[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.

                          ____________________