there will actually be a vote right here in this body on the previous question. and if we defeat that motion on the previous question, we will bring forward h.r. 15, the bipartisan immigration reform bill, similar version passed the senate with more than 2/3 support, and i am optimistic that bill will pass the house today. let's have some debate on
immigration reform. rather than working 9 1/2 hours this week, the american people want to see a congress that tackles problems and work towards solution. they want to see a congress that creates jobs for americans, make sure we have workplace enforcement of immigration laws, secure borders. it doesn't happen by itself. absent this body taking action, the hole in our border security will continue as wide as the grand canyon as the gentleman from utah mentioned. the hole in our national spirit and our identity and our values as we just as wide continue to refuse to act to unite families and bring together americans and finally reflect our history as a nation of immigrants and as a nation of laws. it's not inconsistent to be a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, but under the
current chaos and disorder that is our immigration dysfunction, we appease no one. it's not good for our security when we don't know who's here. it's not good for american business when they don't know who's here illegally and who's here not and people that hire people under the table for cash is rewarded. it doesn't reflect our values for americans to tear an american child from their rent at a taxpayer expense sending a parent back to their country than their child. it doesn't reflect our values to a taxpayer expense keep people detained for months or even years who committed no criminal act in our country. these could all be addressed, mr. speaker, through a bill with broad bipartisan buy in with support across the
ideological spectrum that would pass tomorrow if we can simply defeat the previous question or if the gentleman from utah will entertain one of my colleagues' unanimous consent requests or if 218 of us sign where i have signed on demand a vote, the discharge petition now at the desk on immigration reform. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i'm actually prepared to close and will reserve until that time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reserving. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire how much time remains on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has 12 minutes. the gentleman from utah has 17 1/2 minutes. mr. polis: i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. polis: we have an opportunity, mr. speaker, an opportunity in this body to
address an issue that's in the hearts and in the minds of people across our country, of businesses across our country, of faith leaders across our country and that is reconciling our immigration system with our values and with our economic needs as a country. we can do it, mr. speaker. we can with one bill reduce our deficit by $900 billion. we can, mr. speaker, secure our borders and prevent people from entering this country illegally. we can, mr. speaker, ensure that every company verifies the people that works for it are legally here through a national database. we can, mr. speaker, create 151,000 jobs for americans. we can, mr. speaker, grow our 4.8% by an additional
over a 20-year period. we can, mr. speaker, unite an american child with their parents so they can grow into the great americans they will become if only we let them. there are millions of aspiring americans throughout our country, in my district, in my state of colorado, across the country, people who want nothing more than to play by our rules, to speak our language, to pay taxes and to spend money in our stores and generating jobs for our economy if only we will let them. we need immigration reform, mr. speaker, which is why an unprecedented alliances has come together from across the
spectrum in support of immigration reform. in the faith-based communities, leaders in the evangelical movement, the catholic church, the jewish faith and others have joined arm in arm saying -- demanding action, the time is now. the business community, from the tech community to the farmers, to agriculture, are united around replacing our broken immigration system with one that works so we have the pipeline of talent we need so that america remains competitive and to prevent the offshoring of jobs overseas. workers across the country are united and organized labor in saying we want to replace our broken immigration system with one that works, because when we have a large illegal work force in our country, it undermines wages for american workers. we need to prevent the undermining of wages for american workers by replacing our immigration system with one that works, one that requires
workplace authentication of all people that are employed. i further yield myself time in the well where i have a sign that will be displayed, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to bring up h.r. 15, to bring up the bipartisan immigration reform bill. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose. mr. polis: i'd like to ask if the gentleman from utah has changed his mind and will yield for that purpose. mr. speaker, we will not give up. the american people will not give up. american companies will not give up, whether they're fortune 400 companies, whether they're tomorrow's startups which has a visa bill. we will not give up. this issue gets larger, and
larger, bigger and bigger. there may be 10 million illegal people here today. there might be 15 million people here illegally in 10 years. the problem does not solve itself. we need to have enforcement of the law and border security and a rational way to deal with the issue within our country. i encourage my friends, mr. speaker, on social media, on twitter, on facebook to demand a vote and join me in simply allowing this body, congress, the only body that can solve this bill. i know, mr. speaker, many of our state legislatures have debated around the edges and discussed whether in-state tuition works but our state legislators across the aisle, democratic and republican, know that only congress, only congress can secure our borders and replace our broken immigration system with one that works. that's why i encourage you, mr.
speaker, to join me in demanding a vote, demanding a debate, bringing to the floor comprehensive immigration reform or if you prefer, mr. speaker, a series of bills designed to address issues within immigration reform, to see how we can move forward, to get on the same page with the senate and fundamentally address this issue in a way that creates jobs for americans, secures our borders, restores the rule of law and reduces our deficit by $900 billion. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15, to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that reduces our deficit by $900 billion. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: the longer we delay in passing immigration reform, the greater the costs of inaction. the nonpartisan congressional budget office shows that h.r. 15 would reduce our deficit by
$900 billion. imagine, including that, $200 billion in the first decade and a baseline budget for the house of representatives being worked on by mr. ryan and his associates on the budget committee, what could that $200 billion do? . do we reduce the marginal rate? could we reduce the tax rates for corporations that keep jobs here rather than outsource them overseas? could we reduce that deficit with $200 billion? could we help remain competitive? the answer is yes. . $200 billion is generated from fixing our immigration system in a commonsense way that more than 80% of the american people support. immigration reform means that housing units would be increasingly in demand. residential construction spending would increase by $68 billion per year over a 20-year period. under immigration reform over
$100 billion more in additional taxes would be paid. allowing, again, tax reductions to others or investments in education and infrastructure, including revenues to state and local governments. i hope the majority is listening to former speaker hastert who said in an op ed recently, quote, immigration reform will make us safer and it will make us economically stronger, it is politically smart and morally right. end quote. and when we look at ourselves at the end of the day, mr. speaker, we do need to stand for what in our own faith traditions, in our own consciences is morally right. i know, mr. speaker, that what's morally right is an immigration system that reflects our values as americans. one that honors our ancestors, one that honors my great grandparents that came to this country from foreign shores at a young age and had their
families here and allowed their great grandson to serve here in the united states congress. today's immigrants are no different. than my great grandmother who came in 1905 to this country from eastern europe. if only we will provide them the opportunity and a pathway for them to be and become the good americans that they already are and contribute to make our country stronger, we will be strengthened as a nation. jobs will be created for americans, we will prevent foreign workers from undermining wages for american workers. we will secure our borders, to prevent people from sneaking across and working in this country illegally. and we will require that companies authenticate the legal status of all workers. mr. speaker, i hope that my plea does not -- has not fallen upon deaf ears and i bring up
unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 15. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from utah has not yielded for that purpose. therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. every day we fail to act, the economic and human toll increases. every day we fail to act, we sacrifice significant levels of investment in our country, as well as lose out on talented and entrepreneurial potential americans to overseas cormingses -- corporations. i represent a district that contains the colorado state university and university of colorado-boulder. like a lot of great schools across our country, many of our graduate students in computer science and engineering are from other countries. they're here on student visas. and when they receive their master's or their ph.d., rather than allow them to stay here and work here and make our country stronger, we force many of them to return overseas
where the jobs follow them, to make another country stronger. in some cases countries that have differences of opinion with us on the geopolitical landscape like russia and china , allow these students to make their countries stronger rather than ours. our economy, our faith leaders, our businesses, our work force, our families are all crying out for the house to debate this bill, to demand a vote now. i urge house leadership to heed their calls an put h.r. 15 on the floor for an immediate vote. it will pass. it has the votes. it will become the law. it will solve this issue. the time is now. our country and our families demand a vote. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from utah.
mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. in all due respect, i have been called very sarcastic in the past and i probably am. so as i speak to you now, mr. speaker, i don't want to be considered flip ant in anything i say -- flippant in anything i say. with all due respect, the speaker was not just divining what i was thinking at the time. i clearly said at the very beginning of what my purpose was and for what i would yield. and you did that very well. the continuous requests for unanimous consent where immediate consideration of the bill, which in my humble opinion i think is a poorly written bill, there are better bills out there. i have one of those. in fact a couple of years ago i had one of those that would -- i would have liked the support of the other side as well. perhaps if we'd talked about some of those that i think actually go to the point of the issue and are properly written,
may have been somewhat different. but instead i'm going to come back to the issue that is at hand which deals with the antiquities act and how the antiquities act has been abused. congress has recognized that in the past, it is kind of ironic and i don't think many people realize this, that not every state allows the antiquities act to be used in their state. congress in 1944 withdrew the use of the antiquities act in the state of wyoming. responding to an abuse later on, the state of alaska was withdrawn from that consideration. even the ranking member of our committee has introduced legislation and voted for it, passed this house, which would limit the use of the antiquity it's act in his district -- antiquities act in his district. so people are recognizing that there is a reason, a reason that the use of the antiquities act has changed over the years and not necessarily for the better. and the best way of solving
that problem is not necessarily taking that act away or that power away, but simply making sure that the president of the united states gets public input before he actually pulls the trigger. you may ask why i consider this such a significant issue. well, to be honest, one, i'm from the west. and, number two, i'm a school teacher. you see, when the antiquities act is used without getting public input, input, it has the potential and has in the past and could in the future and i think will in the future destroy economic patterns that take place, especially in rural counties. when that happens, and that disruption takes place, then the ability of raising revenue for local needs becomes significant and it is more difficult in the west than it is in the rest of the nation. let me try to illustrate why. the states that are in red are the states that are considered public land states. those are the ones that have the greatest potential of
having abuse of the antiquities act foisted upon them. the states that are in yellow have very little public lands. in fact, 2/3 of everything the federal government owns is found in the red states. what i'm holding up here is the ability of these states to generate funds for their education system. as you can look over the past two decades, those states in the eastern portion of this country, the yellow states, have increased their education funding at twice the rate that those of us who live in the west. and the simple question has to be, why do you think this takes place? there is a distinct correlation to the amount of federal land and the inability of states who have all that federal land to raise money for their education systems. that's one of the continuous complaints that we have. when monuments are made without getting the input of local citizens, the chance of making this even worse is a reality.
it has happened in the past. and it will happen in the future. so i'm not saying do away with the act altogether. what i'm simply saying is, make sure that the people who live in these red states, who have a more difficult time funding their education system, have the ability of making a statement before final action takes place. before simply a pen is signed to a proclamation that can change the dynamics of everything. it has happened in the past. so that is why -- this is not simply a procedural bill for me. this is a bill that impacts my kids. it impacts my profession. it impacts the future of education in the west. and should not be dismissed as insignificant. that is why this issue becomes so vital to those of us who live in the west. because it has a direct impact on the way we live. the gentleman from colorado did say one thing in which i agree. he said at some time we should
all play by the same same rules. that's the purpose of the under-- the same rules. that's the purpose of the underlying bill. the president should play by the same rules that congress has to use and every agency of the federal government has to use. no thank you. which is simply to come up with the concept that before decisions are made you get public input. and that's why all of the discussion i've seen in blogs and from special interest groups are so confusing to me. because at one time we say, yes, it is important that we get public input. excepter to -- except for this particular bill in which public input is bad. that does not make sense. that is mental gymnastics of the worst variety. if this bill were to pass, it would not change the ab antiquities act, it -- the antiquities act, it would not prohibit the president from making national monuments, it would not prohibit congress from establishing national parks, all it would do is
simply say, you've got to go through the nepa process which requires public input, especially from those who are going to be directly impacted. and we have seen that if you mandate that ahead of time, you solve problems before they develop. we have practice, we have proof, we have examples of where the monument was created without getting the input and problems developed, which still has not been solved. don't do that. do it the right way. we can do that and we can make this effort happen and once again, of all the concepts of how to deal with the antiquities act and the problems it presents for those of white house live in the west, this is easily -- those of us who live in the west, this is easily the most moderate approach which says, before you do it, listen to us, have a chance to say
something. that's the way it ought to be, the way it should be. this bill is actually a vast improvement on 100-plus-year-old bill that has outlived its usefulness and has changed not necessarily for the better over that course of time. so with that, mr. speaker, i do appreciate the comments that have been made. i would have appreciated if people would also recognize the significance of this bill to those of us who live in the west. i wish they would also look at the bill as it is written. it is a very positive approach, it's something for which we can all support and it's a very good bill. i'm biased because it's my bill, but it still is a very, very good bill. so with that, mr. speaker, i wish to close. to reiterate the fairness of not only the bill but also of the rule, the other parts of the rule, the appropriateness of the underlying pieces of legislation, the potential of putting up other issues that are significant that must be addressed this particular week.
and with that i would yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period of less
pretty much anywhere he likes. so bishop's bill has three main parts. ne, it requires an environmental review. so essentially if the president comes out and says i'll create a monument here, he'll have to go through the national environmental policy act which includes public input, environmental reviews. there are a couple parts of this. one, the president would be limited to one designation per state per four-year term without some kind of congressional approval, without a law being passed to actually make it so. the other part that they put in is kind of an emergency clause. this would allow the president to name a national monument of less than 5,000 acres, but then that designation would expire within three years unless congress were to act to keep it there. so if there is some kind of emergency reason they need to keep some pristine area, the president ask do so, but it has to be small and it would expire unless the administration then goes through congress. >> one of the reasons we're
talking to thomas burr, he covers washington from the "salt lake tribune." how would utah in particular be impacted by this legislation? >> if your viewers remember, back in 1996, president clinton amed the grand staircase escalante national monument. 1.8 million acres, kind of in the middle, southeastern part of the state. and clinton made the designation actually from the grand canyon which ticked a lot of utahians saying, there's a huge coal deposit there. people still remember that and people are still pretty angry about that. so this is one of the reasons that people don't like antiquities act in utah. there's also worry about the president in his last two years would try to create another monument part of utah to protect some other areas that are currently, i believe, blrm land. this is an -- b.l.m. land. this is an effort for the president to say, first go
through the environmental review, talk to the utahians, hear from the input of people affected by that, people who live there, ranch there, those kind of issues. so there are concerns that the state -- that utah could be affected by this. and that's why congressman bishop is trying to push through some limits. >> what's the lobbying effort like, the arm twisting, the advertising about this bill on either side? >> sure. congressman bishop is very clear. he says every other federal agency has to go through environmental protection review. and private businesses too. so for example, if someone wants to mine on some kind of federal land or do something on federal land, they have to go through this process, but the bishop's argument for right now the president can just do this with a stroke of a pen without any input from the public. so he's saying this is just fairness that the administration likes the environmental reviews, why would they not want the president to have to go through that? environmentalists and democrats are saying this is just an effort to hamper, slow down or
in some instances kill the president's ability to protect pristine areas, treasured lands and states. the last congress, there wasn't a single piece of wilderness designated by the congress. therefore, the president is the only one left to make these designations. and it needs to happen. i think we're obviously going to see, you know, very partisan split on this situation, especially coming from, you know, those republicans in the west to see this as necessary to protect our interests. >> the headline on your "salt lake tribune" piece is bishop bill would restrict national monument creation. is there money concern, appropriations concern about the naming ofes that national monuments? >> what the impacts are. if the president says, i want to protect a portion of utah, there's no actual study to say,
what's the impact to local communities? are businesses going to be hurt? are residents going to be hurt? that's what congressman bishop wants to happen. let's see if there are problems doing so before we go ahead. obviously, environmentalists would say, obviously that's the reason why we're doing this because there are business decisions that have to be made but the long term will be better. >> everybody is glad to see reopen national monument to reopen on may 12, how about the senate? you mentioned partisanship in terms of house debate. is there any parallel legislation in the senate? >> there is, actually there is a companion bill sponsored by senator lee and senator hatch. house passage is likely given the republicans control the house. on the senate side, when democrats are in charge, this is not something that really whets their ep tight. this is not something -- their
appetite. the house certainly can act but the senate is not a sure thing. even if senators hatch and lee want to push this through, they don't control the agenda there. >> our viewers can read more at twitter. r, that's on >> and theous will be coming back. we expect within 10 minutes or so for some initial votes on that national monument legislation, the rule vote coming up shortly. we'll have the house live when they gavel back in. mountain meantime, we'll bring you part of today's discussion with john boehner, speaker of the house held his briefing earlier today. >> good morning, everyone. yesterday was a great day for our allies in europe who were being bullied by the russians. you heard me say we need to approve an aid package quickly without getting bogged down in debates with unrelated items. yesterday, senate democrats came to the same conclusion, and now i hope we'll be able to
get our friends in the ukraine the aid they need without much delay. this is what's possible when senate democrats focus on finding common ground. but let's be clear, it's only a small breakthrough and i think we need to build on it. the most important thing remains jobs and the economy. the senate continues to sit on stacks of house-passed bills that will get america working again. so let's hope the bipartisan cooperation on ukraine leads to senate action on other house-passed bills that will help americans here at home. another matter that must be settled in a bipartisan manner is how we deal with the n.s.a.'s terrorist surveillance programs. as you know, i've long said these programs exist to save american lives and they have. while there are some valid privacy concerns, it would be irresponsible to end these programs before we have a credible alternative. but yesterday we saw important
progress toward that goal with bipartisan legislation introduced by chairman rogers and ranking member rupp ersberger. the bill represents the start of a bipartisan conversation about how we maintain our capabilities to afford a tax while addressing privacy and civil liberties concerns that many americans have. and so i expect part of this effort will include the end of the government holding onto bulk data. and ultimately i'm hopeful that bipartisan cooperation will lead to results that all sides can support. and most importantly, keep america safe. finally, last night brought us yet another delay of obamacare. another deadline made meaningless. he hasn't put enough loopholes in the law already, the administration is resorting to hoon system to support it.
what the hell is this, a joke? listen, this is part of a long-term pattern that this administration manipulating the laws for its own convenience. and it's not hard to understand why the american people question this administration's commitment to the rule of law. >> mr. speaker, when you talk about these efforts with ukraine and trying to move another piece of legislation, this week, you know, working things out with the senate, can you articulate in a very concrete fashion what exactly you expect the result to be with vladimir putin? are you expecting him to then pull back from cry mia, not ve -- crimea, not move against ukraine? what is the outcome? >> we have allies in central and eastern europe, we have allies in western europe who are asking the question, where's the line, and what we're trying to do is to work with the administration, to give them tools to stand up to
putin's aggression. i don't -- i'll let the administration talk in terms of what their goals are. our goals are to make sure that the administration have the tools, the most effective tools available to deal with a very difficult situation. >> but even if he doesn't pull back, does that mean that crimea is gone? it means he won. >> we'll continue to work with the administration to put him in a strong position as possible. >> mr. speaker, on health care, you said what the hell is this, a joke? what are you talking about, the delay, signup? >> march 31 is the end of the signups for this year, but the administration last night said, we'll give you until april 15 if you started the process, but it's under the honor system. why don't they say, we moved the date until april 15, because that's what in effect they've done.
>> more people got insurance -- is that a reasonable outcome? do you think they're trying to jack the numbers up to try to -- >> democrats passed this law with their own members. a democratic president signed it into the law. the dates are the dates. the president doesn't get a chance to change the law whenever he wants which he continues to do. wiseman. >> osama bin laden's son-in-law was convicted in federal court in new york. the actual plotters of 9/11 have still not gotten a trial. when is it time to just let the federal courts try the plotters of 9/11? >> i don't see why we can't continue with the trials down at guantanamo and do the military trials as was the plan over the last eight or 10 years. >> they haven't happened. why not? >> i don't have the answer to that question. >> mr. speaker, you've been pretty clear on your position on u.i. and the bill with the senate cooking up.
states can't implement it and also there's no job program. you've been clear on that. so many times in the past as you know, u.i. has been extended often retroactively. what is going on that u.i. can't be done since 2008 and the crash congress mass -- has been able to do it? >> well, they want to deal with the unemployment rate. the fact of the matter is the unemployment rate are coming down. the american people are asking, where are the jobs? i made clear if we'll consider emergency unemployment, let's be clear, we are not talking about regular unemployment insurance which will go up to six months for anyone who's employment, these are benefits beyond six months. but i made clear if we're going to consider dealing with unemployment, emergency unemployment, we ought to deal with something about creating better jobs in america, higher wages in america.
the senate is sitting on dozens of bills that we sent over there. so i think it's time for the senate to work with the house, to help get the economy moving again. that's the real issue. >> do you have a concern about the people with no cash in their pockets while you play with harry reid? >> what those people want is a chance at a good job and i'm trying to give them one. >> on liquid natural gas, you said that that should be used as a wedge against russia regarding ukraine. but wouldn't exporting more liquid natural gas drive up prices for american consumers who just suffered through a very hard winter? >> we have more natural gas than we know what to do with. and there -- the law permits for drilling -- the drilling hasn't occurred because of the low price. that just believe exporting liquid natural gas to our allies creates american jobs and it takes the strangle
hold that russia has over our allies over in europe who really have no other option than to buy their natural gas from the russians. >> but no price impact, you don't think? >> long term, i don't believe so. yes, ma'am. >> mr. speaker, on the ukraine issue, will the house adopt the senate bill on the aid and sanctions? >> i expect the house will move on the bill that came out of committee yesterday. we'll do that tomorrow. we're in conversations with the senate in terms of how do we clear through this, but our goal is to work together and to get this bill done as quickly as possible. >> the problem -- >> you never know but -- [laughter] there's an awful lot of cooperation and discussion under way to try to avoid it. >> is the goal to get it to the president's desk this week? >> as soon as possible. >> speaker boehner, at the republican retreat this year,
you talked about republicans used to be the alternative party, not just the opposition party. there is a group of conservatives later today don't think you're doing enough of that and they're rolling out a jobs package because they don't believe that you and the other leaders are representing what republicans are for. going into the mid term elections, will republicans present their own alternative agenda? you haven't even put out your own health care bill yet? >> we'll leave this as the house is gaveling back in for a series of votes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] in following order. ordering the previous question on house resolution 54, adopting house resolution 524 if ordered, and suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1228. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 524 on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 92. house resolution 524. resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1459, to ensure that the national environmental policy act of 1969 applies to the declaration of national monuments and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules . the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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.]
the resolution is -- the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-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.]