[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 94 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3814-H3824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4480, DOMESTIC ENERGY AND JOBS ACT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 691 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 691
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4480) to provide for the development of a plan
to increase oil and gas exploration, development, and
production under oil and gas leases of Federal lands under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Interior, and the
Secretary of Defense in response to a drawdown of petroleum
reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 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 resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally
divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and
the chair and ranking minority member
[[Page H3815]]
of the Committee on Natural Resources. 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
112-24. 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 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 without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
{time} 1240
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis). Pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I also ask that all Members may have 5
legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This resolution provides for a structured rule
for the consideration of H.R. 4480, the Strategic Energy Production Act
of 2012, and it makes in order 27 individual amendments that are
specified under the rule, two-thirds of which are Democrat amendments.
The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of both the
Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Committee on Natural
Resources. So this structured rule is very fair, and it will provide
for a balanced and open debate on the merits of the bill.
Madam Speaker, I'm actually pleased to stand before the House today
in support of this rule as well as the underlying legislation, H.R.
4480. The lead sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Gardner), is to be commended for his hard work and leadership in
putting this piece of legislation together. I also commend the chairmen
of both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Natural Resources
Committee for their support and hard work, as well, on this particular
act and on other important pieces of legislation aimed at making our
Nation more energy independent.
Madam Speaker, this bill is yet another reminder that this
administration is not doing enough to develop our own domestic energy
resources, which are plentiful in many parts of our public lands. In my
home State of Utah, for example, there are vast amounts of oil and oil
shale reserves that remain untapped, largely due to special interest
group politics that keeps these lands locked up, even as we go abroad
and increase our dependence on foreign sources as well as increasing
our trade deficit.
Energy is an absolute prerequisite to our economic engine and creates
jobs. If this administration ever hopes to get unemployment down during
its tenure, then helping to develop more domestic energy is the key.
This bill, H.R. 4480, stands for a very commonsense proposition. The
proposition is that, whenever the President of the United States
authorizes a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the
Secretary of Energy will be required to develop a plan to increase the
percentage of Federal land oil production by a commensurate percentage
to that released from the reserve. The reserve is a reserve. It is
reserved for emergencies. Unfortunately, this administration is using
our reserve to accommodate common daily life.
It is important and the purpose of this legislation is:
Number one, to develop our resources;
Number two, to make sure that we can streamline the process so that
we do not delay the development of our resources;
Number three, to keep the reserve for real emergencies;
Number four, organize a plan to make sure that will be in effect; and
Number five, recognize clearly that energy is needed for job
creation. Without that energy, we will not create the jobs that are
necessary for this country to move forward.
This bill would actually limit the total amount of Federal lands to
be leased, which is only 10 percent of the total of all public lands.
Ten percent is very reasonable. The bill also excludes national parks,
obviously, and congressionally designated wilderness areas from
consideration of this bill.
It's a good bill. It's a commonsense bill. When passed, it will be a
key part of our effective and comprehensive national energy strategy.
I urge adoption of the rule, which is a fair rule, and the underlying
bill, which is a commonsense bill, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill, H.R. 4480, the so-called Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, what is
really a death and destruction act, an act that will directly lead to
the death of American citizens from various health-related causes--
including cancer--and destruction. It is the destruction of not only
our environment, but of our quality of life, including our quality of
life in my home State of Colorado that is such an important part of
driving our economy forward and creating jobs.
Here we are where several controversial, highly partisan bills have
been packaged together. There are seven bills. While there is an
attempt to dress this up as a jobs package, it's really a wish list for
the oil industry that has no chance of becoming law. It's a huge
giveaway to the oil industry at the expense of the health of American
families, the health of our environment, and our enjoyment and
recreational opportunities and economic opportunities on public lands.
Instead of allowing improvements to this drastic death and
destruction bill, the House majority has blocked many amendments
offered by Republicans and Democrats alike. Under this restrictive
rule, commonsense amendments were blocked, including an amendment I
offered that would have directed a study on the impacts of oil shale
development on agricultural and municipal water usage. My colleague
from California, Representative Napolitano, offered a similar amendment
in committee.
Those of us in the West, where farmers, ranchers, and community
leaders consistently keep us abreast of water issues--and water is our
most precious resource--know that we need some commonsense and
objective data with regard to how energy production impacts resources,
particularly our most precious resource: water.
What lies at the heart of this death and destruction bill today is
simply a false premise. It's the false premise that somehow the United
States is failing to make good on its natural energy resources.
The fact is, as a result of President Obama's all-of-the-above energy
strategy, our Nation's dependence on foreign oil has fallen
drastically, and crude oil production in the United States is at an 8-
year high. President Obama has increased production of crude oil
substantially over the Bush administration lows. The President's
policies are demonstrating that we can have an approach to energy in
the United States that boosts oil and gas
[[Page H3816]]
production and invests in the next generation of cleaner, job-creating,
renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar, and geothermal.
In contrast to the President's all-of-the-above approach, which will
lead to reductions in gas prices and a sustainable energy future for
our country, this death and destruction bill before us today is an oil-
above-all approach. This death and destruction bill hands public lands
that we all value over to the oil and gas industry and undermines the
laws and rules that have made our air and water cleaner and safer over
the past 40 years.
One of the scariest provisions in this package would gut important
health-based standards provided for in the Clean Air Act established on
a bipartisan basis in 1970. The Clean Air Act-based standards are
especially important for protecting children, the elderly, and others
who are susceptible to harmful air pollution.
Many nonpartisan public health and medical organizations have
recognized that this bill would override clean air standards that have
protected American people and families from harmful pollution in the
past 40 years. That is why on this bill, which the majority purports
deals with energy, we've heard from pediatricians, we've heard from
doctors, we've heard from health care providers that this would lead to
death, as well as the destruction of jobs, as well as the destruction
of our environment and recreational opportunities.
Another controversial partisan provision in this bill would open up
vast quantities of public lands to drilling. The bill sets an arbitrary
requirement on the Department of the Interior to offer oil companies at
least 25 percent of onshore areas that industry nominates each year.
Let me say that again. The Department of the Interior wants to open up
more lands to industry, even though oil and gas companies hold more
than 25 million acres of public lands on shore where they're not
producing oil and gas. In addition, these companies are sitting on
6,700 drilling permits that have been approved that they are not using.
They need to explore lands where they already hold energy leases.
This is not a sensible energy policy. It's called an old-fashioned
land grab and an old-fashioned water grab. They're coming after our
land in the West, and they're coming after our water in the West. We're
not going to take it sitting down.
Another extreme provision is that this bill would overturn the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act to elevate energy production
above other public land uses. My constituents in Colorado are
tremendously concerned that somehow oil production would trump job-
creating activities, including hunting, fishing, recreation, grazing,
conservation, mainstays of jobs and the economy in my district that
would be overridden in the name of oil, which would destroy jobs and
destroy the health of Colorado families and families across the United
States.
Another provision in this bill turns the review of applications to
drill into nothing more than a rubber stamp. The bill says that if the
Secretary of the Interior doesn't make a decision within 60 days, it's
automatically approved. It will be automatically approved with no
process.
At the same time, many of the proponents of this bill are attempting
to gut the budget of many of the agencies that need to review these
applications, effectively ensuring that no application can properly be
dealt with and evaluated within 60 days, and therefore they would all
be automatically approved regardless of the impact on people's health
or economic opportunities and jobs.
{time} 1250
Now there are so many troubling provisions in this bill. Another
one--and this one would likely violate our Constitution, which we began
this session of Congress by reciting very publicly in this body--it
would limit a citizen's right to participate in the discussion of
leasing and drilling by making all dissenters pay a $5,000 fee.
Now imagine you are a Coloradan, an Arizonan, a Pennsylvanian, a
Texan who's concerned about drilling near your home or near your school
or near your ranch. Now under this death and destruction bill, opening
your mouth would cost you $5,000. Free speech would no longer be free,
if this bill passes.
Madam Speaker, public lands are just that, public. We all own a share
of them. We all benefit from them. They're not the private playground
of oil and gas companies. They're owned by all Americans. And all
Americans should have a say in how they're used, not just Americans who
cough up $5,000.
Well, this bill would grant the oil and gas industry's wish list by
opening up public lands and rolling back public health safeguards,
hurting health and killing American families. But one thing this bill
will not do is lower the price of gasoline. Economists agree: this bill
has no impact on the price of gasoline.
There are actually now more drilling rigs in operation in the United
States, thanks to President Obama's leadership today, than the rest of
the world combined. In addition, the number of drilling rigs has
doubled, doubled since 2009. President Obama's leadership has doubled
the number of drilling rigs since 2009.
Now research going back more than three decades shows that there is
very little correlation between the volume of domestic oil and the
price of gasoline at the pump.
Go ahead and tell the American people that we want oil and gas
companies to drill anywhere they like with no regard for public health.
Is that the message that we want to send? This bill, this death and
destruction bill, would not only lead to the deaths of Americans but
would destroy jobs, destroy economic opportunities, and destroy
recreational opportunities. It's nothing short of a Federal land grab
and a Federal water grab.
Representing my constituents in Colorado, I encourage my colleagues
to say, ``Heck, no,'' on both the bill as well as the rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Berg), the gentleman whose home State has
provided a program of death and destruction which has led to a 3
percent or less unemployment rate, through jobs in energy production.
Mr. BERG. I thank the gentleman for recognizing me today.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying bill, the Domestic
Energy and Jobs Act. In my home State of North Dakota, we're seeing
unprecedented growth. As it was mentioned, at 3 percent, North Dakota
has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. We have a nearly $2
billion budget surplus. We have stabilized our finances, and we've
created certainty. And I couldn't be more proud of our State.
A large part of our economic success is due to a comprehensive energy
policy and a commonsense regulatory environment which, in North Dakota,
is known as EmPower North Dakota. In North Dakota, we know that all
energy production is good energy production. Rather than picking
winners and losers in energy, this EmPower act creates a stable,
business-friendly climate. It does this by encouraging all energy
production.
North Dakota embraces all forms of energy production and natural
resources capabilities across our State. And North Dakota is really
proof that ``all-of-the-above'' really does work, and there's no reason
why we should not be taking this proven approach to developing energy
and domestic energy production and applying it nationwide. That's
really the goal of this legislation that's being considered here in the
House today.
I am proud to offer my strong support for this legislation, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to do the same by supporting this rule.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding the time.
Madam Speaker and colleagues, I rise to oppose the rule and the
underlying bill for three primary reasons. First, the package is very
poor public policy. Second, I offered a commonsense amendment, and the
Republican majority blocked it from being debated, so it will not be
heard today, unfortunately. And third, the House of Representatives
shouldn't be wasting its time on a
[[Page H3817]]
package that's not going anywhere. Instead, we should be focused on job
creation, especially passage of the transportation bill, through which
we could create thousands and thousands of jobs across the country.
But first, as we marked up part of this package in the Energy and
Commerce Committee, it became apparent that this package is chock-full
of detrimental policy decisions for America. It creates new
bureaucracies when it comes to energy policy and undermines the
Nation's energy security. It rolls back policies that support the
continued growth of safe and responsible energy production in the
United States. And it improperly removes protections that we enjoy
under the Clean Air Act that protect the health of American families
all across this great Nation.
Second, if my colleagues recall, following the BP Deepwater Horizon
blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, a major flaw in the law came to light:
that the Department of Interior's maximum penalty for companies
violating offshore drilling laws is limited to $40,000, and for major
onshore drilling violations, it's only $5,000. So these amounts are not
enough of a deterrent for bad behavior. That's why I offered an
amendment to give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to
increase civil fines against oil companies that violate the law while
drilling. But unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have once again
blocked sensible policy in order to protect Big Oil.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster was a major economic blow to my home
State of Florida. If our laws do not establish appropriate deterrents,
then you put our jobs at risk. Our tourism industry, small businesses,
restaurants, fishermen, and the military rely on clean water and clean
beaches. And our laws should protect American families and businesses,
and not just Big Oil.
Finally, I strongly disagree with the Republican majority's decision
to block the transportation bill and the thousands and thousands of
jobs that are dependent on it. The Republican inaction on a bill that
passed the United States Senate in a bipartisan way with over 70 votes
is being blocked here on the floor of the House, and people should be
up in arms. At a time when we've got to make greater progress when it
comes to putting people back to work, that's the best path forward. I
think the Republican inaction is causing great economic harm across the
country, and that is what we should be debating today.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany, a State that truly understands what it
means to have an all-of-the-above policy for energy production, and
what energy means to job creation.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, the sad fact today is that this country does not have
a coherent energy strategy, pure and simple.
Now I can tell you, I come from Louisiana, where we know firsthand,
probably more than any other State, that good energy policy can march
hand-in-hand with good economic policy and good environmental policy.
We've lived that life. We know that the energy sector, American energy
production, creates good-paying jobs. Many of these jobs go to people
from families that have never had anyone attend college, and through
these jobs, they have been able to pay for college for the next
generation. These are good-paying jobs, better paying than most.
The first step in energy policy is, number one, don't punish your
current energy production. Don't punish American energy production. And
that's what we've seen from this administration. Four straight years of
proposing high taxes, new taxes on independent small energy companies,
small oil and gas companies. New taxes at a time when we ought to be
developing our energy production makes no sense at all. Secondly,
what's our transition strategy? We clearly have an abundance of oil and
gas, new reserves, new technology.
{time} 1300
We have led the world in this. We ought to be developing it. And we
can achieve energy security for this country and create good-paying
American jobs.
This administration proposed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of
Mexico. And now, yes, they lifted the moratorium, but they still
continue to slow-walk the permits. This bill would go forward and help
us to streamline that process so we can get American energy production
back up online in the Gulf of Mexico and to develop our energy security
needs. We have the reserves. We have the opportunity.
The American energy production sector from upstream, midstream,
downstream is accountable for 6 million jobs in this country; and we
can grow more jobs. We can grow more jobs beyond that--good-paying
jobs--if we do this--and meet our energy security needs.
The bottom line is this: I would ask my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle to take a look at that plaque up there near the ceiling
just above the Speaker's chair. Read the first sentence. It says: ``Let
us develop the resources of our land,'' a quote from Daniel Webster. We
should heed that advice. We should develop the resources of our land.
Let's develop our American energy production in the Gulf of Mexico
and Alaska. Let's develop it in the shale plays. Let's create jobs.
Let's create a secure energy future for this country, and let's move
this country forward.
Mr. POLIS. If we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an
amendment to this rule that will allow the House to consider the Stop
the Rate Hike Act of 2012, legislation that would keep the student loan
interest rate low and reduce the deficit. If Congress fails to act,
more than 7 million students across this country will see their student
loan interest rate double come July 1, just around the corner. It's
outrageous that at this time of slow and painful economic recovery the
majority continues to refuse to work on this issue in a bipartisan way.
To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Polis, for yielding and for, again,
bringing this issue back to the floor, which, as my chart indicates,
we're now down to 10 days.
When this chart was first created, it was 110 days, and it coincided
with the delivery of 130,000 petition signatures from college campuses
all across America, pleading with Congress to listen to President
Obama's challenge on January 25 right from that podium that we should
block the increase from going through.
My legislation, which was introduced at midnight the same night, had
152 cosponsors to lock in the lower rate. For 3 months, nothing
happened. A bill was rushed to the floor by the majority without any
consultation with the other side. It took money out of a fund to pay
for cervical cancer screening and diabetes screening, a hyperpartisan
measure which the President indicated he would veto even before the
vote was taken.
The good news is Mr. Boehner has already moved away from that
proposal. He sent a letter with Senator McConnell to the Senate
leadership offering new pay-fors and moving off the House bill. Again,
that was rushed through with absolutely no consultation on any
bipartisan basis.
There are 7 million college students who are waiting for an answer in
the next 10 days to this issue. The rates will double from 3.4 percent
to 6.8 percent. Senator Reid has talked already about a proposal which
is a pay-for that, again, there appears to be some willingness to move
forward on. We should be focused on that issue right now, not this
measure on the floor which is going nowhere. It's another bill which
will never see the light of day in the Senate.
This issue, helping students pay for college at a time when student
loan debt now exceeds $1 trillion, is the issue that America is
watching and waiting. And editorially, from Florida all the way to the
west coast, newspapers are demanding bipartisan compromise, not the
kind of measure which was rammed through this House a month and a half
ago.
The building blocks are there, but we have to focus on that, not the
measure that's before us here today. And the Tierney bill is a perfect
opportunity for us to do something which, again, has a balanced
approach and which will protect students from the doubling of their
student loan interest rates.
[[Page H3818]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a Member who
is really a great and wonderful Member of this body, the gentlelady
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly appreciate the gentleman for
yielding time.
Madam Speaker, our economy is struggling, the American people need
jobs, and too many families are struggling under the burden of ever-
rising energy prices. It's certainly long past time for the Federal
Government to act; and, today, this House will act.
This Nation, Madam Speaker, has been blessed with so many vast energy
resources that if we actually advantaged ourselves, we could actually
meet all of our Nation's energy needs. We could create countless good-
paying jobs right here at home. We could provide needed funding for our
Federal Treasury, expand our economy, and make our Nation more secure.
But, unfortunately, we don't do that. Instead, in fact, we are nearly
the only Nation I think on the face of the planet, really, that does
not take advantage of its own natural energy resources. Instead, we,
unfortunately, have made the choice to rely on foreign sources of
energy to meet many of our needs--many from unstable or unfriendly
nations to whom we export literally hundreds of billions of dollars of
our national wealth each and every year and we bypass the opportunity
to create needed jobs right here at home. This absolutely needs to
change.
While President Obama talks about an all-of-the-above energy
strategy, his actions tell a different story, really. While exploration
of oil and other energy resources is up overall, it's been reduced on
lands under Federal control under this administration. And this
administration's EPA has made the coal industry public enemy number
one, even though it's the cheapest and most abundant source of electric
generation that we have here in our Nation.
Today, this House will act on a true all-of-the-above energy
strategy. This legislation will streamline and remove government red
tape as a hurdle to energy production. It will require our Nation to
put forward goals for production of all energy sources, including oil,
natural gas, coal, renewables, of course, on Federal lands. And it will
make the permitting process much easier, and it will open up new areas
to exploration and development both onshore as well as offshore. This
legislation will lower energy prices for hard-pressed consumers, it
will create good-paying jobs here at home, and it will enhance our
economic security and national security as well.
I certainly urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this
critical legislation, and I support the rule as well.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to this rule
and the underlying bill. We all know that high oil and gasoline prices
take their toll on American consumers. Understandably, they want their
elected officials to take action. But what the American people don't
want is empty promises, and they don't want more political posturing
designed to score cheap political points in an election year. And
that's all this bill gives us.
H.R. 4480 blocks and delays EPA air-quality protections--protections
that haven't even been proposed yet. It includes a radical proposal
that damages the Clean Air Act goal that air should be clean enough to
breathe safely. And it gives the Energy Department the job of
developing a new drilling plan on Federal lands, even though this is
not an area of expertise at all.
Madam Speaker, the idea behind this bill is just not thought out.
It's not a solution to high oil and gasoline prices, nor will it create
any immediate jobs. It is really nothing more than a transparent
attempt to use this issue as an excuse for advancing an agenda in order
to hurt our precious resources of lands and our own health.
And that's why I had sent to the Rules Committee a straightforward
amendment that would have protected my State's coastline from new
offshore drilling. My Republican colleague from California, Mr.
Bilbray, had a similar amendment on the same issue; but this Rules
Committee is not allowing either amendment even to be debated, even to
have its say on the House floor. A State where offshore drilling has
been protected in State waters will now, because these amendments were
not made in order, have to allow the Federal Government to work its
will in contradiction to the State. And that's wrong. That's why
Members from both sides should use their good sense and oppose this
rule and oppose the underlying bill.
{time} 1310
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Chairman Hall, who
has probably heard many of these arguments before.
Mr. HALL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4480, the Domestic
Energy and Jobs Act, a proactive piece of legislation that encourages
and expands production of our vast domestic resources to help put
Americans back to work.
I strongly believe that, other than prayer, energy is the most
important word in the dictionary for our young people. It's the
foundation upon which our Nation has prospered and key to our quality
of life and standard of living.
America is blessed with a wealth of natural resources and energy
reserves, leading Citigroup to predict that we could soon become the
world's largest oil producer. The recent shale gas revolution has
driven production to new heights and prices to new lows. It has created
hundreds of thousands of new jobs and stimulated a resurgence of
domestic manufacturing in this country. In 2010, unconventional natural
gas production alone supported approximately 1 million American jobs.
Simultaneously, shale oil production has led to rapid and dramatic
economic growth and job creation in places not typically known for
energy production, such as North Dakota. Workers are flocking to the
State to pursue the abundant opportunities in the Bakken shale. While
the Nation suffers unemployment rates in excess of 8 percent,
unemployment in North Dakota is the lowest in this country at just 3
percent.
The only thing preventing us from reaping the benefits of being a
world leader in energy production is bureaucratic red tape. Permitting
delays, declining production on Federal land, restricted access, and
stifling regulations all stand in the way. H.R. 4480 would free us from
these barriers put forth by the administration and, instead, set us on
the right track to unleash the full energy potential of this Nation.
This bill addresses numerous issues the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee has examined, including, for example, costly Tier
3 regulations that would increase the price of fuel at a time when
families can least afford to pay more for their commute. Not only would
this standard place a burden on household budgets, but the EPA ignored
the law by failing to complete a study on the detrimental effects of
RFS prior to beginning work on these standards. Quite simply, again the
EPA failed to do its homework, instead barreling forward with
regulations without a sufficient foundation.
Regulations like this one are far too often based on shaky science,
devoid of adequate peer review, and rely on secret data EPA refuses to
share with the public. The EPA ignores the scientific method in order
to overstate the economic benefits of its rules in an attempt to
justify their sizeable costs.
H.R. 4480 takes a timeout from EPA's activist regulatory agenda and
seeks to put our country on track to pursue a genuine all-of-the-above
energy strategy that would expand opportunities for production rather
than stifle them.
I urge Members to support this rule as well as the underlying bill.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, this is a rare time when we are talking
about energy, when we are hearing from the Academy of Pediatrics, the
Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Public Health
Association, the National Association of City and County Health
Officials, and a number of other signatories on this letter which says,
very simply, that we should make sure that the EPA can determine
whether our air is safe to breathe and not do it based on how much it
costs to reduce air pollution.
June 18, 2012.
Dear Representative: The undersigned public health and
medical organizations
[[Page H3819]]
write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 4480, which
includes dangerous provisions that would block and delay
important public health safeguards under the Clean Air Act.
Gutting the Clean Air Act will not address rising gas prices,
but it will needlessly weaken the Clean Air Act's life-saving
protections and delay much-needed air pollution safeguards.
Title II of H.R. 4480 indefinitely delays three overdue air
quality safeguards, including standards for tailpipes
emissions and gasoline sulfur content (Tier 3), air emissions
standards for petroleum refineries and ground level ozone
standards. Most egregiously, H.R. 4480 also repeals the
health premise of the Clean Air Act.
In 1970, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress
agreed that to adequately protect public health, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must set air quality
standards to protect health with an adequate margin of
safety. These standards are based on the best available
health science. This system has worked for more than 40 years
to let people know if the air is safe to breathe, and
motivate action to improve air quality when it is not safe.
EPA must retain this authority to establish health-based
ambient air quality standards.
The Clean Air Act fully considers cost and feasibility in
determining how to meet air quality standards. States and EPA
consider these factors during the implementation process as
strategies are implemented to meet air quality standards.
Just as a doctor does not diagnose a patient based on the
cost of treatment, EPA should not determine whether the air
is safe to breathe based on how much it costs to reduce air
pollution.
The Clean Air Act is one of the nation's premier public
health laws. Since its establishment in 1970, the aggregate
emissions of criteria air pollutants decreased 71%, while
Gross Domestic Product increased 210%. Given the enormous
contribution of the Clean Air Act to public health, we urge
you to reject all efforts to weaken and delay it. Please vote
NO on H.R. 4480.
Sincerely,
American Academy of Pediatrics.
American Heart Association.
American Lung Association.
American Public Health Association.
American Thoracic Society.
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.
Health Care Without Harm.
National Association of City and County Health Officials.
National Environmental Health Association.
Trust for America's Health.
Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.
This bill represents the latest Republican attempt to give away our
public lands to the wealthiest oil companies in the world. This bill is
the culmination of the Republican oil-above-all agenda. Instead of
approving this legislative love letter to Big Oil, the majority should
be sending a thank-you note to President Obama for his actions to
increase domestic energy production and decrease our dependence on
foreign oil.
The truth is that oil production from Federal lands on shore today is
higher than it was under President Bush. And across the United States,
oil production from all public and private lands is unbelievably now at
an 18-year high. Obama is drilling, baby; he's drilling.
The Obama administration's all-of-the-above strategy has also been
successful in creating jobs. Since 2008, 14,000 new jobs have been
created in oil and gas extraction. Thank you, President Obama. And
50,000 new jobs have also been created in wind and solar, but
Republicans don't want a real all-of-the-above energy strategy.
At the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment, along with Mr. Welch,
that would have established a national renewable energy standard. That
amendment would have created wind and solar all across our country as a
standard. That amendment was germane to this bill and had no budgetary
impact, but the Republican majority refused to even allow us to debate
an amendment so that Members could have a chance to vote on an actual
all-of-the-above package that wasn't just oil and gas.
And President Obama is about as good a President as you can have on
that issue; but wind and solar and biomass and geothermal and all of
these technologies of the future, they refused to even allow the
Democrats to have a vote on that on the House floor this afternoon.
They are not all of the above; they are oil above all. They don't want
wind and solar because the oil industry doesn't want it, and the coal
industry doesn't want it because it's real competition from the future.
The renewable electricity standard that I would have offered would
have created 300,000 new jobs and saved consumers billions of dollars
on their electricity bills.
In 2007, 32 Republicans joined 188 Democrats in overwhelming support
of a similar renewable electricity standard. In 2009, the House again
passed that policy on a bipartisan basis. It died in the Senate both
times. Today, it dies here on the House floor because the Republicans
don't want 32 Republicans to even have the right to vote for wind and
solar and biomass and geothermal. They're afraid Republicans might vote
for it, so there's a gag here, a gag order to the House floor saying no
debate on the renewables because oil and coal don't want it debated.
There will not be a vote on this.
The majority has voted more than 100 times in this Congress to help
the oil industry, but they have not voted once in favor of clean energy
in the year and a half that they have controlled the United States
Congress.
Moreover, because they will not extend the production tax credit for
wind, 40,000 jobs are going to be lost in the wind industry in the
first 6 months of 2013. This is the Big Oil dream act. This is the
dream act of the Republicans. This is something that should be opposed.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Ironically, I do agree with the gentleman from
Massachusetts in one element of what he said, that this administration,
President Obama, is drilling on permits that were granted by Bush and
Clinton. The unfortunate side is that this administration is not
permitting any new drilling permits for the future growth of this
country.
With that, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) who has been working diligently for many
years on this particular issue and has a clear understanding of it.
{time} 1320
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding the
time.
I am so pleased, Madam Speaker, that we are pushing forward on some
bills that are going to actually create the environment for jobs growth
to take place. Of course we know that that is needed by the American
people. We hear about it every single day.
We are at the longest streak that we have had since the Great
Depression, the longest streak with unemployment being above 8 percent.
If you look at underemployment, it's at 14.8 percent. Clearly, the
American people are speaking out that they want action and they want to
get back to work. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act will do that,
helping to create the environment for jobs growth to take place and
helping to create the environment where we take actions to fuel this
economy.
Our unemployment and underemployment numbers should be a wake-up call
to the President, should be a wake-up call to the Senate. They can't
continue to sit on their hands and play the blame game while 13 million
Americans remain out of work.
As I said, this legislation will help create the jobs that are needed
in our Nation's energy sector. What we want to see is more American-
made energy, more American exploration. We want to see American
innovation and end our dependence on foreign oil. Those are worthy
goals, and these are steps in the right direction.
We also hear a lot about the price at the pump. I have many friends
who are the mom in the minivan and are getting children back and forth,
to and from activities. And at $3.50 a gallon as the new normal, if you
will, gas having doubled, the price of gasoline as a transportation
fuel having doubled since this President was sworn in, this is
something that women talk to us about regularly. There are deep
concerns about this.
The greatest potential for economic growth in this country can be
found in this Nation's precious natural resources, in our energy
resources. While the President is clearly preoccupied with telling
Americans what we won't do on energy, what he will not take steps to
do, the economy and jobs and what he isn't going to do there, House
Republicans are laying out a pathway for what we can do.
By working hard, we can empower those innovators to harness our
domestic energy capabilities using so many
[[Page H3820]]
of those new technologies that are out there, new innovations that have
been brought forward by so many of the petroleum engineers and the
innovators in this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentlewoman 1 minute.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I have to say this: with every new discovery of
American energy and every new technology advancement, we are able to
put more into the marketplace for our Nation's manufacturers,
engineers, our leasing specialists, our rig operators, and much more.
I recently had the opportunity to be back in south Mississippi, where
I grew up. I had the opportunity to talk with some of the men and women
who are involved and working and innovating in the oil and gas industry
every single day. What I heard from them was the degree of advancement
and the number of opportunities that exist if the Federal Government
will get out of the way and return our focus to creating the
environment for energy exploration and jobs growth to take place in
this great Nation.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, the gentlelady was quite correct about
worrying about the price of gasoline. And as you sit around talking
about that, you ought to be concerned about the 24 million gallons of
gasoline that's exported from the United States every day. You might
also want to consider that the price of natural gas has plummeted by
more than 60 percent during the Obama administration, providing us with
an extraordinary opportunity for growth.
But what I'd really like to talk about is, this bill is not a
Strategic Energy Production Act. It does not deal with the renewable
energy. In fact, the wind energy industry in the United States is about
to come to a screeching halt. Seventy-five thousand jobs are presently
in this industry. We are already beginning to see the downsizing--
17,000 are now being laid off because the production tax credit is not
being extended. If we were to extend the production tax credit, we
could probably find another 37,000 people working next year.
If we added to this my piece of legislation, H.R. 487, which requires
that our tax dollars--in this case, the production tax credit--be spent
on American-made equipment, we could see, perhaps, even more
manufacturing in the United States.
Bottom line: the Strategic Energy Production Act is an act for the
oil and coal industry. It is not for America. We need to change that.
We need to look at all of the above, not just oil and coal.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, a package of seven bills
that, taken together, will create jobs and make America more energy
independent.
There are a number of provisions, but among them the bill reforms and
streamlines the energy permitting process by setting firm timelines for
legal challenges and limiting the duration of injunctions. This
provision is critical because it addresses all the red tape, the
Washington red tape, and the constant wave of lawsuits by radical
environmentalists that have prevented many American energy projects
from ever getting off the ground. Some of them have been stalled for
decades. Too often, activist Washington lawyers come between the
American people and abundant affordable energy. With this bill, we are
fighting back.
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Project No Project
report, energy permitting reform could unleash investment to the tune
of $3.4 trillion in economic benefits and over 2.6 million jobs
created.
All you've got to do is look at the State of North Dakota for the
benefits of producing American energy. Oil and gas production is
booming, the State has a 3 percent unemployment rate--wouldn't we like
to have that nationally? Good grief. And workers are sleeping in their
cars, many of them, because the housing supply can't keep up with the
demand.
In my home State of Arkansas, we've got our own success story.
Production in the Fayetteville shale and the Brown Dense Formation has
and will continue to create jobs and American energy, but we can't
afford to let up. We have talked way too long about job creation and
energy independence. We need less talk and more action.
I urge all my colleagues to support this important bill to create
jobs and increase American energy independence.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding and
for your tremendous leadership on this issue. Of course I rise in
strong opposition to the rule and also the bill.
This so-called Domestic Jobs and Energy Act is yet another example of
how the Tea Party-led House is wasting the American people's time by
passing legislation that will never become law.
This unconscionable wish list for Big Oil contains dangerous
provisions that would irresponsibly expand drilling on public lands,
roll back policies to provide for safe and responsible energy
production in the United States, and it will endanger our public health
by blocking important public health safeguards under the Clean Air Act.
Gutting the Clean Air Act will not lower gas prices, but it will hurt
the health of millions of Americans.
Madam Speaker, we need a real jobs agenda, not another massive
giveaway to Big Oil. We must pass the American Jobs Act, invest in our
infrastructure, increase job training efforts, and strengthen our
safety net. We should support the economy and create jobs by investing
in the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.
Ms. LEE of California. In conclusion, this Congress must ensure that
our Nation's safety net is a bridge that is strong enough to deliver us
all--even the most vulnerable--over these troubled waters. This
giveaway to Big Oil will not do that. We need to protect the public
health of the American people.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member
of the Resources Committee here who understands this issue very well,
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Madam Speaker, this act removes the
obstacles that are blocking our efforts to achieve greater American
energy production and job creation by providing more certainty and
clarity to the public lands leasing and permitting process.
In particular, my part of this legislation will ensure that Federal
oil and natural gas lease sales occur on a consistent basis and provide
the necessary lease certainty so production is made easier.
{time} 1330
Currently, there are roughly 1,631 outstanding projects on Federal
lands, including lands in Colorado, which have been delayed over 3
years. Federal regulatory delays to these projects prevent the creation
of over 60,000 jobs.
We have endured several years of over 8 percent unemployment. Over 12
percent of our veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan are
still out of work. The fact that we are not fully benefiting from the
employment and financial potential of our energy resources is simply
wrong.
The President often boasts about his energy record, but this
administration regularly delays and blocks leases. In fact, BLM only
approved 11 oil and gas leases in Colorado in 2011 where, in 2006,
there were 363 approvals.
We in Colorado understand the importance of harnessing our own
resources and the value it provides our economy. The oil and gas
industry in Colorado directly employs 50,000 people and supports over
190,000 jobs in our State. This industry is responsible for roughly 6
percent of total employment in Colorado. We have an opportunity with
this legislation to create jobs by developing our own resources right
here at home.
Opponents of domestic energy exploration claim that the industry
already has thousands of acres but are not producing the wells. These
critics point to recent Department of the Interior reports that this
report represents the
[[Page H3821]]
reasons for nonproducing wells. More often than not, the factors that
cause our production are delays instituted by the Interior Department
itself by requiring redundant reviews of projects, one example being
the newest Master Leasing Plans instituted by the Secretary.
Delays also occur because exploration companies do not have full
information as to the capacity of production on the land until after
the lease sale is finalized. Therefore, some leases prove to be
noncommercial and go unused. Although industry has already paid the
government thousands of dollars in fees for the opportunity to explore,
many times they receive no economic benefit, and the risk is entirely
on them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Let me also be clear, because this fact is
largely missed by the opponents of this legislation. Only lands that
are already approved by BLM for exploration can be nominated by
industry. This bill is not a green light for immediate production on
all Federal acres. Rather, it grants access to a very small percentage
of the total of Federal lands.
As a Coloradoan, I respect the need to preserve our wilderness areas,
but I also understand the need to responsibly capitalize on our vast
resources in order to get people back to work.
As a Marine Corps combat veteran who has served multiple tours in the
Middle East, I fully understand the need to reduce our reliance on
foreign oil, and this legislation will help do that.
For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on certainty,
``yes'' on jobs, and ``yes'' on the final passage of the Domestic
Energy and Jobs Act.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text
of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. And here we are. While we're debating this death and
destruction, oil above all bill, the clock is ticking on student loan
payments that will cost middle class families millions and millions of
dollars.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
At the end of this month, the student Federal loan interest rate is
set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. It's an urgent deadline
for more than 7 million American students and more than 177,000
students across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's an urgent
deadline for students that I met with at Middlesex College all the way
through to Endicott College in my district and elsewhere. These
students are working many jobs. They're still carrying thousands of
dollars in student debt, and they're deeply concerned about the
doubling of the rate that will occur on July 1.
Madam Speaker, this is urgent deadline for House Democrats. We've
been on top of this issue for many, many months. Our colleague, Mr.
Courtney of Connecticut, introduced legislation establishing a
permanent fix back in January. Our colleagues, Mr. Miller of California
and Mr. Hinojosa of Texas, sent a letter to Education and the Workforce
Committee Chairman Mr. Kline in February asking that the question be
taken before the committee to prevent the student loan interest hike.
It's unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that the majority in the House of
Representatives does not appear to understand or share this urgency.
There are 10 days left in June, and we're only scheduled to be in
session for 5 of them. As of right now, taking action to stop the
doubling of the student loan interest rates is still not on the House's
legislative agenda between now and the end of the month. In fact,
addressing the issue was not part of the majority leader's summer
legislative agenda, and it was reported that Speaker Boehner privately
called the issue a phony issue.
So let's make no mistake about it. This is nothing phony for the
millions of students who will be impacted and will see their rates
double in July.
Madam Speaker, since the House majority doesn't appear willing to
move forward on this issue, we have to take this action today to defeat
the previous question so the rule can be amended to allow for
consideration of my bill, the Stop the Rate Hike Act of 2012. That bill
continues the current need-based Stafford loan rate at 3.4 percent for
1 year and offsets the cost by closing a tax subsidy for the oil
industry, just one tax subsidy, one that they weren't originally
intended to benefit from at any rate. I think that's a fair and
reasonable plan for eliminating an unjustified giveaway to a hugely
profitable industry so millions of our constituents do not see an
increase in their student loans.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so the House can
consider that bill and stop the student loan interest rate hike.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the other side if he has any
remaining speakers.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. No; I think I'm it.
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.
{time} 1340
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
[[Page H3822]]
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. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself the balance of my time.
In the 111th Congress, when the other side was in charge, H.R. 2454
was brought forth from the floor. It was called the American Clean
Energy and Security Act. There were 224 amendments submitted, and one
was made in order. In our bill today, 27 amendments are made in order,
two-thirds of which are Democrat amendments. This is a very fair rule,
and it will provide for an open and clear debate on the particular
issue.
Let's face it, Madam Speaker. The United States has a lot of untapped
areas on public lands that are involved not only in oil and oil shale
but in natural gas and coal. We are an energy-rich country. We are an
energy-producing country. It's about time we recognized that fact and
developed the energy that we have for the betterment of our people and
for job creation.
We need an all-of-the-above strategy that is not just a rhetorical
exercise in an election year but an all-of-the-above strategy that,
actually, really creates something without hidden delays disguised as
procedural practices and processes.
This bill will create jobs. This bill will keep American dollars at
home. This bill will provide economic growth instead of sending our
money abroad. This is a good bill, and it is an incredibly fair rule. I
urge its adoption.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 691 Offered By Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4816) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the
reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered,
and the motion to instruct conferees offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 183, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 389]
AYES--242
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
[[Page H3823]]
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Bachus
Jackson (IL)
Lewis (CA)
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Reed
Sanchez, Linda T.
{time} 1408
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Ms.
VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. McINTYRE and Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245,
nays 178, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 390]
YEAS--245
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--178
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
[[Page H3824]]
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Bachus
Becerra
Dreier
Jackson (IL)
Lewis (CA)
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Reed
Sanchez, Linda T.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1415
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on June 20, 2012, I was unavoidably
detained and missed rollcall vote 390. If present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall vote 390.
____________________