tv U.S. House Legislative Business CSPAN October 8, 2015 12:00pm-4:01pm EDT
>> house republican members continue to arrive for their meeting to select their candidate for speaker. we'll break away here as the house itself is gaveling back in. we expect them to be in shortly for one-minute speeches. gavel back out and then resume legislative business later. we'll be back here live shortly. now live to the house floor on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. during these contentious and unsettling days during which an important transition is taking place within the house, we ask your presence in this assembly. imbue each member with confidence, that they are called not to be successful in any one per suit but rather
faithful -- pursuit but rather faithful to the pursuit of the welfare of the united states and faithfulness to its constitution as they have taken oaths to do. may they, with confidence, use their abilities to best perform their duties and obligations. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, 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 he journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. mr. mcnerney: please join me in reciting the flag. 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: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker: madam secretary.
the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with an amendment h.r. 623, cited as the d.h.s. social media improvement act of 2015, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair. this meeting happening across the street from the capitol at the long worth house office building.
>> house republican members still arriving. this is the long worth house office building where the meeting is taking place to select the republican's choice for speaker of the house. there are 247 members of the house republican conference. when the whole house votes, as everyone is there, present and voting, they'll need 21. that candidate will need 218 of
those voting in the house, three weeks from today, october 29, and "politico" reports earlier today that house speaker john boehner will vote for kevin mccarthy. he has to be selected by his conference first. that meeting getting under way now on capitol hill. the house itself should be back in a couple of hours. in fact, a tweet from cristina marcos of the hill d says the g.o.p. meeting now to select the new speaker, the process expected to take at least an hour, maybe two. we likely will hear some comments from members after hat meeting too.
selection for house speaker. they'll announce their selection sometime this afternoon. maybe in the next hour or two. and we expect to hear comments from republican leaders at that time. our cameras will stay here live on c-span. we'll also take you back live to the house when they return. looking for your comments as well on facebook and twitter and some tweets at c-span about the leadership election. jessica says, the house g.o.p. conference should really send out white smoke when they're done. c-span, can we get that special effect? no speaker to the house is cleared of the political class that is effectively doing nothing. host: of course the three candidates, kevin mccarthy, the majority leader, jason chaffetz, the oversight chair, and daniel webster, republican of florida. after this morning's meeting, we heard comments from both jason chaffetz and from daniel
reporter: any response? mr. chaffetz: no. reporter: [inaudible] mr. chaffetz: clearly i'm an underdog. i get that. like, i ran because i'm trying to bridge the gulf in the divide that was in the republican conference. that's what i try to do. and say, hey, it's time for a fresh start. my candidacy, albeit very much an underdog, is a fresh start for our conference and taking a new direction in how we share our message and share the message with the american people. reporter: -- about how you're going to handle the fiscal cliff coming up later this fall? mr. chaffetz: my commitment is to engage the members in a process and figure out how and
where we're going to actually hold the line. personally i have no interest in just raising unilaterally the debt ceiling. that doesn't solve our long term problem. so my commitment is to engage in a process. and in this case you really need the ways and means committee, paul ryan, to come up with a bill that we can all support and then take that fight to the senate and put a ill on the president's desk. reporter: you came into this risk -- race hoping could you bridge the divide. yesterday they endorsed daniel webster. what does that say about your standing? mr. chaffetz: i'd love to have their support. again, i'm trying to bridge the gulf in the divide and that's not just going end to today. there's healing that needs to go on. there are new processes and things that we have to do. to get this team even more unified than it's been in the past. reporter: why weren't you able to get their support? mr. chaffetz: you'll see. i'm sorry, what? reporter: why were you not able
to get their support? mr. chaffetz: clearly they did not like the fact that i said i would support the nominee. under the rules of our conference, whoever gets the majority of the votes, is the nominee. and much like the presidential race, i said i would support the nominee. i think a lot of them didn't ike that answer. reporter: a speaker has to be nominated, what does that say -- [inaudible] mr. chaffetz: i hate to engage in hypotheticals but i think there's time to go through that process. i'd love to get 247 votes up. i guess 246 votes in this case. i'd love to get 246 votes up for the speaker. that would put us in the strongest position. reporter: they're saying, they're going to ban together on the floor and try to deny someone with 218. if that does happen, will you present yourself as a consensus choice on the floor? mr. chaffetz: i started by saying i'm trying to be a
consensus person but i said i will support and vote for the nominee on the floor up. put your hat in the ring, you fight as best you can and you make the case, make the case and if you fall short, then you unite. it's very similar to the presidential election. it's very similar to what donald trump was asked in south carolina. i'm taking a very similar approach. reporter: based on what you heard today, how hard is it going to be for mccarthy to get to 21 and what does very to do to nail down the votes? mr. chaffetz: he probably has less than half our conference here this morning. again, when i started to kick this thing off just on sunday, this is what i worry about. is that the math is an issue. it will continue to be an issue. but given that there's a process here and that, if you wanted to run you could step up, i did, then i think we can yield a good result. reporter: what's this process say about where the conference is right now? and if any event speaker can --
eventual speaker can unite the party at all at this stage? mr. chaffetz: i want to engage in some process reform. if you do that process reform then you do yield a better result. but this is a healthy part of the proelse is. nobody expected that speaker boehner was going to step down. so we're going through this and in the right way and hopefully we can get united. reporter: do you think there needs to be a shakeup in the other positions in leadership? mr. chaffetz: no. reporter: you said over the weekend there are 50 who will vote against mccarthy. is that still true? mr. chaffetz: based on the people i've chatted with, you know, it's part of the reason i offered my candidacy. if they felt like they wanted to have an alternative, that i could help represent that alternative. reporter: that still true? mr. chaffetz: it will be interesting to see how many people take a similar approach to me and say, look, we had the raise and -- race and this is the result and so we'll respect
that. reporter: to be clear, you're still planning -- if you don't get the votes today, it's over for you today? mr. chaffetz: yeah. i'm going to support the nominee. whoever that is. we'll find out here in a minute. i'm going to get going. i think you got enough. reporter: you're still available as backup choice, right? will you still have your hat in the race in that regard? mr. chaffetz: i won't be campaigning or trying to do nything like that. reporter: [inaudible] mr. chaffetz: at some point, i love being the oversight chairman but it's not something i'll be campaigning for. reporter: if your conference turns to you and says, we can't get anybody, you'd be interested? mr. chaffetz: of course, yes. it's not something i'm going to campaign for. it's not something i'm trying to do. but at some point, if your conference asks to you serve, of course you do. i think everybody should do that with that same answer. reporter: even paul ryan? mr. chaffetz: yeah.
reporter: what was your final pitch to the conference? mr. webster: my final pitch is my first pitch. i want to change, transform the way we do business. not have a few people at the top of a pyramid of power, make all the decisions. but push down that pyramid of power, spread out the base, so every single member can be effective. and the other thing i would do is what i did in florida, when i was speaker of the house there, is take up the most important issues first, not last. when you press against the deadline, you lose your leverage. when you do them up front, you've got plenty of leverage and plenty of opportunities. those two things. reporter: were you playing a spoiler role here at all today for mccarthy or even in the future? mr. webster: i wouldn't call myself a spoiler. i think i'm a candidate. and i think i'm a legitimate candidate. i've done this before. i've been the speaker of the house before. in a big state. pretty complex. i know that what we did there changed our numbers from about 10% to 15% favorability to 56% favorability among the electorate. and the other thing we did was
we ended on time, we had no meetings at night and we took up the most important issues first. i think that's important. reporter: will you continue your bid for speaker if you come in short today but prevent the sitting majority leader from getting to the speakership? mr. webster: i'm focused on one thing and that is this election at noon. i'm kind of a plodder. i go along and when i get to an opportunity to make a decision, i'll make it then. reporter: that's something you might consider later but you don't know if you would consider this or be courted maybe to do that later. mr. webster: i'm going to focus on one thing and that's the election today. i've talked to you the past couple of days here. reporter: you said you haven't slept much or had a chance to eat. mr. webster: no. too many people to see, too many people to talk to, a lot of questions i just do that. plus i can think a little bit better if i don't have something in my stomach. reporter: are you nervous? mr. webster: i'm not a nervous
type. i'm usually pretty steady. i'm not a roller coaster type person. i go even. but i would say i probably have a little bit of jitters. reporter: last thing here. demonstrate to me in a concrete term how your speakership would be different than kevin mccarthy's or the existing speakership of john boehner. mr. webster: here's what i'm saying. i'm not against personalities. what i'm against is the way we operate right now. which is a power-based system. not principle. and we don't take up the most important issues first. we lose our leverage. and we let things slide and we don't include the membership. we kind of pull bills out of the air instead of using the process, use the rules to allow every person to have an opportunity to be successful. host: from this morning, daniel webster taking you live outside the meeting room. this is congressman costello of pennsylvania speaking with reporters. mr. costello: i think all of us want to find someone that can unite us and move forward and move forward legislatively. reporter: there's no explanation about why he's pulling out? mr. costello: he said he's not going to run for speaker. i have to also say. this he was not speaking as
closely into the microphone as he probably should have. there are a lot of people in there who didn't hear what he said. reporter: isn't the 29th election -- [inaudible] mr. costello: that's a good question. i don't know the answer. that was not made clear. , w, unless i go back in there it's april fool's. it just happened just now. reporter: [inaudible] can you tell us again what happened? mr. costello: what happened was kevin mccarthy went up to the microphone and said that he was not going to -- he was withdrawing his name from consideration for speaker and that he was not going to be running and with that he sat . wn speaker boehner got up and said, based on what was just said, we're going to move to
postpone elections for speaker and then cathy mcmorris rogers got up and banged the gavel and said, conference dismissed. of members ot looked around and didn't even realize what had happened until they heard from members sitting next to them that were saying a -- paying a little bit closer attention. the only other thing i would add is it was a little bit difficult to hear what kevin said from many of us because he wasn't speaking as closely into the microphone as he probably needed to for everybody to hear it. i actually thought for a time he was reiterating what speaker boehner was saying as to why speaker boehner was stepping down and only later, when he was concluding, did i realize that those were his remarks as ell. reporter: do you have any suspicion why kevin mccarthy is ropping out?
reporter: inaudible] what did he say? mr. costello: it was very similar to john bain who are said, i don't want to divide us any further. mr. jolly: the appropriate decision for kevin and his family was to stay in the post of the majority leader and allow somebody else to rise. i think he made the correct decision. i don't think he ever had a pathway to get to 218 in the house. reporter: who rises to that position now? mr. jolly: this is remarkably similar to the hastert situation of 20 years ago. where the way we ended up with speaker hastert is because the caucus got thrown into such disarray that we had to build .onsensus
host: you're seeing the headline and you may have heard from congressman ryan costello, we heard it as it happened, that kevin mccarthy is dropping out of the speaker's race apparently. let's listen in for more ossible comments from members. >> there are other crews here. there's other crews here. other people. inaudible] host: here owe soon span we opened up our phone lines. we understand they're postponing the speaker election. they made that announcement according to ryan costello and other tweets that we are seeing. kevin mccarthy, the majority leader, stepping out of that three-man race for speaker. just a couple of tweets on that process. you heard it there from congressman costello live here on c-span.
lisa who joined us this morning from the tribune bureau here in washington breaking house speaker's race postponed. host: we heard from ryan costello, the congressman, that cathy mcmorris rogers then banged the gavel and the meeting closed up. one more tweet here from a member. host: that's the meeting we covered this morning. our cameras continue live outside the longworth house office building meeting room where the meeting had been
under way. let's listen in. this is charlie dent of pennsylvania. reporter: is there somebody who you think should step up and find way to get 218 votes? jason chaffetz or daniel webster, for example. [inaudible] mr. dent: [inaudible] reporter: he said he doesn't want it. dent correct. i think everything's very fluid. inaudible] reporter: thank you, congressman. inaudible] >> no. there was no drafting talk.
reporter: [inaudible] -- did he say anything -- no, it was very short. just that he'd taken himself out. reporter: does he plan to remain the majority leader then? >> i assume so. he didn't say anything about that. reporter: what was the reaction in the room when he said it? >> shock. people were crying. reporter: people were crying? >> yeah. the person next to me was crying. reporter: who was that? >> that's none of your business. reporter: [inaudible] representative: i don't know. i mean, i like both of those guys. dan is an old florida friend and jason and i came in together. but i was one of mccarthy's lieutenants. reporter: he offer nod rationale? representative: he did. he said he doesn't want -- [inaudible] -- back home. and that he doesn't want them to feel like they're going to have to justify why they're
going with him. he just wanted to make it easier on them. we were prepared to take those arrows for the sake of our party moving forward. reporter: [inaudible] representative: don't know. it was a shock. literally. it was a shock. reporter: he just got up and said, i don't want to do this, i'm out of the race. representative: correct. we said the prayer and the pledge and that. reporter: and he got up. representative: he got up and literally said that he doesn't want people to have to defend him in their districts and that he's not going to be a distraction for them and their constituents and that he hopes that they will readjourn this meeting to a later date. he's taking himself out. reporter: wow. reporter: [inaudible] representative: i hope that
people talk sense into kevin, into not bow out and more people galvanize around him. so we can move forward. reporter: [inaudible] representative: i don't know. host: live coverage on c-span. kevin mccarthy dropping out of the race for speaker. the race postponed. let's go live and hear from california's darrell issa. ice cube in favor of a candidate who can -- mr. issa: in favor of a candidate who can get to 218. i think he will be the most influential voice to who we can get to get to 218. kevin mccarthy remains our leader, he remains a steadfast part of the -- part of our leadership and clearly the man who had the most votes by far for speaker. reporter: will he stay on as majority leader? mr. issa: as far as we know. as i said, kevin mccarthy will be the most important endorsement for whoever ultimately becomes the speaker.
reporter: does this have anything to do with that walter jones letter about possible indiscretions in the member's past? mr. issa: i believe the lead already have to speak for himself. he said he weanlt the right person. my understanding is he felt that he could not get to 218. he wants to make sure that whoever does become speaker obviously has the ability to get to 218 on the floor consistently and that's his reasoning. reporter: paul ryan, is that the only person who can get 218? mr. issa: i believe you'll have to ask the candidates who may emerge. i don't believe there was any candidate today who could get to 218. among those who had declared. i believe that's the reason speaker boehner dismissed with the intention to have the field reconsidered for someone who can get to 218 within our conference. reporter: does he stay on as speaker for the time being, longer than the end of october? mr. issa: speaker boehner remains the speaker until he formally steps down. obviously at this point what we have is a candidate who very
much said he didn't believe he could unite the conference efficiently. and he's taken himself out of the running. no other candidate came close to having the 200-plus votes that kevin mccarthy had. thank you. host: that is congressman darrell issa reacting to the news that kevin mccarthy, the majority leader, stepped out of the race today. the race for speaker's been postponed. this just happened within the minutes.o 12 charlie dent of pennsylvania speaking to reporters also outside the longworth building. let's listen in before we get to your phone calls and comments. reporter: [inaudible] mr. dent: clearly there's a lot of division in the house republican conference, it's fractured at the moment. i was in the conference meeting this morning and i said something, one member stood up, i won't say names, one member
stood up and said, only 1 republicans voted for the resolution last week. they thwarted the with will of the majority republicans by which i responded, oh, no, there were over 218 republicans last week who supported that continuing resolution. only 91 voted for it. that's the problem we have around here. we have a lot of say yes, vote no. eporter: [inaudible] >> anyone who signed their name on paper, on letter head, i'm for. i've said that repeat lid. we want a principle lead -- principal leader and someone who follows those game rules. that's all i've ever asked for. reporter: how does planned parenthood funding fit into this? you think someone who doesn't support cutting funding will be able to get through? >> i've gone over that in the long run. if you want to fall asleep go see my spee span interview for
20 minutes. that's what we're interested in. getting regular order. the budget, i'm on the budget committee. we have a budget for 10 years. that was ignored. then you go to appropriations. then who's in charge of the budget of the united states right now? can anyone tell me that? anybody? reporter: did you say -- mr. brat: who's in charge of the budget of the united states right now? anybody? you can't answer that question, which you're not answering right now, that's interesting. ought to go look it up. who's in the room in charge of the u.s. budget right now? that's what i'm talking about. that's what i want regular -- we should have had the budget process finished in april or may, right? then there's no talk about shutting down the government and you guys making up this group versus that group. i'm not interested in that. i just want to solve the problems ahead of time and that's our goal. reporter: you think you'll have another candidate apart from
bster now -- [inaudible] mr. brat: this is a dynamic process. we just reacted to reality as you all do. now we'll go back and try to do the best thing we can for the country. for the country. reporter: [inaudible] mr. brat: don't view it that way. i just view it as a move toward the conference going back to work on improving the process of the way congress works for the benefit of all americans out there. that's our goal. the objective world is the goal. kids can't get jobs, russia and syria, those are real issues we need to be tackling. reporter: what does this mean for the republican conference? mr. brat: it means we're probably moving toward regular order which would be a great thing. for the country. reporter: [inaudible] how are you going to move forward with that? mr. brat: the speaker -- i
thought it was premature. i'm glad we're moving -- i thought the date should have been set for all the elections in a few weeks. we have plenty of time to do that. reporter: you'll keep speaker boehner around for a little while longer? mr. brat: he was going to be around for a while anyway, ntil the 29th. host: kevin mccarthy stepping out of the race for house speaker. the election postponed. 202-748-920 is the number to call for republicans. host: we want your thoughts on the news that's really just happened this afternoon within the last 20 minutes or so. the meeting came in, the house republican conference meeting came in and the first news that we heard about it was from ryan costello, congressman of pennsylvania, stepping outside to meet with reporters.
here's how "huffington post" is playing it. house on fire, mccarthy drops out. is their headline. also, a look here at the front page of the "huffington post" this afternoon, also from "the hill" and the story is shock, mccarthy drops from speaker's race. you saw minutes ago charlie dent talking with reporters there. he's a republican of pennsylvania. and one tweet says that charlie dent says there may have to be a, quote, bipartisan coalition on the floor to elect the next speakerer. let's hear your thoughts. it's mike in lyndon hurst, new york. go ahead. caller: yes, sir, hi, how are you today? host: doing ok, thanks. caller: good. i think it's -- they're in total chaos. host: can i hold you up for a second? we have trent franks. let's listen in. see what he has to say. a member of the freedom caucus. reporter: was this a victory for the freedom caucus? host: we apologize about that. we're trying to get thoughts of
members. go ahead with your comments. caller: ok, sir. i think this is why john boehner left. they are in total chaos. they can't agree upon anything. i think this is the worst congress that i've ever seen in my lifetime. i'm sick of the -- i'm 68 years old. i think we're in total chaos. i don't know how it's going to be fixed. i am a democrat but i must tell you, i'm going to vote for donald trump. i think he may be the man to straighten out everything. i think he'll be fair, i think he'll be firm, but he won't take any guff from anybody. host: more of your calls coming in. congressman franks there just wrapping up his comments with reporters. let's go to catherine who is on our democrats line. catherine -- or the republican line. catherine in california. caller: hi. i just agree -- disagree with the gentleman who just spoke. the house of representatives is not a mess.
i'm very, very disappointed in everything they have not done. but it is not -- they're not in a mess because of what they're doing. they're in a mess because of what they won't do. they were sent there by us, the voters, to do certain things. let's just take a very simple thing like national e-verify. come on. can't get that through a house and the senate, national voter i.d., can't do something with the immigration policies? john boehner and john mccain and lindsey graham, they want to sell our country out. i'm glad that kevin dropped out. he's just another boehner. that's all he is. and so is chave etc. -- chaffetz. we need people who will stand up for our constitution and enforce our laws. thank you. host: as far as we know the nomination process didn't even
start in that meeting, so here's how this played out today. the conference, republican conference, heard from all three candidates this morning in an early morning meeting. they came back in at noon eastern to nominate the three individuals and hear from them and cast their votes. and from what we hear, that meeting, kevin mccarthy dropped out of that race. couple of tweets on that.
host: how the rest of the afternoon schedule will play out, we don't exactly know. the house has some legislative business to take up. dealing with native american energy rights. but that's about it. so that is likely to happen at some point this afternoon. we haven't heard word yet when they'll gavel back in. we'll have live coverage when they do. let's listen in. more comments from members here at the longworth house office building. >> he was making his plea this morning for speaker and this afternoon he said he's out of the race. what happened in those four hours i don't know. reporter: do you feel like this worked out better for conservatives or was the strategy a mistake now that mccarthy is not going to be in the race? >> now that he's not going to be in the race it will be a more open process. we'll have more options. one of the problems we're dealing with here is constituents were calling my office saying, well, look, if all we're going to do is elevate number two to number one, how are we any better off?
mr. fleming: they're all part of the same power structure. in their view, we're making mistakes and not representing the people. so, they were saying, we don't want boehner 2.0. i think he recognizes that there was some resistance out there among the grassroots. but is that the reason why he declined not to run? i don't know. you'll have to ask him. reporter: there wasn't anything in the past few hours -- mr. fleming: that i'm aware of. the freedom caucus has not done anything in the last four hours that boo have changed this race in any way. i would hesitate to credit or to blame the freedom caucus in any way. because we've done nothing or said nothing in the four hours since he met with us today at 12:00. reporter: will he remain the majority leader? mr. fleming: i would only assume that he is. he made no statement otherwise. reporter: [inaudible] mr. fleming: well, we'll see
who else puts their name forward. and perhaps somebody in the freedom caucus now will stand up and apply himself or herself for that job. reporter: thank you, sir. reporter: at 8:00 -- inaudible] host: house majority leader kevin mccarthy drops out of the race for speaker. the race for speaker, the election process, postponed until further notice. we're getting your comments and calls. host: here's new mexico, go ahead. actually, hang on. that's tim huelskamp of kansas. who heads the tea party caucus. let's see if we can hear something from congressman huelskamp.
mr. huelskamp: my guess is there will be more jumping in. reporter: [inaudible] -- is everything wide open? mr. huelskamp: when we made the decision, the house freedom caucus, it was a supermajority position. reporter: [inaudible] -- huelskamp: [inaudible] april of 2011, the first bill had -- [inaudible] -- there's a lot of work to do. [inaudible] -- they spent more time beating up than working with them. reporter: your critics are saying you're not a -- [inaudible] . huelskamp: [inaudible]
reporter: there was never a vote. -- huelskamp: [inaudible] what i do believe -- [inaudible] -- we need to include more people. [inaudible] -- they've done their best. u.s. chamber of commerce has announced a $100 million campaign to attack conservatives. probably might not want to do hat. [inaudible] we haven't had a meeting since then. his approach, which involved more people, fewer insiders --
-- actually not that different from what john boehner did in 2010 but he never delivered. reporter: do you think the freedom caucus will revote or reenconscious re-endorse? -- or re-endorse? mr. huelskamp: we haven't had the meetings. [inaudible] -- many of us are not even sure what we heard. [inaudible] -- i am not the one to get you a quote. we're looking for a speak who are can bring the republican party together. clearly 80% of americans -- -- the person will
be second in line for the president. reporter: do you think there's anybody at this point who could get to 218? mr. huelskamp: there's plenty of people who could. but they need to make sure they're work for the members and they need to be humble. we need a humble speaker. someone who is willing to step up. webster brings experience. he's clearly the frontrunner now for speaker of the house. reporter: thank you, sir. r. huelskamp: thank you. host: tim huelskamp who is the chair of the tea party caucus reacting to the news that kevin mccarthy is stepping out, withdrawing his name from consideration for house speaker. but staying on as majority leader. the race, the election, has been postponed. we continue with your calls. we go to linda in new mexico. linda, i want to apologize for interrupting you. we do want to hear from our callers. we also want to hear from some of the members. kind of a back and forth tug of
war there. go ahead with your comments. linda in new mexico. caller: no problem. thank you for taking my call. i'm an independent and i just think the current situation i think, e, irrevocable fracturing of the republican party. how does the republican voter or conservative independent have confidence in any republican leadership for the country? if they can't get it together in the house. and yet at the same time third critical of democratic leadership. i think, you know, i've been looking at -- we might take some lessons on conservatism from britain. look at david cameron. he calls himself a compassionate conservative and in the last five years he's accomplished many acts on immigration, social reform, all sorts of things with
referendums in britain. but the republican party is eally, i think it's totally -- it's irrevocably fractured at this point. host: jim in fair tax, virginia. i'm sorry, jim, we'll get to you in a second. this is berlin, new hampshire, and ralph, republican line, go ahead. caller: yes. i'd like to make a comment. thank you for taking my call. i've been a republican for years. 62 years old. and i've seen a lot come and go . we've elected these officials to represent the people and it's the people's business that is going to be supported. as far as this idea that it's a fractured republican party, i think this is a ruse that the democrats are putting together. host: we'll ask to you hang on. you can continue with your comments.
let's listen in to congressman ruppersberger. speaking to reporters. mr. ruppersberger: a long period of time. reporter: how do you think people are viewing the freedom caucus right now? mr. ruppersberger: i don't know. it depends on if you think what happened is what's best for the party. and i do. reporter: do you? mr. ruppersberger: yes. this is what was best for the party. reporter: why? mr. ruppersberger: why? because kevin just said so. mr. rohrabacher: he said it was best for the party and best for ontract the country. reporter: is there concern with the care taker position of speaker that the same things will happen, this they won't be able to have any clout? mr. rohrabacher: we are entering an election year where no one expectses there to be major legislative initiatives. that's what happens during the presidential election year. we need someone to lead our
party, make sure we get the basics done while the american people decide who's going to lead the country in the next decade. reporter: [inaudible] mr. rohrabacher: could be. he's very respected. we've got, as i say, i say there's about 10 senior members who would love to make sure that we step in and calm things down and give us the leadership to bridge the situation. reporter: what about conservatives saying we're not going to back -- [inaudible] mr. rohrabacher: i think we'll have to determine that, what the policies will be next week. reporter: to be clear, how long would you envision this care taker -- mr. rohrabacher: until the next election. and then right after the we -- n we come back and [inaudible] >> don't run, don't run! please walk. please walk.
please walk. please walk. >> whose -- what's wrong? >> please walk, ladies and gentlemen. please walk. >> stay back, please! >> don't duplicate. host: majority leader kevin mccarthy just passing reporters. he's just issued a statement about his withdrawing from the race, saying, quote, i have the deepest respect and regard for each member of the conference and the team as a whole. it is imperative for us. and here's leader mccarthy now. live comments from kevin mccarthy. kev mr. mccarthy: come on over, guys. come on un. -- on up. all right. i think i shocked some of you, huh?
listen. we've been going through this campaign, talking to a lot of members, but the one thing i've always said, to earn this majority, we're servants. we should put this conference first. and i think there's something to be said for us to unite, we probably need a fresh face. i'll stay on as majority leader, but the one thing i found in talking to everybody, if we are going to unite and be strong, we need a new face to help do that. so, nothing more than that. i feel good about the decision. i feel great to have my family here, my colleagues. i think we're only going to be stronger. we fought hard to win this majority and turn this country around. reporter: ll be -- at 8:00 a.m. you were going to run for the speaker ship. why change it at noon? what happened in those four hours? mr. mccarthy: we had our conference and there's calls into the district. i don't want making voting for
speaker a tough one. i don't want to go to the floor and win with 220 votes. i think the best thing for our party right now is that you have 247 slow thes on the floor. if we are going to be -- votes on the floor. if we are going to be strong, we have to be 100% united. i think, you know what, let's put the conference first. i have been talking with a number of members. we have been thinking about this throughout the week trying to see if we can get there. i just think it's best we have a new face. >> comments about benghazi last week playing into your decision? mr. mccarthy: that wasn't helpful. this benghazi committee was only created for one purpose. to find the truth on behalf of
the families for the poor dead americans. i should not be a distraction from that. and that's part of the decision as well. >> congressman jones saying that members -- [inaudible] >> no. come on. i think the conference should be able to decide. thank you very much. host: kevin mccarthy on his reasoning for stepping away from the speaker race. tweeting from bob cue sack, covers capitol hill. editor in chief of "the hill." mccarthy dropping out of the speaker race is the most stunning news since eric cantor he -- has loss.
we were talking with ralph in berlin, new hampshire. sorry for the interruption. wanted to hear from the majority leader. let's get back to your thoughts. you were talking about reacting to a call on the republican party being divided. go ahead. caller: i just want to clarify they are not divided. we as the voting public put these representatives in place to do something in congress. they are divided because there are some members that have democrat leanings. and that's why they are searching for a new face as mr. mccarthy said. i'm 100% for looking for a new face. just as we are looking for a new face for president. thank you. host: here's jim in fairfax, democrats' line. what are you seeing in all this, jim? caller: thank you for taking the call. couldn't be happyier. the disarray the republicans are
demonstrating. however listening to each of their comments was quite disappointing to hear none of them mentioned the fact that the speaker is a certain line to succeed the president. so they claim they are looking for a state person. they claim they are looking for someone who has leadership capacity. but negligent to mention that very -- neglect to mention that very important criteria about succession. as a democrat this is great news. they'll continue to destroy it and eat their young. thank you. host: more comments from members as they come up. take you back live. the house is gaveling in. more of your calls and comments later here on c-span. educators. ms. hahn: many of my friends and members of my staff went to fanning high school. they can trace life long friendships and some of their fondest memories to their team there -- to their time there. tomorrow night fanning will settle brate its milestone at its homecoming football game against the san peed row pirates -- san pedro pirates.
both schools are in my district, however, so i'm not taking sides. but i want to wish both teams good luck and wish the pilots a happy 90th birthday. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. zinke: mr. speaker, i rise in support of lifting the ban on crude oil exports. it means jobs, 500,000 to a million jobs across the country and 2,400 jobs in montana. with a revenue of at least $120 million. as a former navy s.e.a.l. commander, i understand the importance of national security. and i do not want this nation to be reliant on foreign energy sources and being held hostage by foreign countries for our energy needs. it's been a long standing policy of this country to be energy-independent and lifting the crude oil ban is part of that. lowering gas prices, all estimates look at lowering the as prices between 1.5 and 13
cents per gallon. that's savings to every american family. i urge the senate to take this up. this is not a partisan issue. this is not a republican or a democrat issue. this is a national security issue that i ask the senate to take it up. i am confident it will come out of the house in numbers that are bipartisan. anyone who votes against releasing the ban, there's only one country on the face of the planet that has a ban on crude oil and that is here. even iraq and iran can export their crude. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek does the gentlelady seek unanimous consent? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. miss ma leaney: mr. speaker -- mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, last week we experienced the 45th school shooting in 2015. nearly 10,000 people have been killed by guns this year alone.
yet too many leaders respond with absolute indifference. they tell us stuff happens. that we should just move on. are the 20 kids killed at sandy hook elementary school stuff happening? are the 12 -- 32 murdered at virginia tech just stuff happening? are the 12 people gunned down in an aurora, colorado, movie theater just stuff happening? what about the nine people umpqua community college on friday? it does not have to happen. let's make gun trafficking and illegal weapons a federal felony and have universal background checks. let's end the moments of silence on the floor. and have, instead, votes on the floor to end gun violence.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize october as domestic violence awareness month. violence against women is not a partisan problem. it's an american problem an so it demands a bipartisan solution. as a father, son, and husband to me this issue is about protecting families. plain and simple. unfortunately, debate in washington is often dominated by the same tired politics, divisive rhetoric, and misguided notion that some issues are just too tough to take on. we can't allow this gridlock to stop us from working to ensure that every woman feels safe and every child lives free from fear. that's why i helped introduce the zero tolerance for domestic abusers act. this bill is a commonsense
solution to bring federal law in line with over 30 states that have already had protections in place to keep guns out of the hands of abusers. to protect families, and curb domestic abuse by preventing domestic violence from becoming domestic murder. together we can make our country safer, which is why i encourage my colleagues to join me on this supportingegislation safety and security for all americans. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. withoutker pro tempore: objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i rise during the hispanic her taje month to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing dolores wertha for a lifetime of service and honor her on the 85th anniversary of her birth. living in stockton, california, she witnessed the unjust exploitation and suffering of migrant workers, refusing to stay slenslent on the face of brutal working conditions, she
joined cesar chavez to found what is now united farm workers. the leading advocacy voice for the migrant community. her actions were essential to pass the 1975 california agricultural labor relations act. her tenacity is captured in the resonating chants that still gives voice to today's civil rights movements. in 2012 dolores received the distinguished presidential medal of freedom. she continues to organize communities to fight for social justice as president of the dolores werta foundation. for her lifetime of service i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring her. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia virginia tech for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 702, to lift the
outdated ban on crude oil exports. this 40-year-old ban was enacted during the time of oil scarcity in the 1970's and in an effort to preserve domestic oil reserves and discharge foreign imports. mr. carter: today the ban is driving the price at the pump while discouraging american energy independence. the united states is now the largest oil producer in the world. producing more barrels ber per day than saudi arabia an russia. but we cannot take full advantage of this without the ability to export crude oil as the boon in domestic oil production has surpassed the ability for our domestic refiners to process crude oil for export. the ban on crude oil exports was created in reaction to market conditions at the time. these conditions no longer exist. while the president is opening up oil markets for iran with a nuclear agreement, u.s. oriole producers should have the same access to the global markets. it's time to lift the ban on crude oil exports. i urge my colleagues to support lifting the crude oil ban and i yield the remainder of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. sirse: -- mr. sires: -- mr. payne: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor ms. alma baity, the long-time vice president of community affairs at the beth israel medical center who passed away earlier this year. she was born in new jersey and became one of the city's most beloved citizens through her 45 years of service at the beth. under her leadership, the beth became a model of excellence in protecting the most vulnerable among us. thanks to her vision, the beth institute is a number of community service programs that continue to this day. including adopt a child for christmas program. last month i had the honor of
participating in a ceremony to change the name of osborne terence to alma beatty way. it's a fitting recognition of her contributions to the city of newark, the state of new jersey, and the united states of america. to her family i extend my thoughts and prayers and continued love for the work that she's done in our community. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to celebrate the leadership of a consummate civil servant, a skilled strat an astute advisor for his outstanding service to the congress for a better part of three decades. a proud son of iowa who was deeply dedicated to our country to advancing the democratic
agenda on the house floor, and to strengthening our democratcy. an exemplary professional i had the privilege to have lead on my staff for the past 13 years. i speak of respected across on both sides of the aisle, jerry harts. jerry is a master of house rules and parliamentary procedure. over the years jerry has managed the influential and consequential debates on the house floor. he played a vital role in advancing our democratic efforts to improve the lives of americans by moving forward vital legislation. we simply could not have done that without you, jerry. on the most challenging and critical legislation -- legislative issues of our day, jerry consistently exhibited the wisdom, the creativity, and the fairness, and the fairness needed to improve our world. we will miss his experience and expertise, i am proud that jerry
will continue to contribute to shaping our nation at the national democratic institute. thank you to jerry's wife, jennifer, who is with us today, and their daughters, for sharing jerry with us all these years. earlier this morning we had a huge number of members of congress come pay their respects to jerry and to jennifer. a large number of staff from both sides of the aisle who recognize jerry's sense of fairness. thank you, jerry, for your long and excellent service to the democratic caucus, to this house, as united states congress and in doing so to the united states of america. thank you for your patriotism and your leadership. ield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of
the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 466 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 65, house resolution 466. resolved, that at any time after the 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. 538, to facilitate the development of energy on indian lands by reducing federal regulations that impede tribal development of indian lands and for other purposes. 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. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-30. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment is in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of 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. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on
any amendment adopted in the ommittee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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, 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. 702, to adapt to changing crude oil market conditions. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-29. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of 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. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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 ithout instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, house resolution 466 provides for the consideration of h.r. 538, native american energy act, and h.r. 702, which will repeal the ban on exporting crude oil. house resolution 466 calls for a structured rule which makes in order 12 total amendments, including seven minority amendments and two bipartisan amendments. mr. bryne: both of these bills deal with easing the regulatory burden when it comes to the energy sector. from coastal alabama, i have a great appreciation for the impact the energy sector has on our economy. and i am a strong supporter for all-of-the-above approach to energy. unfortunately washington has a bad habit of putting up costly barriers that make it harder for the energy sector to grow and create new jobs. today it's about getting some of these barriers out of the way and unlocking our nation's energy potential. one of the bills, the native american energy act, would roll back the overregulation of
indian lands and encourage energy development by indian tribes and alaska native corporations. from streamlining duplicative federal processes to increasing tribal control over natural resource development, this bill includes important reforms to unlock the precious energy resources on tribal land. and to allow these tribes to take more control of their energy assets. in fact, a 2015 report from the government accountability office found that, quote, indian energy resources hold significant potential for development, but remain largely undeveloped. closed quote. mr. speaker, they remain largely undeveloped because the federal government is standing in the way. this he's resulted in -- has resulted in lost revenue for indian tribes and it's time we fix this problem. this commonsense legislation has strong support from tribes across the nation, including the southern yute indian tribe, the confederate tribes, the
intertribal timber council, the navajo nation, three affiliated tribes of the reservation in north dakota, and the national congress of american indians. it is time the federal government gets out of the way and allows tribal nations to manage their land how they see fit, without the heavy hand of government getting in the way. the second bill, covered by this rule, would end the outdated ban on crude oil exports. the ban was first put in place in 1975 as a response to the arab oil embargo. but it's clearly no longer necessary and it's tying our hands both economically and strategically around the world. over the last decade, the united states has become the leading producer of oil and natural gas in the world. which is good news for the countless americans who work in the oil industry. it's even better news for the american economy. mr. speaker, there is broad bipartisan support for lifting
the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports. leading economists, including former obama economic policy advisor, and leading scholars at harvard university, support lifting the ban. former u.n. ambassador and energy secretary under president clinton, bill richardson, said the u.s. needs to export our oil and gas in order to, quote, help us geopolitically in eastern europe against russia, closed quote. recently 135 senior legislative leaders from 40 states and puerto rico sent a letter calling on congress to lift the ban. the letter notes that, quote, the outdated federal export restrictions on crude oil and l.n.g. are detrimental to american workers, our collective security and economic recovery in our states, closed quote. there were three signers of the letter in mr. hasting's home state of florida. numerous editorial boards
around the country, including those at the "wall street journal," "the washington post," the detroit news, the "denver post," "the washington times" and the houston chronicle d have out toed the benefits of end -- have touted the benefits of ending the ban. 69% of american people support lifting this ban. shouldn't we stand with the american people? now, mr. speaker, let's talk about some of the benefits from lifting the outdated ban. first, it is estimated that this legislation would create 630,000 additional u.s. jobs by 2019. lifting the ban would also benefit u.s. manufacturers and boost our g.d.p. second, the congressional budget office estimates that lifting the ban would generate $1.4 billion from oil and gas leases over the next 10 years. that is really a significant number. third, the governmental
accountability office finds that lifting the ban would lower gas prices by anywhere from 1 1/2 to 13 cents per gallon. even president obama's own department of energy found that increased oil exports would help lower gas prices. fourth, lifting the ban will allow the united states to help our allies abroad. for example, russia has continually used their control over oil to pressure european countries to comply with russia's wishes. if a country refused, russia would threaten to cut off their energy supply. by lifting the ban, the united states can begin supporting our allies and in turn weaken russia's grip on marine european countries -- many european countries. it's interesting this administration has worked hard to open up oil export capabilities for iran yet they refuse to allow the united states to do so. by allowing iran to export oil, the president has essentially given the ayatollah a leg up in
the global marketplace. placing the strategic interests of iran over those of the united states. this is yet another example of the president of the united states standing with the people of iran, the ayatollah, and not standing up for the people of america. these are four very clear benefits for repealing the ban and unlocking our nation's energy potential. the white house has said they believe lifting the oil export ban is a decision that should be made by the commerce department not by congress. so let me get this straight. the obama administration would rather unelected, unaccountable federal bureaucrats at the department of commerce make this decision instead of the democratically collected -- elected congress. i think that speaks to a far larger problem with this white house and how they believe our government should work. ultimately, meeks, both of these bills -- mr. speaker, both of these bills are about empowering the american people and getting the government out of the way. these bills have broad support
and i urge my colleagues to approve this rule. let's move forward on passing these commonsense bills. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from alabama for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. mr. speaker, this rule provides for consideration of both h.r. 702, legislation to adapt to the changing crude oil market conditions, and h.r. 538, the native american energy act. as we've seen time and again, and what can only be described as typical republican fashion, we have again skirted regular order. as a matter of fact, whatever happened to regular order in this institution? it seems to have gone by the
boards. here we are considering two unrelated pieces of legislation under one grab bag rule. what's more, instead of striving to roll back environmental protections, we should be working in a bipartisan manner to avoid a government shutdown in december. address the debt ceiling, pass a long-term transportation bill so that we can rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and put americans back to work. and re-authorize the export-import bank. the charter to which republicans allowed to expire 100 days ago. the 1973 oil embargo sparked a crisis in our country and that continues to influence our energy policies today. h.r. 702, the first of the
bills we are debating today, makes significant changes to the energy policy and onservation act. yes. you want me to talk loud, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may resume. mr. hastings: when i was in law school they said, make a noise like a lawyer. but anyway. the primary statute for restricting the export of domestically produced crude oil that was enacted in the wake of the embargo, it goes without saying that the energy situation in the united states is far different today than it was in the 1970's, when the oil export ban began. global crude oil prices fell to 6 1/2-year lows in august. we have such a surplus of oil that the number of rigs drilling for oil in the united
states dropped to 614 last week , down from 1,609 last october. based on these facts, it behoove us to re-examine this -- re-exam this export ban. but this unwisely repeals the authority of the president to restrict the export of petroleum products on natural gas and prohibblets any federal official from -- prohibits any federal official from imposing or enforcing restrictions on the export of crude oil. . last night in the rules committee i asked the question whether president obama deserves any credit for the lower gas prices. certainly when gas prices were higher he received an awful lot of criticism and blame, and it would seem to me that with the increased number of leases that he has allowed that he should get some credit at least. moreover, the bill makes it
virtually impossible to limit exports of coal, natural gas, petroleum products, and petrochemical feed stocks. repealing this authority would eliminate our ability to restrict the export of any of these products. lifting this ban would provide a gift to oil companies on top of the decades of lucrative subsidies the industry already receives by the american taxpayers. enough is enough. i would also note that the term, i brought it up in the rules committee last night, i didn't get a clear answer, but the term restriction is undefined. let me quote my good friend, frank pallone of nng new jersey, the ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce, and i quote him, he said, since the term restriction is undefined, any federal action
that could potentially impede the efficient exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing, and regulation of energy resources, including fossil fuels, could be considered a restriction. end of quote. for instance, in order to shut down a pipeline that has been determined to be a hazard to public safety and the environment, under the pipeline safety act, could be seen as a restriction. mr. speaker, h.r. 538 suffers from similar deficiencies. h.r. 538 has the stated purpose of empowering native american tribes to utilize and develop energy resources on their lands. i hesitate because i don't understand what part of sovereignty with reference to
native americans in this country that we do not understand. and therefore they should not have to be here hand in hand about their own resources, but tribal lands often hold great potential for domestic energy production. yet tribes often cannot harness the full economic development potential of their natural resources, but this bill tries to solve this problem by undercutting the important environmental protections. in the name of encouraging energy production on tribal lands, this bill severely restricts public involvement and comment on proposed energy projects, prevents the recovery f attorneys' fees in cases challenging these two energy projects. effectively chilling the public's ability to bring bonn
phied claims to seek judicial redress for environmental harms in their communities. just for good measure, this legislation blocks any common sense hydraulic fracturing rules. instead of undermining the bedrock of our nation's vital environmental protections, we should focus on real constructive reforms that will achieve tribal self-determination in energy development without sacrificing it commonsense environmental laws. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the esteemed gentleman from montana, mr. zinke. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized for two minutes. mr. zinkey: i rise in support of h.r. 538, the native american energy act. mr. young, my esteemed colleague
from alaska, i commend him on his efforts over the years. this represents a significant step for tribes across the country, especially in my state of montana. i have only been in the seat for a few months and i can tell you that the government, the federal government, has infringed on the sovereignty of our tribes to develop their own natural resources. what is sovereignty? sovereignty is not going through a labrinyth of rules that are far greater than other federal lands or state lands. it's not right. it's not right for the crow people. it's not right for every indjanuary nation across this land. -- indian nation across this land. the government has infringed. the g.a.o. report examines it and states as much. the crow tribe, a proud tribe within montana, they want to be self-sufficient. they want to make sure they have a prosperous economy and do right by their people. coyote, hairman, old
has said a war on coal is a war on the crow people. and he is right. there is no better job on the crow reservation than a coal job. there is no better future than have access of the nine billion tons of coal that are locked in the ground that they can't develop and they can't develop in the interest of their own people because the federal government is in the way. this bill doesn't skirt environmental rules or laws. what it does is it streamlines the position. it streamlines their sovereignty and their rights. and that's important. so, mr. speaker, my colleagues, this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is an american issue and it's about respect. i ask all members to respect the native tribes, respect their
right to sovereignty. respect their right for self-determination. with that, mr. speaker, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. background checks are the first line of defense to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. if we defeat the previous question, i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would expand the current background check system to include all commercial sales of firearms. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in 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. hastings: to discuss our proposal, i'm very pleased to yield to my good friend from california, mr. thompson, five minutes to discuss this matter. he is the chair of the house gun violence prevention task force.
and i now yield to mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule today and in support of bringing the bipartisan king-thompson background check bill to the floor for a vote. let me give you some numbers. 278, the number of mass shootings in our country since newtown. 275, the number of days this congress has been in session. 16, the number of gun related moments of silence congress has held since the start of last year. and zero, the number of votes taken to help prevent or lessen gun violence. just a week ago we endured another mass shooting. this time it was nine people at a community college in oregon. six weeks ago it was a news reporter and cameraman in virginia. five weeks before that it was two people at the movies in lafayette. and five weeks before that was a
prayer group in charleston. every single time a mass shooting happens, we go through the same routine. thoughts and prayers are sent. statements are made. stories are written. moments of silence are held. and nothing changes. no action is taken. no votes are cast. it's been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. the majority leadership has done nothing over and over again and predictably the results have been the same. more innocent lives lost. more families forever changed. and more mass gun violence. the five republican co-authors of our background check bill notwithstanding, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done nothing as mass gun violence has become commonplace. no bills have been brought to the floor. no ideas have been brought to the table. and no proposals have even been considered.
you have the majority in the house and in the senate. you have a white house and a democratic caucus willing to work with you. and you are presumably here to govern and lead. a big part of that means stepping up when children, students, and families are routinely put in danger. gun violence takes the lives of 30-plus americans every single day. it constitutes a public health emergency that demands action from the public's leaders. we have it in our power to do something. let's not waste that. we don't know what laws could have prevented the shooting in oregon or virginia or charleston, but we do know that every day background checks stop more than 170 felons, some 50 domestic abusers, and nearly 20 fugitives from buying a gun. we know they help keep guns from dangerous people and that saves lives. this isn't about the second amendment. i'm a hunter and gun owner. i support the second amendment.
and if the king-thompson background check bill undermineded that -- rights of gun owners, my name wouldn't be on it. this is about keeping guns from criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill. it's about taking a simple commonsense step to keep spouses, kids, and communities safe. all this bill does is require a background check for people buying a gun online or at a gun show. why would anyone not want to make sure the people buying guns on the internet or at a gun show are sane, law-abiding citizens? we do it at licensed dealers, why not for all commercial sales? why do we want to give criminals, domestic abusers, and dangerously mentally ill a huge loophole through which they can buy guns. it makes no sense. we can do one of two things here today. we can wait out the new cycle, allow the horror of oregon to fade into our minds, do nothing, wait for the next tragedy, and
then offer thoughts and prayers. that would be nothing new. it's what the majority did with newtown. it's what they did with navy yard. it's what they did with identical vista, charleston, and virginia. this time could be different. we could actually pull together and do something to make our country safer. no legislation will stop every shooting, but passing commonsense gun laws like background checks will at least stop some. and that makes it worth doing. don't sit here and let america's new normal become mass gun violence followed by thoughts and prayers but no action. we are here to govern. this is happening on our watch and it's within our power to save some lives. let's do it. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, who is a tireless advocate for the energy interest of his state of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from al for yielding time to me. -- alabama for yielding time to me. i support this rule and the underlying legislation, h.r. 702, which would lift the ban on oil exports for this country. the united states is the only oil producing country that has a self-imposed ban, and it makes no sense. it doesn't fit within our own views of open trade, open energy markets. why did this come about? it came about because in the 1970's we moved into an age of scarcity with regard to energy. our producers could not keep up with demand. but american innovation, american technology solved that. and now we have moved into an era of abundance. this is a time where we can actually change the entire landscape of energy security, not only for the united states, but also for our allies and reap major economic benefit by lifting the ban. when we came out of the
recession, energy jobs helped lift us out of that recession. this revolution, the shale revolution, was a major factor. what we are seeing now with slack demand and the abundance and a lot of oil sitting that is not being used in refineries has caused slacking the prices and job loss. we can reverse that by lifting the ban and giving american producers access to the market. just like everybody else that produces oil. why should the iranians be able to sell oil on the open market and we have a self-imposed ban on american energy producers? it makes no sense at all. secondly, if we lift the ban, this is a first and necessary step, i believe, in building out a whole new energy strategy for the united states that leads to an american view, an american imprint on energy security. not a russian and not an opec view of this. why? because we embrace open markets. we embrace diversity of sources. we embrace transparency in
pricing. that's what we want. lifting the ban is that first step. secondly, if we couple this with building out more pipelines that help us integrate the mexican market, energy market, and the canadian, the north american ira clear -- area can clearly take care of all our demesseck demands and have plenty to export and -- mr. byrnes: i yield an additional minute. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. this will then move us in the position of dominating energy strategy globally, putting opec and russia on the defense. they cannot keep up with american energy producers. they don't have the innovation. they don't have the technology. and they are running budget deficit that is are harmful to their countries. they will have to change and we will dominate the energy sector. . the last step in this, if we integrate this with our trade policy, we eliminate the abusive practices that these national oil companies perpetrate and put american
open market companies, multinational companies, back in the driver's seat. but we also help american producers and producers in my home state of louisiana. small companies that are suppliers, small companies that provide the service, the boat companies, the maritime companies that help facilitate all of this. this is about job creation, this is about american energy production, it's about american energy security, and it's about having leverage in our foreign policy. that's why i support this first step of lifting this ban on crude exports. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. before yielding, i'd like to speak very briefly about process. because a lot of times people don't understand that the base bill that we are discussing today, the two rules, the process allows the minority an opportunity to present a motion . -- motion to recommit. one of the parts of that
process that we're discussing here today has to do with gun violence. mr. thompson, who just spoke about it, eloquently, i add to what he had to say. here in washington, d.c., in the last six days, five people have been killed by guns. in chicago, in my hometown, around this nation, in addition to the mass killings, there are number of killings. david hatcher -- thatcher was surgeon general of the united tates from 1998 to 2002. in the tweer 2000 -- year 2000 he's the first person that i know that raised publicly the fact that we have a gun violence epidemic in this country. there were people that wanted to run him out of office because of that. we need to pay attention and for the purpose of discussing
this further, someone that has had a real experience with gun violence, i yield two minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. esty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is ecognized for two minutes. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the rule and in support of the opportunity to vote for commonsense, bipartisan gun violence prevention legislation. mr. speaker, i represent newtown, connecticut, and on december 14, 2012, almost three years ago, 20 precious children and six dedicated educators were ripped from us by gun violence. and after that, america said, never again. but just two days ago, two days ago, we observed another moment
of silence in this house, this time for the community of roseburg, oregon. and as with every other mass shooting since newtown, families and first responders in my district are retraumatized. in fact, by my count we have held 16 moments of silence on the house floor to honor those americans taken from us by gun violence since the tragedy at sandy hook. 16 times we in this house have come together and bowed our heads in silence. and then refused to do anything substantial to prevent gun violence. mr. speaker, we can and we must do better. we must be allowed a vote on the bipartisan bill that will close background check loopholes and save lives. 90% of americans support background checks. background checks keep guns out
of the hands of dangerous people. that is why every gun purchase should be allowed only after a successful background check. we are not dealing with a natural disaster. this is not an earthquake. this crisis is manmade and it is up to us to take action to save lives. the time has passed for moments of silence. we need hours of action. i urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote today to bring up the bipartisan background check to the house floor. thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bryne: mr. speaker, i think what the gentleman from florida said at the beginning was inaccurate. he said that we brought two things together in this rule that are not related to one another. they are. they're related both to energy production in this country. and that's what the rule is about. now, i'm standing here today as the grandson of a man who was
shot and killed by someone who was mentally ill in 1920. i know the importance of that issue. i know what it means to families. who have been victimized by it. and there may be a day and a time for us to have this debate, but it's not today. today we're talking about the energy security of our country. it was today we're here to talk about freeing up the american economy and freeing up domestic producers so that they can sell their product abroad, as we are now going to allow iran to sell their product abroad. so i would like for us to get back to the debate on energy. that's what we're here today about. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the gentleman doesn't have the prerogative of what the minority has and that is an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. he's correct that there are two bills that are being brought here in this grab bag rule. but if he says that today is not the day for us to discuss gun violence, then i wanted to ask him, what day is it that we
are supposed to support gun violence? people are being killed all over this nation and we have an epidemic and we are constantly not doing anything about it. if it's not today, when? if it's not us, who? mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman, my good friend from california, mrs. napolitano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. napolitano: i thank the gentleman and i would like to say, i agree with my colleague. if not now, when? we've been asking that for many, many generations. the mass shootings, american families are demanding congress to act. they want action. but congress has not heard any bills. they refuse to hear them. there's nothing being given an opportunity to have the light of day or to have some transparency to it. the last meaningful gun violence prevention bill was in 1994. and that was a prevention act.
now, shootings, as was pointed out, are now an everyday occurrence and it's commonplace. so people are becoming numb. except for those that are immediately affected. and are asking us to move and pass legislation, give it the light of day, discuss it, bring it up, start some methodology to be able to understand what this house is looking at doing for our american people, for our children, for our families. now, collective action, we need it. transparent discussion is necessary. and much needed. but enough of skirting this issue. yes, what's more important, gas and oil or the lives of human beings? keep guns away from people that should not have them and/or would use them to harm others. h.r. 1217 mandates universal background checks for all purchases. it's a step in the right direction. and would move our country forward in beginning the process of addressing this epidemic that we're facing. we need real constructive
legislation. we need to prevent and lessen violence, we must keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have access to them. such as the dangerously mentally ill. now, domestic abusers and people with violent histories also should not have access to them and they currently do. now, without sigma advertising those with mental illness, because then you have a problem on your hands, we need to inform, educate and help young people, families, educators, those who are exhibiting emotional disturbances, some kind of exhibition, helping them learn how to access information and assistance. with that i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bryne: mr. speaker, i recognize the gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman and -- for yielding time. but i also -- i don't want to disrespect in any way the minority's opportunity that they have. but i did come here to talk about the energy bills.
and i chose to go last on this side because i like to address some of the thoughtful concerns that were raised by mr. cummings from florida. and i call them concerns because i didn't hear real objections. i think they're legitimate concerns that some people have had and deserve the discussion. but we are talking about the rule here. he made a suggestion that somehow this lifting of the oil export ban bill, h.r. 702, takes the president's prerogative away to deal with a situation at all costs or every situation. the reality is it does reserve a right for the president to reinstate the ban in some sort of an emergency. i want to make sure that that's collarified. i also want to clarify, he mentioned we're not in regular order and perhaps he's referring to the native american energy act. i know we've had a couple of hearings since i've been in congress on that. but perhaps not this congress. i don't know. i'm not on that committee. but i can tell you that the energy and commerce committee has had a hearing on h.r. 702
and two other committees have had hearings on similar bills. the agriculture committee and the foreign affairs committee. so this has been a thoroughly vetted issue. in fact, with the admonition of speaker boehner, we really did take a long time with this issue to help educate one another. those of us from energy states. so i think -- do i think we've had a thorough debate on the topic and i think it is time to have this discussion. coming from north dakota, i just want to tell you that i come from a state that, prior to the energy revolution or the shale revolution, we were experiencing migration, low personal per capita income. today we have the second highest personal per capita income in the country. we can't accept people fast enough to deal with the jobs that are available. but we are in a bit of a stand still right now because we are overproducing light, sweet crude in this country, which is the type of crude that the global markets are demanding, but our domestic markets, because of our refining capacity, is not. this is the time to lift this
ban. this is the body to do it. and i hope we can get to it this afternoon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. before yielding i'd like to correct myself. when i spoke, i spoke about the minority's right for a motion to recommit which indeed we do have. in this particular instance, it is the minority's right to offer up the previous question. and that is what we are proceeding under. mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to a gentleman that i've known a very long time in this institution and care greatly about, very thoughtful member from north carolina, mr. price. i yield to him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and in protest to the republican leadership's failure to bring commonsense legislation to the floor, to stem our nation's tide of gun violence. in the wake of seemingly endless mass shootings, americans are of all brounleds, diverse political beliefs, are
urging elected officials to stop merely ringing our hands and actually do something that protects our communities. one measure that has virtually unanimous support is background checks. to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill. the problem is that our current background check system is rife with loopholes. background checks are not required at gun shows, they're also not required when individuals purchase weapons online. the bipartisan king thompson background checks bill would close these egregious loopholes. it's entirely sensible reform that would have a measurable impact on the safety of our schools and neighborhoods without preventing law-abiding citizens for using guns for self-defense or recreational purposes. i whole heartedly reject the defeatist notion that we cannot do anything about our nation's gun violence. i ask my colleagues, how much
longer must we wait? how many more people have to die? to get our attention? how many more american towns and cities must be added to the growing list of places like columbine and aurora and charleston and newtown? in the last three years we've had some 20 moments of silence here on the house floor to honor victims of gun violence in the united states. moments of violence are not enough. thoughts and prayers are not enough. we need action and i call on my colleagues to now bring the background checks bill to the floor for a vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bryne: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: he reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend from colorado, mr. purl mitt -- mr. perlmutter, a former member of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from florida.
three years ago i was here for a moment of silence on behalf of the 12 killed in and the 70 -- and the 70 injured in the aurora movie theater. since that time web of had -- we've had 55, at least 55 mass shootings, where four or more people were killed. and we've had at least 22 moments of silence. how many more senseless acts of violence and hatred must occur before we stand up and take action? how many more young, bright lives are going to be cut short because of loopholes in the law? . how many more times must we stand on the floor in moment of silence solemnly remembering another virk tim? -- victim? how many more times must the flags be lowered at half-staff in honor of service members gunned down in their own back beyond a reasonable doubt? -- backyard?
as important as these moments of reflection are, they happen with such regularity we have become numb to their significance. when will this violence end? and why is it we are paralyzed by the very laws that are meant to protect us? it's incumbent upon us as members of congress to act and protect our citizens from unnecessary gun violence. nd i appreciate the -- appreciated the gentleman from alabama mentioning the violence his own family experienced. it is time for a dialogue in the spirit of civility and compassion, bringing all americans together to have a discussion about peace and safety in our schools, churches, community centers we have to begin. we can do this. it requires courage. we can act to reduce this violence by passing meaningful gun violence prevention legislation that respects the second amendment. last week i joined 147 other
members of this body writing to the speaker demanding action on gun violence prevention legislation. we demand a vote. action is needed. i urge the defeat of the rule and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrnes: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, at this time i'm very pleased for yielding would the speaker be so kind as to advise both sides how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has eight minutes remaining, the gentleman from alabama has 15. mr. hastings: at this time i'm very pleased to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, good friend of mine, he is the ranking member of the energy and commerce subcommittee on environmental and the economy, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i oppose the rule and in particular i oppose h.r. 702. apparently we have learned nothing over the past 40 years
because this bill asks that we forget about oil shortages, oil recessions, and painfully high energy bills. do we really believe that the days of $100 per barrel of oil are gone? do we really believe that our military will never again be called upon to keep -- fight oil trade routes or production areas open? i wish that were true. but i doubt it. until we reduce our dependence on oil, we should retain control over our domestic oil resources. our nation is not energy independent. we still use a great deal of oil and other petroleum products. our transportation sector is still extremely vulnerable to price increases, whether we are talking about individual, certainly individual drivers, certainly airlines or freight kfments our manufacturing sector is vulnerable also. china may now be the largest importer of oil, but we are still the world's largest consumer of oil.
this policy is not just about whether we open up trade on another commodity. it is a matter of national security and economic security. it is in our national interest that we can and do export crude oil and refine petroleum products now. and when we export refined products, we gain the extra benefit of jobs in the refining industry, as well as those in oil production. this bill eliminates presidential authority to restrict trade in crude oil. it allows decisions about oil exports be made by the oil companies. and they put a higher value on their proves than on our national security. -- profits than on our national security. our united states consume sumers or our environment. the oil companies see this window of low global oil prices as the opportunity to lift the ban on crude exports. the advocates for this policy point to the current slow down and new drilling activity as evidence that our export policy
is eliminating jobs in oil production. the fact remains that oil is a global commodity and the global market price for a barrel of oil is no better than the price here in the united states. when oil is under $50 per barrel, wells that are marginal or with higher costs will be capped until the price rises. that situation will not change by exporting to any already oversupplied global market. but what happens when asia's demand for oil increases, as it surely will, and the global price again climbs into the $100 per barrel range, well, that's an excellent opportunity to sell as much as possible on the global market. a windfall for the oil companies , and economic down turn for us. this policy change benefits a few of the wealthiest companies on this planet. there is no benefit for consumers. and we will put our national security at risk and certainly
jobs and infrastructure in the refining industry and other industries as well will be hurt. exports of oil, in fact, in any of our strategicically important resources should be in our national interest. big oil gets more than their shir of subsidy from the united states taxpayers. they do not need this additional windfall and consumers and taxpayers cannot simply cannot afford to provide it. with that, i urge you to reject this rule and to oppose h.r. 702. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: i was listening to the gentleman talk. he was talking about how this might have a negative impact on american consumers regards to gas prices. i would remind the house even prom's own department of energy -- president obama's own department of energy found increased oil exports would help lower gas prices. the gentleman also mentioned what this might do to the security of the united states. a member of president clinton's cabinet has said this will
enhance the security of the united states by strengthening our hand in central and eastern europe. i listened to the gentleman. i respect his views, but i must say i think that the evidence that comes to us from democratic administrations proves what he said is really not accurate. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i would advise and ask that the other side understand that we have no further speakers. and that i'm prepared to close. mr. byrne: we have no further speakers ourselves. i yield to the gentleman for his closing. mr. hastings: thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida virginia tech. mr. hastings: my republican friends argue that these bills will encourage growth and investment in our nation's energy markets. local communities and economy and are therefore important measures that we must address even as we face a highway trust fund that will become insolvent in a matter of weeks, as well as
another looming government shut down in december. all the while those same individuals refuse to authorize the export-import bank's charter , an entity that has created and sustained 1.5 million american jobs since 2007, at no cost to the taxpayer. passing a responsible budget, delivering on the long-term transportation bill, and re-authorizing the ex-im bank will encourage the growth and investment that my friends speak of. the time to deliver on our promises to the american people is long overdue. and i call on house republicans with p wasting our time the legislation that rolls back long-held environmental protections and stand almost certain veto threats and take up the important measures that i mentioned. in closing, mr. speaker, i want to return to this notion of the previous question with reference to gun violence.
i believe in the second amendment. i own a gun. when i was a child at age 7 i had a roy rider bb gun. when i was 12 i had a single shot .22 rifle. i believe in every citizen's right to own a gun. i believe my colleagues here on this side believe the same thing, but every man, woman, and child is accounted for in the estimate of guns that are in this country. that would be more than 330 million. there's some people in our society who believe that somebody is going to come and take their guns. i wonder who that person would be? would it be a president of the united states? would it be the military? they are going to go and take the guns from their moms, their brothers, their sons, their fathers? that's foolish. we need to stop this madness. doing nothing in the face of all of this epidemic violence that
we are experiencing, allows that not only is this house dysfunctional in many of its particulars, but it is frozen in its indifference to the gun violence in this country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama with 14 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, american technology is a marvel in the world. we americans figure out how to solve problems by using technology. just a you few years ago we were struggling with how we were going to get enough energy into this country from other places. and now because the changes to the american people, we figured out the technologies it takes to be able to exploit energy resources right here. and so it's almost like a miracle. we get to become energy independent where we won't have to get energy from other places.
in fact, we found so much energy we are in a position where we can export it and been fit our economy -- benefit our economy and people in america with more jobs. i got to tell you something, i'm proud to be american for a lot of reasons. there is a great reason right there. our ingenuity solved this problem and created opportunities that we couldn't have dreamt of. but the federal government is standing in the way. we can't fully do what we need to do here and there are many things in the way but we are trying to do two of them today. one of them is limitations we put on the sovereign tribal nations that my friend from florida so eloquently spoke about. we put limitations on them and their ability to develop energy resources on their land. it's their land. let them develop it. there are a couple good things from that. one is that all of us in america get the been fit from that because as we develop any part of our energy sector it benefits
all of us. but secondly, it benefits those people in those tribal nations. they are not asking for the federal government to give them something. they are asking for the federal government to get out of the way so they can do something for themselves. i think we ought to celebrate that in america. and give them that opportunity. the second bill removes a decades old ban on oil exports. i do, i'm old enough to remember the 1970's. i remember waiting in a gas line and not being able to get gas. but that was then. with the technology we had then and not now with the technology and proven reserves we have now. i don't want to shoulder my children with limitations based upon technology or technological understanding we had when i was their age. as they tell me all the time, daddy, we have moved on. we have moved on. in a very positive way in this particular aspect. and so it's time to get the dead
hand of the past off of our energy industry so they can start doing the things it has so miraculously proven it can do. so i urge everybody in this house to support this rule. i urge everybody in this house to support both of these underlying bills. and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one moment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, fellow members of congress, the people of south carolina faced an unprecedented catastrophic weather event, also known as 1,000-year rain, exceeding 20 inches virtually overnight. we're grateful for your thoughts and prayers. the flooding and rain destroyed homes and roads, collapsed bridges and broke dams across the state. 400 roads and bridges are still closed. tragically, to date the flooding has claimed the lives of nearly 20 citizens across the carolinas.
we ask for your thoughts and prayers for their families. we are grateful for the strength of the people of south arolina, led by governor nicky hayley and we're inspired by those who wereress crude by a -- who were rescued by a boat by their neighbor, brian. you will hear stories of incredible acts of volunteerism, like one of the dow of a police officer greg aleya, who was murdered last month. despite her grief she joined others in distributing food to those in need. wherever you go you will find heroes like this and about the service of the first responders, emergency personnel, officials and state employees who have worked tirelessly to aid our community. we appreciate the homeland security secretary jae johnson will lead a fact-finding delegation of members of our delegation to our state
tomorrow. i yield to the congress member from south carolina, mr. clyburn, and if he's not available, i just want to thank him for his service and we look forward to being on the delegation with him tomorrow. god bless south carolina and i ask my colleagues to stand and join in a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: members will rise for a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.
mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requesting. 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.]
to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 538. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution
466 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 538. the chair appoints the gentleman from north carolina, mr. rouzer, to provide over the ommittee of the whole. members will take their conversations off the floor. the committee will come to order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 538 which the clerk will report by title.
the clerk: a bill to facilitate the development of energy on indians lands by reducing federal regulations that impede tribal development of indian lands and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. mr. young: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. mr. young: mr. chairman, i apologize and say mr. speaker but, mr. chairman, h.r. 358 has been a bill -- this house is not in order. mr. burton. the chair: the committee will come to order.
mr. young: mr. jordan. the chair: please take your conversations off the floor. mr. young: h.r. 5838 has been in the works for several years. this is not a bill that came out of no where. the provisions are a result of oversight hearings and consultation with indian tribes. the bill streamlines federal permitting and increases tribal control and other natural resource development on independentian land and gives options to waive appraiseals and prohibits the hydraulic fracturing applying to the land without the consent of the tribe. it streamlines judicial review and deter frivolous lawsuits concerning federal permitting or native american energy products. this is crucial for alaska tives whose ability has been
hampered by lawsuits. it authorizes to handle mineral leasing. 538, adjacent to indian reservation land to supply biomass energy for the tribes. this summer the g.a.o. issued a report called independentian energy development. poor management has hindered indian energy, the department of indian lands. here are a couple of highlights. does not have comprehensive data to identify ownership and resources for development. does not have data to track and monitor its review and response times. and some don't have the adequate resources to review energy-related documents.
2012 the interior inspector general found the weakness in the management contributed to a general preference to require oil and gas leases on non-indian lands over indian land. this is a jobs bill and provides energy for america and more than that, it takes care of the tribal communities that have been blessed with resources and some reservations where the unemployment rates are 50%, energy jobs are the only jobs available for members and these energy dollars go a long way to supporting families. the act is strongly supported by the large group of native organizations as well as the chamber of commerce. the national congress of american indians, affiliated tribes of northwest. navajo. southern ute tribe, three affiliated tribes and the utah tribe of utah.
i'm a little bit surprised that the white house has issued a statement against this bill. really, it's not anything new. i always listen to this administration, above all, but as far as energy goes. it only supports it on nation's land. nation's land. in the dakotas, it takes 15 permits on tribal lands and two off of tribal lands. mr. chairman, that is a disgrace. and i have suggested with 56 million acres of land there ought to be the ability to be self-determined and be the first american. the ability to take and produce energy and help their tribal members out. those who oppose this, same story, don't get too smart,
we'll give you a side of beef and a blanket. don't let us help ourselves, let the government tell you what to do. this is a good piece of legislation. this did not come from me but from the native tribes themselves. and as trust authority, we should let them control their own destiny and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: frankly, we are till not addressing the most eeds of the earnedian country. we have our colleague, mr. cole, there is bipartisan legislation that would deal with that immediately. we should call that up and should have a hearing and deal with this decision that has left so much doubt and confusion in
indian country. sacred sites are in need of identification and protection. rather than midnight riders to unrelated legislation. that violates their protection as has happened already. lack of funding from this body, coupled with sequestration has left indian health and education with no relief in sight. and barriers to energy development on indian lands are among the most pressing need, both as an economic driver for tribes and energy needs of the united states. this bill does not address the real energy needs on tribal lands and while we are wasting time on it, these other and more pressing needs just continue to grow more urgent. the legislation claims to facilitate energy development but it short circuits the review process set up by the national environmental energy act and limits judicial review of
development decisions. instead of helping tribes develop energy resources on their land, this approach will lead to lessen tall protection and less judicial recourse to those affected. and these proposals are not new. we have seen and debated them before as part of the failed republican energy bills last congress and here they are again. the legislation would amend nepa, one of the nation's bedrock environmental laws to limit review of and comment on proposed projects to members affected indian tribes and other individuals residing in an undetermined area. this involves public involvement in the proposed federal projects that may affect the environment and central tenet of nepa. limiting resue and comment would prevent other indian tribes with cultural ties in these areas from commenting on a proposed
project. limiting members of the public who can participate in the nepa process but then failing to actually define that universe does not -- it's not reform at all. this is just not applicable to energy projects but any major project on independentian land. this could be proposed mining contracts or water development contracts and even construction of tribal class three gaming facilities all would slip through this undefined loophole and nontribeal benefits would benefit as well. the legislation throws up unsurmountable barriers those seeking to hold the federal government accountable. it prevents the recovery of attorney fees and challenging ergy projects and a claimant may be potentially liable for
attorney's fees and costs. this makes it difficult, if not impossible for members of the public, even tribal members whose homeland may be impacted to get judicial review. the other side this is the response to frivolous lawsuits that have been filed in these cases in the past. according to the solicitor's office, very view approved energy-related projects have ever been challenged in court. this is truly a solution in search of a problem. it's clear that the real intent of this provision is to chill legitimate litigation and undernine the teeth of nepa by making the ability of relief all but disappear. this applies even to non-indian lands. if an energy company is developing natural resources in the united states and get a tribal partner, they could fall under this provision. is could could have energy
companies cooperate with the indian tribes. the legislation is opposed by the administration as well as many environmental and conservation groups. i have here a letter in opposition to this legislation signed by many of these groups, the alaska an wilderness league, defenders of wildlife, the lands council. league of con servings voters, national resource defense council. citizen reliance, sierra club and the wilderness society and mr. chairman, i would ask that be entered into the record. the chair: the request will be covered under general leave. mr. grijalva: instead of using energy development on indian land to weaken nepa, we should be concentrating on efforts on real reform that would achieve
energy development and dealing with the disparities in the tax code that stymie investments in indian country. taxpayers for energy development that cities and communities have long used to their benefit, needs to be available to tribes as well. we should be encouraging investment in the future of renewable energy on tribal lands. according to the office of indian energy, it contains 5% of all renewable energy resources and the potential for these resources is almost 14% of the total u.s. potential. in my home state of arizona, there is a great potential for solar, wind and geothermal on indian land. we need to fix the real problem. but this bill doesn't do that. the majority wants to attack nepa and judicial review. attempting to use this as a
wedge issue, attempting to wedge between people that care about self-dermentation and environmental stewardship. we can have both. we could have successful energy development in independentian country while retaining the environmental protections that will ensure future generations, they could enjoy the benefits of that energy development. i urge my colleagues to abandon this. i would plead with my colleagues to bring legislation to the floor addressing indian health care, indian education programs and codified process for tribal consultation with federal agencies that respect sovereignty and oppose the trust responsibilities we have to indian country and a fix, finally a fix. with the current cloud hanging over the status of trust lands.
i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i would like to mention one thing. i do have an amendment -- i do have an amendment on nepa. we don't change the nepa policy at all other than the fact that only those affected have comments on how it feabts their land, not from people from new york or maine or dallas or florida. so that's really a red herring. this is to help the tribes. i yield to my good chairman of the full committee whatever time he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from alaska yielding. you know, there are some native american tribes that do not rely on gaming alone for their source of renew. it is amazing how we are dealing with north american native
tribes give lip service that we would like to empower them until they have a chance to do so and all of a sudden we change. we are talking about a lot of tribes that have a great deal of land but little employment. this bill is based on recommendations that come from indian country. and by that, i don't mean the bureau of indian affairs because they oppose this bill. southern utah ute and national congress of the american independentians and affiliated tribes of northwest indians and the chamber of commerce. all of those people are realizing the importance of this particular bill in empowering native americans in this nation. i hope we don't turn this into a partisan affair. by saying by voting no, you might get three callers on c-span to support your vote. we need to do something differently. and the employment is based on agriculture and mining and
energy, we don't need more regulations on the native americans. we don't need duplicative regulations on them more than anyone else. we need to streamline it in charting their own destiny and making their own choices. we have far too many people that have an attitude towards native americans. that attitude has to change and this is what this bill does. it is amazing when this administration says, if it deals with marijuana, they are a native tribe, let them do what they want to do. if it deals with agriculture and mining, well, not so fast, we need to have control over that. that's the problem. pot, yes. energy, no. that doesn't work. we need these people to be able to make decisions for themselves. i appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee mentioning he does have an amendment on nepa which solves those problems. this isn't a nepa issue but whe
we believe in empowering native americans to make decisions for themselves and help their own people. i had a chairman of a tribe who said, i don't care what game we play, i want to know what the ball looks like. this bill gives them a chance to see the ball and approve the design of the ball and more importantly, it gives them a chance to win. so lucy, please, just before contact, don't pull the ball away, let the native americans win. this gives them the opportunity to win and chart their destiny. and we should vote for it. and i yield back. . . the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: the g.a.o. report has been mentioned many -- that has been mentioned many times about the rationale behind and the catalyst behind this particular legislation, and yet the conclusions, of which i
agree with, is that we're not living up to our responsibilities as it applies to energy development on indian lands. but reading the recommendations, no where does it say that the solution to the problem is to gut nepa or to stifle judicial recourse. instead the recommendations talk about resources that are needed by indian country to successfully fulfill their obligation and responsibilities through their members. it talks about staffing shortages. outdated mapping systems and the need to ensure that the b.i.a. can provide support to the energy programs. these are things the b.i.a. has asked for in their budget, that the president's budget has sent over, has requested time and time again. funding these requests go unheeded by this majority. so it's disingenuous, as the majority does time and time again, to starve an agency or a program of needed funding and then to complain that that agency program is ineffective. it's also disingenuous to say
that the responsibility to work with and honor our first responsibility to indian country is always -- it's down to this, the choice -- on this legislation, whether you vote yes or no. as i stated in my opening statement, there is a litany of pressing issues that face indian country and native americans in this -- in our nation. a litany of benign neglect for many, many years, of which all bear responsibility. but with that responsibility comes the opportunity to act. the fix is necessary. o that is quelled on a bad supreme court decision. we need the adequate funding so the trust responsibility we inherit as members of congress is upheld. we need programs of infrastructure in indian country. we need many, many issues to address not only the human need
but the economic needs of indian country. and to say that this bill is the watershed moment that is going to turn all that benign neglect and irresponsibility backwards is disingenuous at best. i would suggest, let's talk about a real comprehensive approach to the issue of indian country and the support this congress needs to give to our trust responsibility. and if we do that, i'm sure all of us collectively could come to the same conclusions that we need to do something and that there is before us legislation from both sides of the aisle that begin to address it. this legislation is not it, it is not a panacea. d to pit the trust responsibility this congress has and to question whether sovereignty is supported br ot -- or not by members that oppose this is not fair. the fairness in this would have been an energy bill that is comprehensive, the fairness would have been not to gut
nepa, judicial review, and present a bill that is clean and upholds bedrock environmental laws and, and it's not complicated, uphold the trust responsibility that we have when we swear an oath of office to serve in this congress. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i yield at this time three minutes to the gentleman from washington, catherine mcmorris rodgers. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you very much. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i rise to join in support of the native american energy act. having an all-of-the-above energy policy means all people in all communities. each community across the country should have the opportunity to unleash the natural resources closest to them to help meet their energy needs. and for those of us in the pacific northwest, it means encouraging biomass. you know, we've just had a devastating wildfire season. and the issue of forest health
continues to be on the forefront. fallen trees, overgrowth, general mismanagement have led to worsening fire seasons. by encouraging forest products for biomass, we would add and have a benefit of reducing forest fire risk. by keeping our lands healthier, in addition to creating a stable energy source. this legislation allows a pilot project to encourage greater biomass production on tribal forest land. in my district, in eastern washington, it would help the confederated tribes of the reservation who already play a very active role in forest management, new tools at their disposal to maintain the health of the adjacent forest to the reservation. it would help them develop energy and, most importantly, help them protect their homeland. i'm proud to support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from alaska
reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: continue to reserve, mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman from rizona reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: at this time i yield to mr. tipton from colorado, three minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to give my voice in strong support for the native american energy act. i'd also like to be able to thank chairman young and chairman bishop for their leadership and support of native american energy development. energy resource development on native american lands is important and becoming increasingly significant year after year. for example, in 2014, responsible conventional energy development on native american lands alone generated revenues of $24 billion. this rev flew figure does not include re-- revenue figure does not include renewable energy development on tribal lands, which has the potential
to increase revenue, jobs and household incomes for native american communities. i'm privileged to be able to represent the southern yute indian tribe located in southwest colorado. some of my colleagues know that the southern yute tribe is a model of tribal governance and economic development. the tribe is widely known as the premier natural gas developer and the largest employer in the region. i'm extremely proud that the southern yute indian tribe continues to take the lead in demanding that the federal government respect self-determination and tribal decision making when it comes to energy and environmental regulation. to its credit, chairman -- to his credit, chairman young continues to allow numerous oversight hearings and legislative hearings to allow tribal leaders to illustrate the challenges they face daily, as they attempt to develop their natural resources, so that they can provide programs, services and jobs for their nations. the result is h.r. 538, which will remove the number of these barriers. the legislation streamlines the appraisal process that must be
undertaken by the department of interior because the status quo has resulted in delays that have cost the tribe to miss out on royalty payments, totaling more than $95 million. legislation also amends the tribal forest protection act of 2004. to direct the department of interior to enter into agreements with tribes to carry out demonstration projects that promote biomass energy production on native american forest land. and in nearby communities. by providing tribes with reliable supplies of woody biomass from federal lands. it also prohibits the interior rule regarding hydraulic fracturing from having any effect on land held in trust or restricted status for native americans. except with the expressed consent of the indian beneficiaries. the southern yutes' repeated attempts to ensure tribal lands were not included in this misguided rule, they were completely disregarded by this administration. fortunately h.r. 538 promotes native american self-determination, strengthens
tribal sovereignty and reinforces our commitment to tribal self-sufficiency. i urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation and once again thank chairman young for his leadership and chairman bishop on this issue. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: mr. chair, continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: at this time i'll yield the gentleman, mr. gosar from arizona, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to express my support of this commonsense legislation. this bill empowers native americans to invest in their communities, their people and their resources, as they see fit. without the heavy hand of washington bureaucracy trying to insert itself between them and their own land. under current policy, potential resource development on tribal lands face many obstacles that projects on private or state
lands do not. before entering into a lease agreement with energy developers on their own land, a tribe must first attempt to navigate the long, slow and duplicative process of the department of interior's approval. this process can be fraught with litigation and delays that chase away potential investments and crush otherwise viable projects. the native american energy act streamlines many of the duplicative regulatory hurdles that prevent tribes or dividuals from profittably developing energy resources on their land. his will provide tribes with greater control over how they best develop their own natural resources and allows them to do so in ways that will best benefit their communities, not a d.c. bureaucrat's ideology. because of the commonsense and empowering reforms it contains this bill has widespread report from the indian tribes. it is odd that only groups on record in opposition to this bill are the obama administration and some of the democratic members of the natural resources committee. why does the administration
continue to insist that bureaucrats from their compy leather chairs and marble offices in washington, d.c., know more about how to manage indian land than the tribes themselves? if congress is actually serious about supporting tribal efforts to generate high paying jobs and improving the everyday standard of living in american indian communities, this bill is a real concrete way to empower them to do so. i commend the chairman and the committee for their work on this bill and i strongly urge my colleagues to support it. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: mr. chair, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: at this time i'll yield to mr. pearce from new mexico, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for three minutes. pearce pearce thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. pearce: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the gentleman from alaska for bringing this legislation forward. in my hometown of hobbs, new
mexico, truck drivers were making $100,000 a year. they didn't have to have a college degree. not even a high school diploma. and yet we limit this sort of opportunity on tribal lands. this bill is fairly simple. simply let them free. let them free to develop their lands in the way they want to. i heard one of my colleagues say that there are no frivolous lawsuits. just this week the wild earth guardians were found to have filed a frivolous lawsuit on matters such as these, trying to stop development, trying to hold things up. the judge said, this is frivolous. see, the kirkpatrick vs. wild earth guardians decision that is very recent. we were told that there are a litany of issues that we should be dealing with. i will tell you that native
americans are sophisticated enough to take care of their own problems, they just need the opportunity to have jobs, they need the opportunity for economic development inside their own nations. just recently we hosted in new mexico a gathering of different tribes who are looking at investments in oil and gas. and one lady said, my son is working in north dakota for $60,000 a year. he should be working here on the reservation in the oil and gas industry for $60,000 a year. that's the urgency that i'm sensing on the reservations. the reservations are beginning to build their own houses and they're doing magnificent work. they're becoming self-determine nept. -- self-determinant. but we here in washington say we know better. mr. young's bill says that we don't know better. just let them develop what they want. take the shackles off, take the chains loose, and let the american spirit that is on the
reservations live and breathe. it's very -- it's a very simple concept, one some have a very difficult time accepting. i say vote for h.r. 538 and put them free. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: does the gentleman have any other speakers? i'm ready to close. you yield your time? mr. grijalva: yep. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you very much. i just want to note that the democrats on the natural resources committee filed several amendments to this bill. we felt our amendments were squarely within the house rules. sadly the majority on rules failed to make any of our amendments in order. one of those -- these rejected amendments would have fixed the terrible mess created by the
decision. in a want to help tribes legitimate, co-equal way, control their own lands and move closer and closer to self-determination, you have to address this problem. and it is telling that my friends on the other side have refused to even address the bill or to have a legitimate hearing on the bill. let me in closing, statement of administrative policy -- while the administration supports the need to facilitate energy development in independentian country, it does not support h.r. 538. this bill would undermine public participation and review on indian lands. sets unrealistic deadlines and move oversight of appraisal over
indian lands and prohibit awards under the equal justice act or payment of fees or expenses to a plaintiff in an energy-related action. by closing the fund, this provision would negatively impact the indian affairs budget that is intended to serve all tribes. this bill changes mineral leases applicable to them may adversely affect them. indian lands are exempt from the hydraulic fracking rule. that rule contains a provision for allowing variances when they meet or exceed the rule standards. the rule approach both protects environmental resources and decision making of the tribe. h.r. 538 would not should hinder development of natural
resources. the administration appreciates the committee's efforts to review this. income from energy is one of the greatest investments. the administration has been taking meaningful action to update the nepa process for lands held in trust and working to expedite appraisal, permitting on indian lands and ensure safe and responsible development. the administration looks forward to working with congress to development the reforms necessary to support this development. the point being that this legislation is a rush to judgment. it is a gift to -- gift in a sense when you exempt from the judicial review and from nepa the production of and exploration and production of energy on indian land.
this is as co-equals, the environmental protection and public processes are intended for all. ather than be patriot ron is ining. ing. this bill should be rejected and rk on a comprehensive energy production that realizes self- determination and for all members of tribes providing the environmental, public health and judicial process that would guarantee them that they would be treated equal under the law. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: madam chair, in from thethis bill came tribes. not from the sierra club and not from the friends of this, all 28
different organizations had nothing to do with the tribes. and i have said all along and i'm pretty well related to a tribe in alaska, it's time they are giving the opportunity to fulfill their self-determination act that we passed. words do not do that. they invite everybody and winky, winky, have a good time and nothing happens administratively. now i know there is some legislation and i'm working hard to get legislation but i can't do it all. i have to do one little step at a time. this bill is requested by the american indian to have more control over their land. i have to remind this congress that i sit in, we're now ranked in the nations around the world
20th in the freedom category. we had gone from number one to 20th. think about that. but the american indians, our first people, are 30th in freedom because of our so-called free government. now, there's something wrong with that. we are doing an indirect thing as trustees by not allowing them to expand their god-given right, their ability, intellectual capability to expand their self-worth and keep their identity. and every time we try to bring a bill to the floor to do that is first of all, we can do it better administratively. that's why they are ranked 30th in freedom because of our government. think about this in congress, from number one, freest nation in the world to right now, 20. that's not a good thing. the last five years we have
dropped three spaces in that freedom chart. mainly because of overreach, regulation and dictation by our government. that's what it's based on. individual freedoms are lost. try that as a tribe and have to go through all the other steps that the other person doesn't have to, and they drop down to 30th. i'm asking the people in this body to bill. if you believe in self-determination and the right to get ahead, especially a nation, by this congress who gave them the ability to be self-determine ant, you are taking it away. this is a good piece of legislation we voted yes on and give a chance for the american indian to go forward. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska yields back.
all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule, shall be in order to consider as an original bill as amendment, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-30. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 114-290. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be for division mand
of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in art a of house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i have an amendment made in order under the rule. cherment the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 rinted in house report a 114-290, offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: this amendment clarifies who may submit public omments on nepa. it also preserves current nepa requirements concerning current gaming proposal. when a study is done on federal action like a mineral lease approval, the agency must consider comments received by a
member of the public regardless of whether they are affected. this is unfair to the tribe because tribal lands are not public land but private land. section 4 of the bill limits public comment in these situation of the tribe, individuals who live within the affected area of the project. section 4 was dafted and with an individual would include state, county and tribal officials but no one from new york or san francisco. it's none of their business. the amendment would clarify that tribes, states and county governments may have their comments considered along with individuals. and the amendment provides that section 4 will not affect federal actions related to tribal gaming. gaming is a unique area of law. it has a significant impact outside the local area especially when it is off reservation facilities. and i reserve.
the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: i rise in opposition to the manager's amendment, to claim time in opposition although not in opposition. the chair: without objection. mr. grijalva: i want to tell chairman young i appreciate the lipstick on this piece of legislation, but the content is still haphazard and does not fix the underlying review or judicial review. but we won't -- we are not in opposition, but i appreciate the lipstick. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. grijalva: yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back. mr. young: i hope it was the right color. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair. the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in 114-290. house report for what purpose does the gentlewoman from from new mexico seek recognition? ms. lujan grisham: i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house eport 114-290 offered by ms. lujan grisham of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 466, the gentlewoman from from new mexico and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new mexico. ms. lujan grisham: thank you. and i yield myself as much time as i may consume and now i rise in support of my amendment that
allows the forest service to establish a pilot program to execute contracts with tribes under the indian self-determination and assistance act known as 638 contracts. they allow tribes to manage and implement federal programs in indian country. when i was the new mexico secretary of health, i witnessed how beneficial these contracts can be at efficiently delivering services to tribes. through these contracts go tribes can operate hospitals, mental health facilities and a variety of other community services. having them operate not only recognizes tribal self-determination, but it helps ensure that tribal needs are being met through traditionally and culturally appropriate methods. although several agencies have the authority to execute 638 contracts such at the bureau of land management and indian
health services, the forest service does not have this authority. several tribes expressed to me they would like to see the forest service have this authority. many have land adjacent to national forests and wildfires can affect entire regions regardless of who owns the land. the largest wildfire in new mexico's history started on june 26, 2011 in the santa fe national forest and burned land forests including to several tribes. so it is imperative that the forest service and tribes work together to actively manage forests. this amendment passed by voice vote as part of the resilient forest act which the house passed this past july. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will
improve the ability to partner with tribes to work on tribal lands and forests. i yield back. the chair: does the gentlewoman yield back or reserve. mr. young: i claim time in opposition but i do not oppose the amendment. i congratulate the lady making this correct. we have had testimony from a lot of the timber tribes and how well they have managed their timber and right next door will be the forest service land that's managed terribly. and that's a threat to the tribal timber, too. but i really think if we want to get back on this track of the freedoms i was talking about, if we allow the tribes to contract with the forest service and contract from thinning,
encouraging growth, managing growth for future timber needs, the tribes are doing so much better than the federal tribes. i compliment the lady and i accept the amendment. i just think you are doing a great job. thank you. appreciate it. and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 538 and pursuant to house resolution 466, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 538, and pursuant to house resolution 466 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment mr. ayotte: do notted in the committee -- an amendment adopted in the committee of the
whole. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to facilitate the development of energy on indian lands by reducing federal regulations that impede tribal development of indian lands and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? i have -- >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. lujan of new mexico moves to recommit the bill, h.r 538, to the natural resources committee, with
instructions to report the same back to the house with the following amendment. at the end of the bill, add the following. section 10, physical integrity of sacred sites. nothing in this act shall contravene the authority of the president to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of any site identified as sacred by virtue of established religious significance to or ceremonial use by an indian religion under executive order 13007, may 24, 1996. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which does not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. . speaker, i rise today to offer an amendment to protect sacred sites across america. this issue is not a new one. we've been part of many debates here on the floor and in committee on this important
issue. the amendment is straightforward. it reads, nothing in this act shall contravene the authority of the president to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of any site identified as sacred by virtue of established religious significance to or ceremonial use by an indian religion under executive order 13007. mr. speaker, as we come from different faiths, we all have respect for one another. just as we worship in different places, like churches or temples, so too should we have respect for the sacred places. just as we would honor the sanctity of where our loved ones have been laid to rest, so too should we honor the sanctity of tribal sacred sites. sacred sites are an essential part of the culture and heritage of tribal communities and the degradation of these sites means a loss of identity, as well as disrespect for the
faith and religion, the culture and the history of our tribal brothers and sisters who are connected to these lands. sacred sites should not be desecrated. they should be protected. and i know it's a sentiment that many of us in this congress share. protecting sacred sites is the right thing to do and i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: there's nothing in this act that changes the president's authority. i go back to self-determination. these are tribal lands. owned by the tribes. controlled by the tribal council. and they'll make a decision about the sacred sites. not somebody, again, in miami or new york that want to stop the project.
these are tribal sites. and that's the thing i don't quite understand. this affects nothing of the present law. if they decide this is a sacred site, that will be their decision instead of someone else. so i urge people to reject this motion to recommit and let's pass this legislation, one little tiny step forward for our first americans. this bill came from them. and supports it. and asked me. and they're not worried about these sacred sites because they will control them, not someone else. we take no authority away from the president. so this very frankly, mr. chairman, is a motion to recommit to slow the bill down, say it -- that's an attempt to do, so i urge no on the motion to recommit and a yes on the passage for that little tiny step for the american indians, our first people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. mr. lujan: yeas and nays, please. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, 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 electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill. 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.]