Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, 41 years ago, the Supreme Court issued its tragic ROE v. WADE decision that legalized abortion on demand in the United States. Since that ruling there have been about 56 million abortions performed. This abhorrent practice remains one of the most common medical procedures in the U.S. It is perpetrated by a perverse logic that a life of an ``unplanned'' child does not possess the same value as that of any other child.

As the parents of five children and grandparents of two, my wife, Jeanie, and I understand just how precious each and every child's life is. I believe every life is a gift from God, and I remain wholly committed to protecting the sanctity of human life.

Today, I want to recognize the more than 2,300 pregnancy care centers in the United States working to defend the lives of the unborn and providing critical services and support for women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies.

Sadly, many women facing an unplanned pregnancy in the U.S. are told, and believe, abortion is the only way. Pregnancy care centers respect these women and the lives they are carrying throughout their pregnancies.

In my Congressional district, we are fortunate to have one of these champions working to defend the sanctity of human life. Life Network has been serving Colorado Springs for over 25 years. Through the support of selfless men and women devoted to a culture of life, Life Network, through the Colorado Springs Pregnancy Center, provides pregnancy tests, counseling, ultrasounds, and material assistance such as diapers, formula, and baby clothing. All of these services are free of charge.

Life Network and pregnancy care centers like it across the world have and will continue to reduce abortion rates, save unborn lives, and provide assistance and resources to encourage women faced with unplanned pregnancies so they can choose life.

I mourn the lives cut short by abortion. I pray that God continues to give favor to those compassionate individuals who give of their time in pregnancy care centers, and he gives grace and comfort to those touched by this awful practice. I will continue to be among those fighting to stop it.

Thank you, Representative Smith, for your leadership on this issue.

I thank Representative Peter Roskam, a leader on the U.S.-Israel relationship here in Congress. He and I are two of the cochairs of the Republican Israel Caucus.

I share with many colleagues on both sides of the aisle deep concern over the interim agreement that this administration has reached with Iran over its nuclear program. We have struck a deal that irreversibly weakens sanctions against a country that is infamous for deception and deceit--a deal that does nothing about the infrastructure of its nuclear program.

In the weeks since the accord was announced, we already see the first signs of how these sanctions--which are what brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place--are being eroded by other countries eager to resume trade with Iran, as many of us predicted.

Weakening the sanctions now without demanding that Iran dismantle its nuclear program takes away our leverage. They have not stopped a single one of its 19,000 centrifuges from enriching uranium. They are not dismantling their plutonium plant either, a plant which has absolutely no peaceful civilian purpose.

We are witnessing a recurrence of the kind of effort that failed to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, but in an even more volatile and dangerous region of the world. All this is being done with a country that our own State Department has long defined as the chief state sponsor of international terrorism and which is determined to get nuclear weapons.

By giving up our leverage in return for a flawed interim agreement, we are only reducing the chances that a productive accord can ever be reached with Iran over its nuclear program where Iran actually renounces its right to enrich uranium.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2728, which came through the subcommittee I chair and which I am pleased to cosponsor.

This bipartisan legislation requires the Department of the Interior to defer to State regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands within the States.

These proposed Federal regulations will lead to more bureaucratic red tape that will further discourage energy producers from developing on Federal land.

The time period for approving a simple application for a permit to drill has only increased under President Obama. An energy producer can wait for nearly a year for a permit to be approved on Federal land, while in my home State of Colorado, it is only an average of 27 days.

The Federal regulations being proposed by the administration will add an entirely new layer of regulations to the already cumbersome Federal process. This will increase the cost of producing energy and does not help working American families.

The proposed Federal regulations also ignore the extensive work done by the States to regulate hydraulic fractures within their borders. Our committee has heard from numerous witnesses from Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and other States who have testified to the extensive process these States went through to draft their regulations, regulations that are very successful. No one can show where States are dropping the ball.

My home State of Colorado has been safely using hydraulic fracturing for over 40 years and has the toughest disclosure rule in the Nation. Even our Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper, to his credit, believes that it is the State's responsibility to regulate the industry. The States know their own geology and water better than bureaucrats in Washington do.

This bill will eliminate Federal regulations that are unnecessary, burdensome, and expensive. Please support H.R. 2728.

I thank the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague from Colorado who has raised some concerns about the issue of hydraulic fracturing. And we all agree. There is a place for reasonable regulation; there is a place for the surface rights of homeowners and businesses in the area of a well to have their safety and health protected; and we would all agree with that.

In Colorado, we really do have a pretty comprehensive and well- thought-out system of regulations. Some of the objections may really get more into State and local issues that my colleague has raised, the distance of setbacks and things like that, but I hope we will not miss the main point.

The main point: these bills are before the House this week. We want to improve the American economy. We want to create more jobs. Energy is one of the bright spots in an otherwise anemic economic recovery. And if you look at where the energy production is really taking off, it is on State and private lands. For my colleague from Colorado, it is a private land scenario that he is dealing with.

Federal lands need to catch up. There are billions of acres of Federal lands, including offshore. I know we are going to concentrate on onshore, but we have not kept up with energy production, and yet this has otherwise been a bright spot in our economy.

So if we want to create jobs for the American people--and these are some of the best paying jobs--if we want to have an expanded manufacturing base, if we want the cost of energy to consumers to be as low as possible so that they can go out and spend their hard-earned money on everything else that they need for their families and not have as high of a utility bill, then we need to pass these three bills this week.

Mr. Speaker, there is a place to talk about reasonable regulation that has to be in place for the drilling process, for the capture of gas, and for how to treat the water that comes back up from a fractured well.

Yes, let's look at those things; and let's also look at the State role and not think that the Federal role has to take over completely, as we have some in this administration who would like to do.

But the bottom line is we need American jobs. We need a stronger economy. We need lower prices so people keep more of their hard-earned money. That is what these job bills are about this week. It is about the economy and jobs.

So we will get into a discussion later today, tomorrow, and Thursday on making sure that the environment is protected, making sure that everyone else has their rights protected; but let's create jobs. That is what these bills are going to do. That is why I am proud to be a sponsor of the bill that comes up later this afternoon that we will be talking more about.

Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, Doc Hastings.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, which incorporates four additional bills into my bill. This legislation takes significant steps toward moving our country forward on a path to energy independence by streamlining government regulations and reducing government red tape that hinders onshore energy production. It will create new American jobs, promote energy and economic development, and increase revenues to the State and Federal governments.

This legislation also sets firm timelines for Applications for Permit to Drill, or APD, approvals and dedicates funds from APD solar and wind right-of-way fees to the permitting field offices. It will require the Bureau of Land Management to lease at least 25 percent of the nominated acreage not previously made available for lease. It will inject certainty into the leasing process and terms to give energy developers the certainty they need to move forward with production.

It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop a 4-year plan for onshore energy development, similar to the 5-year plan they are required to develop for offshore development. It opens up the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for energy production and allows the BLM to conduct leasing through the Internet.

Since taking office, despite the claims to the contrary, President Obama has waged a war on energy development. Under the administration, a simple permit, which in my home State of Colorado on average takes 27 days to approve, takes nearly a year on Federal land. And only minuscule areas of land have been leased for energy development, despite significant interest in many more acres. In fact, the Obama administration has had the 4 lowest years of Federal acres leased for energy production going back to 1988. The Obama administration has even taken the shocking and questionable step of canceling leases that have been legally bought and paid for.

Energy companies are practically fleeing from developing energy on Federal lands in favor of the more reliable and efficient State and private permitting processes. Further, the Obama administration has made it harder for oil shale technology to develop so that companies are showing little interest in developing this promising technology.

While the President tries to take credit for increased energy production under his administration, the reality is that the vast majority of any increased production occurs on State and private land that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over. In fact, since 2009, total Federal oil production is down 7.8 percent, and total natural gas production on Federal lands is down 21 percent.

My legislation would interject much-needed certainty into nearly every step of the onshore energy production process. It will ensure that permits are approved in a timely fashion, would prohibit the administration from changing lease terms or revoking leases after they have been legally won, would ensure that onshore leasing moves steadily forward, and will allow the Secretary to plan for this Nation's future energy needs.

Energy that is available and affordable creates more jobs for Americans here at home rather than overseas. It lowers the price of essential goods that American families buy every day, and it leaves more of the hard-earned money in the pockets of Americans after they pay their gas and utility bills. There is no reasonable objection to this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation to create new American jobs and establish an efficient process to produce both renewable and conventional energy on Federal lands. We can do this while meeting the extensive environmental standards that are already in place.

Madam Chairwoman, I urge support for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the full committee chairman for yielding me this time.

I want to applaud and commend my colleague from Colorado for his concern and thoughtfulness to the people impacted in Colorado, many of which were in his and Representative Cory Gardner's district, some even further south in my district where there was, unfortunately, some loss of life also. So we all share that same concern.

To put things in perspective, though, when we look at the oil and gas impact of the flooding, there was no hydraulic fracturing going on during the flooding, and the spillage that was later determined to have taken place was relatively minor. There were about 1,000 barrels of oil and gas spilled, with about 400 barrels of production water. That is about 1,500 barrels, which is about 62,000 gallons. To put that in perspective, this was considered a 1 trillion-gallon rainfall in a period of 7 days or so. That would amount to more than that every second. Every single second would have 67,000 barrels of river flow. So 1 second's worth of oil and gas in the entire horrific rainfall, I think, puts things in perspective.

So I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It is a lot broader than just the Federal lands that this legislation talks about, and so it goes beyond the scope of the legislation and I don't think it is really called for.

Just to conclude, when you put things in perspective, I think that there were a lot more serious issues with the flooding, some of which continue to today and will continue far into the future. Those are the issues we should really concentrate on.

For that reason, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Columbia Elementary School in Colorado Springs, Colorado, located in my congressional district, for receiving the Department of Education's prestigious National Blue Ribbon Award.

Established in 1898 in the heart of the city, Columbia Elementary School is one of Colorado Springs's first elementary schools. Its mission statement defines the core learning objectives of the school:

The Columbia Community will collaboratively ensure that learning takes place for ALL by being responsible, setting high standards and accepting no excuses. Our students will be contributing members of society who are respectful, responsible, and capable life-long learners.

The National Blue Ribbon Schools Program recognizes public and private elementary, middle, and high schools where students perform at exceptionally high levels or where significant improvements are being made in students' academic achievement. A National Blue Ribbon School's flag overhead has become a mark of excellence in education recognized by everyone from parents to policy-makers in thousands of communities.

The program recognizes schools in one of two performance categories. The first category is ``Exemplary High Performing,'' in which schools are recognized among their state's highest performing schools, as measured by state assessments or nationally-normed tests. The second category is ``Exemplary Improving,'' in which schools that have at least 40 percent of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds demonstrate the most progress in improving student achievement levels as measured by state assessments or nationally-normed tests.

Columbia Elementary is an ``Exemplary Improving School,'' but it hadn't always been that way, and there is an extraordinary story behind this. Prior to the arrival of the current school Principal, Karen Shaw, five years ago, the Colorado Springs School District had placed the school on ``Technical Assistance'' status, because the statistical data about academic achievement indicated ``low achievement and low growth for a period of several years.'' Teachers were working hard, but it wasn't organized or aligned, and kids weren't succeeding. Ms. Shaw changed all of that. She brought a small handful of teachers with her from her previous school and through ingenuity and hard work implemented new curriculum and interventions, schedules and methodologies, data procedures and trainings to change the entire culture of the school. So, in five years this extraordinary school has been transformed from ``Technical Assistance'' to a ``National Blue Ribbon School.'' This new approach transformed ``Low Achievement and Low Growth'' test scoring to ``High Achievement and High Growth.

I am so proud to have a school of this quality in my Congressional District. The strengths of Columbia are its staff, students, families and community. Teachers embrace using data

to improve instruction, which ultimately has led to increased student achievement. The staff leads by example by being life-long learners themselves! They take advantage of multiple professional development opportunities including active engagement strategies, differentiated instruction, Positive Behavior Supports and Response to Intervention-- where Columbia is exemplary at both RTI and PBS implementation.

The teachers at Columbia work over the summer for credit to learn curriculum and create materials for students. They offer numerous after-school activities for students that range from yoga to math club. The staff and teachers' commitment inspires a strong work ethic and exemplary attitude. Students at Columbia are respectful, responsible, safe and kind. As a result, discipline problems have dramatically declined in the past four years, and now teachers have more time to teach. The Award's effect on schools and communities is powerful. As one principal recalls, ``The National Blue Ribbon begins a process you cannot stop.''

Many National Blue Ribbon Schools find they attract business partners, financial assistance and volunteers. If school choice is an option, as it is at Columbia, student applications to National Blue Ribbon Schools increase. National Blue Ribbon School principals and teacher leaders are called on to give presentations at state, regional, and professional meetings about the practices that have made a difference for their students and faculty. District and state educators visit these model schools to learn about promising leadership and instructional strategies.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent such a fine school and want to recognize the accomplishment of Columbia Elementary School, its teachers and staff, and the students who so richly deserve this coveted Blue Ribbon School Award.

Mr. Speaker, my office has been flooded with constituents calling to share their Obama horror story.

Take Nicole Butler, for instance, a constituent of mine living in Colorado Springs and a mother of three children. Her family's Humana insurance plan was canceled because it was deemed insufficient under ObamaCare. She is currently paying $431 per month for what is, in her words, a great plan. She and her husband are insuring their family of five within a tight budget. The cheapest ObamaCare plan she could find would cost her family $1,003 per month in premiums, more than twice as much. This is the same story for 250,000 other Colorado families who have been canceled.

Mr. Speaker, the American people took our President at his word when he said ``If you like your plan, you can keep it.''

I look forward to legislation which will give relief to families in Colorado and all over this country.

I thank the gentlelady from Missouri. I know that she is a leader on military issues. We serve together on the Armed Services Committee, and she is becoming known as a leader on military issues. Her passion on religious freedom is also evident through her getting this time here today. So I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today again in support of religious freedom in our military. I am honored to represent tens of thousands of men and women in uniform who serve at the five military installations in my district in Colorado. Our military is made up of brave and dedicated men and women of all faiths who deserve to practice their respective religion free from harassment and malicious attacks.

But there is a growing and troubling pattern of religious discrimination against our men and women in arms. Earlier this year, an Army reserve training brief listed Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Sunni Muslims, and some Jews as ``religious extremists,'' along with groups like al Qaeda, Hamas, and the KKK. In response to this troubling report, I sent a letter, along with 34 of my colleagues, to the Secretary of the Army to express deep concern and to request information about what is being done to prevent this sort of offensive briefing from being given again.

In his response, Secretary of the Army John McHugh assured us the that this briefing was an isolated incident. Secretary McHugh also made note of a corrective measure that would require all briefings of this nature to be vetted with the appropriate unit leaders and subject matter experts prior to presentation.

Sadly, this past month, reports of additional offensive Army briefings came to light, first, at Camp Shelby in Mississippi, where an Army Reserve training briefing listed the American Family Association, a respected Christian organization, as a domestic hate group alongside groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the Black Panthers, and the Nation of Islam, and also at a Fort Hood briefing that listed Christian Evangelical groups as a ``threat''

to the United States. These disturbing reports have made clear that the offensive briefing given in April was not an isolated incident. This pattern must be addressed.

I was encouraged to learn that Secretary McHugh, after learning of the most recent incidents, issued an order to cease all briefings on the subject of extremist organizations and activities. Secretary McHugh rightly described the mislabeling of Christian Evangelical groups as ``inaccurate, objectionable, and otherwise inconsistent with current Army policy.''

I commend Secretary McHugh's recent action and believe it was a step in the right direction. However, these Army briefings are small examples of what I believe is a larger issue, which is a pattern of intolerance toward people of faith in the military.

In addition to briefings mislabeling Christians, we have also seen a Christian chaplain ordered to remove a religious column he had written which simply detailed the history of the phrase ``there are no atheists in foxholes.'' Active efforts are underway to remove the phrase ``so help me God'' from the Air Force Academy oath. The President, upon signing the National Defense Authorization Act, actually called religious freedom protections for military chaplains and other servicemembers ``unnecessary and ill-advised.''

I have no idea how he could say this.

Mr. Speaker, this religious intolerance is unacceptable. Our Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but has always believed in freedom of self-expression and intolerance. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to defend these basic rights.

Religious freedom is an integral component of America's greatness and has been a pillar of our Nation from the very beginning. You can see the picture that Representative Hartzler showed of George Washington. It has also been a strong part of our military heritage.

We must remain firmly committed to defending that freedom.

I thank the chairman for his work on the Rules Committee and for bringing H.J. Res. 89, the Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act, and I rise in support of this act.

Mr. Speaker, this will ensure that Federal employees who have been deemed essential will have no disruption in their pay. That's an excellent step in the right direction, and I wholeheartedly support that concept.

Just on Saturday, the House unanimously--every single Republican and every single Democrat--supported H.R. 3223, and that said that everyone who is a Federal employee will get paid eventually, at the end of this slowdown that we're in right now. So this is a step in the right direction.

But I want to urge that we take up a bill that I introduced yesterday, H.R. 3271, which goes a step further and says there is no distinction between the essential and non-essential Federal worker. All Federal workers are to be brought back immediately and given back pay and put on a regular pay schedule.

We are going to be reimbursing these people for back pay sooner or later anyway. That's what the bill Saturday accomplished that we all supported here in the House, but this would reassure everyone that they can go to work immediately.

There are people who are going to be having a tough time making house and car payments, and these are people with important jobs.

In my district, in Colorado Springs, there are a lot of defense civil workers, and they are supporting the warfighters. The Pentagon is supposed to be bringing all of them back, and many of them are coming back, but not every single one. So I want them to have the assurance that they will get paid immediately on being reinstated and that they will come back to work immediately.

So I think that it would be in the interest of our Federal workforce to take up the bill that I've introduced, H.R. 3271, and bring all civilian furloughed and Federal workers back immediately, with back pay.

But this is a great bill. I do support it, H.J. Res. 89. I thank the Rules Committee for bringing it out.

There has been, unfortunately, some gamesmanship we've seen with the National Park Service. I think that that's unfortunate. Shutting down the World War II Memorial when veterans are in their eighties and nineties, coming to Washington, maybe for the last visit that they can, and they're being told they can't enter the memorial.

So let's don't have any gamesmanship. Let's bring everyone back to work.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I want to talk about negotiations. The President, unfortunately, has said he's not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. And Harry Reid has said, he's not going to send negotiators to sit down with Republicans and talk about the continuing resolution and the government shutdown.

But that begs the question: Who does the President negotiate with? Well, take a look here. Bashar al-Assad, the dictator of the regime in Syria, who has used poison gas on his people about 15 times; 100,000 people have died in that civil war. And after the latest explosion of poison gas, the civilized world was outraged that 1,500 people were killed. And John Kerry now has entered into negotiations, with the Russians acting as intermediaries.

So the Russians are going to help negotiate with the Syrians. This has the blessing of the President. I wish them success on this venture. I hope the negotiations come to something, but they are willing to negotiate with these reprehensible dictators from around the world, and that includes Iran. Iran now has entered into discussions with the State Department and the President. The President has talked to the President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, and I wish success upon these negotiations. They are trying their best.

But when you think about these characters around the world, and in some cases evil regimes that the President is negotiating with, who is he not negotiating with? The Republicans in the House.

John Boehner is the Speaker of the House, and the Republicans in the conference represent over half the people in America. Over half of Americans are represented by Republicans here in Congress, over half the country; and yet the President won't even negotiate. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, won't even send negotiators to talk to House negotiators. I think this is wrong. I think we should have some negotiations. I think we should have some discussions. If these people merit negotiation and discussion, certainly half of the country, the Republicans here in the House who represent half of the country, should enter into negotiations.

So I call on the President to negotiate with the Speaker and House Republicans on the debt ceiling. I call on Harry Reid to send negotiators to meet with House Republicans to talk about the government slowdown or shutdown or whatever you want to call it.

We need to negotiate, Mr. President. We need to negotiate, Mr. Reid.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the emerging pattern of poor decisionmaking coming from the Obama administration on national security.

Under sequestration, this White House mandated that civilian defense workers be furloughed, even when agencies had the money to pay these employees, many of whom are veterans. And today, under this partial government shutdown, the White House has again chosen to furlough the vast majority of these same workers, against the express will and intent of Congress.

Earlier this week, all of us here in Congress passed a bipartisan bill, which the President signed, to expressly protect the pay of Active Duty military, civilian defense employees, and designated defense contractors. The Pentagon can put these workers back on the job today, but the White House is choosing to furlough our critical civilian defense workers.

The Obama administration is also eroding our national security by choosing to furlough 70 percent of the civilian employees at our intelligence agencies. This is unnecessary.

The law is now on the books to put civilians back to work to protect our national defense. Let's do it.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of reopening our national parks and museums.

This morning, I met with some of our great World War II veterans down at the World War II Memorial on our National Mall. One of these veterans, 97-year-old Eugene Morgan of West Memphis, Tennessee, came with his son, Jeff. When they arrived, they were met by ``Obamacades''--a series of rented barricades intended to keep our veterans from visiting the memorial--their own memorial.

The closure of this memorial is hard to comprehend. It is an open-air memorial that is normally accessible to the public 24 hours a day, all year long, with little or no staff. It was built using private money. Veterans have been planning for months to visit this memorial. This may be the last time they come back east to see it.

Other Americans are trying to visit national parks all around the country, including in my home State of Colorado, but it's unacceptable that we are closing parks, some of which don't even need staff.

For many of our elderly veterans, this might be their last opportunity.

Mr. President, these parks belong to us. Take down your barricades and let the people in.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to open our national parks to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reassure our Nation's military members--both Active Duty and Reserve in Active Duty status and their families--your pay and benefits will continue uninterrupted during this partial government shutdown.

Anticipating your needs, yesterday House Republicans introduced--and Members of both parties and both Chambers agreed--to pass this bill to ensure you will not face any economic hardship during this time of uncertainty in Washington. The President has signed this bill into law.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA trauma counseling services and hotlines will remain open for business. Also, all VA medical facilities and clinics, including vet centers, will remain fully open and operational.

Additionally, yesterday, I introduced a separate bill that expands on our commitment to our military and national defense. My bill would provide uninterrupted pay and benefits to Guard and Reserve members, Department of Defense civilians, and designated defense contractors.

My bill would also provide the President with the ability to carry out other vital national security priorities, which could include funding for military operations or other national security priorities such as intelligence and homeland security.

Our greatest duty as a Nation is to our men and women in uniform. We are grateful for your sacrifice, and we will do all we can to ensure you are treated with the respect you have earned and that you deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the issue of fairness for all under ObamaCare.

Democrats, working with the President, sought and obtained a special exemption for Members of Congress and their staffs from ObamaCare's onerous costs and mandates. This is outrageous and insulting to the American people.

Last night, the House passed legislation to ensure that Members of Congress, their staffs, and other well-connected political insiders don't get any special carve-outs from ObamaCare. It's a fundamental issue of fairness. But the Senate, last night, voted to exempt themselves, their staffs, and other political cronies in the White House from living under the mandates imposed on the rest of the country.

Time and time again, this President has given special breaks to unions, campaign donors, and Washington insiders. These are breaks he is not giving to the American people. This is one of the fundamental problems of ObamaCare. It creates another way for the government to pick winners and losers.

I appreciate the recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill introduced by my Colorado colleague, Cory Gardner, to help Colorado rebuild from the floods that have ravaged our State in recent weeks.

The flooding damaged at least 17,000 homes and other structures, several thousand of which were destroyed outright. Millions of dollars of public infrastructure have been washed away. Specifically, over 200 miles of Colorado roads, and at least 50 bridges, have been damaged or destroyed. The floods consumed an area of Colorado that is twice the size of Rhode Island.

Currently, the law caps emergency funding for highways and bridges at $100 million per State. According to a preliminary estimate from the Colorado Department of Transportation, the cost to rebuild our State's roads and bridges is several times that amount.

We are not asking Congress to appropriate any additional funds. We are simply asking that we be able to access money that Congress has already appropriated for reconstruction after a natural disaster. This legislation has a Congressional Budget Office score of zero, meaning it does not add a dime to our national debt.

The flooding was worse in the northern part of the State, but there were heavy rains and flooding even in the southern part of the State, which I represent, and two people, unfortunately, were swept away and lost their lives.

I do thank my colleagues for their consideration of this bill to help the great State of Colorado to rebuild.