Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, this is the bill that is referenced in the resolution that the Clerk read. I heard that. And I am here ready to discuss the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2011, but I can't find the corresponding change that this resolution makes. I just would like to ask the gentlelady, where in the bill is the unemployment reference in this Thomasina Indian Tribes recognition bill?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for the time. The bill before us here, referencing H.R. 783, is the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2011. It is a bipartisan bill, sponsored by the gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Moran, Rob Wittman, Bobby Scott, and Gerry Connolly. My party did intend to withdraw the objection and allow the change to proceed. Unfortunately, absent any change, we are still talking about a change to the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2011. This act extends Federal recognition to several tribes in Virginia and establishes their relationship with the Federal Government. The tribes that it establishes are the Chickahominy Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe. This makes members of those tribes who apply and enroll eligible for services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to federally recognized Indian tribes. It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to take the specified lands into trust for the benefit of those tribes. This bill does have bipartisan support, and I think it's a good thing that we're taking up a bipartisan bill. We were willing to, again, withdraw our objection and allow a change to be made. The only problem now with the discussion of this bill is that the corresponding change indicated in the resolution doesn't really make sense, as applied to this bill. Again, this is a bill that establishes several tribes, and yet a corresponding change is being made to the definition of the unemployment rate, which I can't find in the bill. So I would like to ask my colleague, Ms. Foxx, where in the bill is the reference to the unemployment rate that is being changed in this resolution?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment which proposes that Congress will not adjourn until the President signs middle class tax cuts into law. With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter from Colorado, not only for bringing forward this resolution, but for spending time with those affected in the aftermath of this. I'd also like to thank President Obama for immediately changing his plans and coming to Colorado to express, on behalf of our Nation, grief and provide what comfort he could to the victims and their families. I think one thing that's important for Americans to understand is Aurora is a community just like yours. My district is several miles from Aurora, but I've been to movies myself in Aurora. I drive through it frequently on the way to the airport. This could be anywhere. It's a safe community. It's a community of loving families. It's a growing city. And the tragedy that occurred could have been at any one of our neighborhood theaters. Going to the movie theater, an expression of innocent joy, something that people have grown up with for generations, the magic of the silver screen and lives torn apart, not only those who lost their lives tragically, not only those who were injured, some of whom remain in the hospital, but all the others that were terrified, scared in the other theater, in the other movie theaters that night, in the community at large, this was, in many ways, a crime against innocence and a crime against enjoyment and diversion. People turn to movies, turn to entertainment for a moment's respite, a moment's entertainment from their daily lives, and this tragic end really represents an end of innocence for so many people that were affected. But so, too, we've seen many great heroes rise to the occasion: the courageous responders, the community of Aurora, Mayor Hogan, the families of those affected, and our criminal justice system. We all come together in difficult times. We all come together, and together with the love, respect, and support from American families across the country, the victims' families know that they're not alone, and that's important.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Colorado had a tragedy over the weekend, a mass murder that will forever remain on the minds of all Coloradans and all Americans. The tragedy extends beyond those who were killed and those who were injured to our friends, our neighbors, everybody impacted by this senseless act of terror in my home State. I would like to thank President Obama for joining the families impacted in mourning. I would like to thank all of those in Colorado and across the country who have sent their thoughts, their care, their resources to all of us in Colorado in a time of need. This also should serve as an occasion for all of us to acknowledge what is special and important in our lives, to celebrate every day we have on this planet, the health of our family, our own health and safety, and hope and pray to God that the tragedy that impacted Colorado will not happen again in Colorado or anywhere else.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I'm prepared to close. Bad bill, bad idea, bad rule. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Well, in briefly addressing the gentleman from California, I would encourage him to support President Obama's proven track record of success in accelerating the access to public lands, a 17 percent improvement in speed of access over the Bush administration. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Markey.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. Much of what the gentleman from Utah said I agree with in terms of the strategic need for critical minerals for our industrial and military production. However, that's only a teeny part of what this bill does. Now my colleague, Mr. Tonko, offers an amendment that would in fact limit this bill, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production. In addition, it's my understanding that bipartisan legislation has emerged from the Natural Resources Committee that would address the strategic need for critical minerals. However, that is not the bill that is being brought forth under this rule. Instead, we essentially have yet another rollback of public health, of water and environmental protections for the mining industry, which is our Nation's top toxic polluter. So I'm very disappointed that the House majority has chosen to bring forward this bill instead of the bipartisan bill that passed committee. It shuts out several sensible amendments that have been offered by Democratic Members. And the underlying legislation doesn't limit itself to strategic and critical minerals. In fact, it's so broad that, despite the bill's title, it would expand mining companies' ability to mine on public land for nearly all minerals, including plentiful minerals like sand and clay and even coal. So this really is not a discussion of strategic and critical minerals if we're talking about sand and clay. In fact, yesterday, in our Rules Committee, Chairman Hastings admitted during the Rules Committee hearing when questioned by Mr. McGovern that this bill applies to a lot more than strategic and critical minerals. In fact, Chairman Hastings, when asked on this issue, said: We talk about a form of minerals as being rare Earth. There's no question they are rare. But to say that some minerals aren't critical to our well-being I think defies logic. Chairman Hastings went on to cite the use of sand and gravel to build our interstate system as an example of a critical use. A lot of what the gentleman from Utah said is true and is important. However, when we're talking about sand and gravel, they don't fit the commonsense definition of the Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act that were cited by the gentleman of being of national importance. So the chairman of the committee has made clear this bill isn't about rare Earth minerals at all. It's not the kind of bipartisan bill that's targeting critical resources. Rather, it's about giving mining companies a blank check to take anything they want out of the ground anywhere, anytime. Under the bill, the mining sponsor is handed control over the timing of the permitting decision, irrespective of the project's impacts on natural, cultural, historic resources, its local impact, taking into account the effect on the economies of our counties, and jobs. Rather, it gives the mining companies a blank check. It permits nearly all mining operations to circumvent meaningful public health and environmental review processes. And when you consider the large and complex mining operations covered under this bill, it's even more inappropriate to reduce or eliminate the public comment or review process because of the sheer size of some of these projects. The actual harm that this legislation would produce is far-reaching. As drafted, the legislation threatens to increase pollution of water in our Western United States. For States already dealing with the extreme drought conditions like my home State of Colorado, also the site of several deadly fires, the last thing we need is to jeopardize our already scarce water resources. We can't afford to affect our water quality and quantity with additional mining operations without understanding their impacts on our water supplies. Democrats and Republicans agree that we should be crafting a strategy to develop our rare Earth and other critical minerals. In fact, a year ago in this very same Congress the Natural Resources Committee marked up H.R. 2011, a bill supported by the National Mining Association and a bill that had strong bipartisan support that would help develop our rare Earth and other critical minerals. So why aren't we considering that bill on the floor today? Instead, we're considering an ideological bill that will go nowhere and has a statement of opposition from the President as well. Why the House majority sees a need for this legislation to promote mining is somewhat mystifying, considering that under President Obama's administration the average time it takes to approve a plan of operation for a mine has decreased substantially. According to BLM data, plans of operation for hardrock mines are being approved 17 percent more quickly under the Obama administration than the Bush administration. Eighty-two percent of plans of operation were approved within 3 years under the Obama administration. According to the BLM, it takes, on average, 4 years to approve a mining plan of operations for a large mine--more than a thousand-acre mine--on public lands. There's a lot of issues-- county issues, civic issues, economic issues--around a thousand-acre mine. And there needs to be a thoughtful process about how it affects communities where it is located and how it affects air and water. Mining companies already extract billions of dollars of minerals from our public lands. This bill would continue to line the pockets of an industry that already has significant profit margins, and actually this bill jeopardizes jobs and our economic recovery by failing to take into account the local economic impact of mines--and not mining for strategic and critical mineral production but mining for nearly everything under the sun, including clay and gravel, again. So I think, again, while we can be grateful that President Obama has accelerated the approval process, there's certainly work to continue. I urge my colleagues to bring forth a bipartisan bill that would specifically look at real strategic and critical minerals. But this bill and this rule are unduly restrictive, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. We have one remaining speaker at this point. We might have one other, but we have one currently here.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, in this bill before us today, there are several provisions about which I think the American people would be very angry, and they will be very angry when they find out what this body is up to. In this bill before us today, Members of Congress would be able to maintain their government-subsidized health care after they retire instead of getting insurance, like everybody else, from a plan created under the Affordable Care Act. Before the Affordable Care Act was passed, Members of Congress were eligible to continue to receive government subsidized health insurance under the Federal employees health benefits program, even after they retired. This bill before us today would return that benefit and would give government subsidized health insurance to Members of Congress, even as it took it away from millions of other Americans. Members of Congress should not have access to special health insurance plans paid for by American taxpayers, as Republicans would have us do under this bill. In addition, this bill would increase the deficit. We don't know by how much. It could be $143 billion or it could be $230 billion. The issue is we won't even have that estimate until July 23. Once we have that estimate, it should be important for the Republicans, if they intend to modify this bill, to say how they're paying for it and be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans in favor of increasing the deficit by $150 billion and at the same time giving lifetime retiree health care benefits to Members of Congress, or do the Republicans intend to pay for this repeal by increasing taxes on the American middle class? I urge a ``no'' vote on this Republican bill to give benefits to Members of Congress and to raise taxes on the middle class.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Very good. Then I'm prepared to close, and I will yield myself the balance of the time. Now, this rule only provides for consideration of certain amendments. Why are the Republicans so concerned with letting the House work their will on such an important bill? Now, a number of these measures have been brought forward by Representatives from Colorado. I want to be clear that these are policies that are not universally supported in Colorado and that many of us believe that the policies contained in this set of bills would destroy jobs as well as the quality of life and health of not only Colorado and the West, but the entire country. In Colorado, we've created a balanced approach to energy policy that's worked. In some areas we lease, some areas we use for other purposes, some areas we protect. Many Colorado small business owners agree, our parks and public lands are critical not only to the economy and job growth, hiking, fishing, hunting, the outdoor industry, but also to our quality of life and our health. This job-destroying Federal landgrab, Federal water grab bill would put tens of thousands of Coloradoans out of work and destroy the quality of life for our entire State. This bill puts the wish list of the oil and gas industry above all the other users of public lands, above the interest of hunters, above the interest of fishermen, above the interest of hikers, above the interest of tourism, above the interest of skiers, above the interest of conservationists. This bill is out of touch with the citizens of Colorado and will destroy jobs in Colorado and throughout the country. Look, companies are able to drill. They've been drilling the last 40 years. President Obama's leadership has led to twice the number of drilling wells. Our energy production is at an 8-year peak from oil and gas, and we continue to increase our energy production on public lands, and there's a responsible way to do it. But we need a balanced approach that doesn't throw out the safeguards and protections that protect the health of children and the health of families, to protect our jobs in the outdoor industry, that protect our jobs in the recreation industry and protect our quality of life across the Western United States, and laws that protect our water and laws that protect our air. This bill, this series of omnibus death and destruction bills, simply fails that test. The American people deserve more than the death and destruction, oil above all omnibus package that's being offered here today. While millions of Americans are waiting in the unemployment lines, we need a bill that creates jobs rather than destroys jobs. An increased concentration of toxic chemicals can harm the health of American citizens and Coloradans. Now there is great promise and opportunity in technology that will allow companies to drill with less of an impact on human health and the environment. That's why we have a regulatory framework. It is to ensure that there is incentive to make sure that American families are safe. This package of job-destroying bills that has been brought before us today would harm our sensitive lands and constitute a Federal land grab and Federal water grab, all without lowering the price at the pump and destroying tens of thousands of jobs in the process. This death-and-destruction bill is simply not what this country needs to move forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and to defeat the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the other side if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would better protect the health of children by providing for a 1,000-foot buffer between schools and oil or gas drilling using the technique commonly known as fracking. Hydraulic fracturing is a national issue, and natural gas is an important part of our national energy policy. According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, currently oil or gas production occurs in 33 States. Fracking occurs on more than 90 percent of oil and natural gas wells in the U.S. Advances in unconventional oil and natural gas extraction have led to an increase in fracking near where people live, work, and play in my district, across Colorado, and across the United States. That means increased exposure to toxic chemicals for kids in school and the air that researchers have found near wells, as well as noise and the nuisance of heavy truck traffic. A recent report by the Colorado School of Public Health indicated that residents living less than half of a mile from wells were at a greater risk of acute and chronic health problems than those who live more than half of a mile from drilling sites; including exposure to air pollutants like benzene, a known carcinogen, at a level five times higher than the Federal hazard standard. Given this risk and the need for more information, we should obviously err on the side of caution, particularly when it comes to children. We need additional studies to better understand the health impacts; but, given what we know, frankly, it's time to act. Now, we've already set some basic standards when we know pollutants may put children at risk. As an example, in my district in Colorado, commercial diesel vehicles are prohibited from idling for more than 5 minutes within 1,000 feet of a school. In New York, fracking operations may be placed 100 feet from a home and 150 feet from a public building. A review of active and prospective wells in four northern Colorado counties found 26 schools that have drilling wells operational emitting toxic gases within 1,000 feet of schools. In Erie, Colorado, I met with homeowners and parents who are increasingly concerned about the impacts of fracking on their health and their children's health. We should be listening to their voices and not just the demands of energy companies. We need to find a reasonable compromise to address the concerns of families in Erie and across America. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I would ask my colleagues to ask themselves, would they want their kids to be 300 feet, 500 feet, every day from a fracking site? Three hundred feet is the size of one football field. Fracking is scientifically documented as producing air pollution. We know the level of air pollution that is promoted, and it is measured. Advances in technology make reasonable accommodations possible. Directional drilling means we can actually locate wells miles from schools and still extract the oil and natural gas resources we need and make sure that our children remain healthy. I'm hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this commonsense amendment that will protect public health, ensure the safe development of natural gas and promote domestic energy production. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, I urge my colleagues to join me in keeping our children safe, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.