[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 94 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3875-H3912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1630
                      DOMESTIC ENERGY AND JOBS ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 4480.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gardner). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 691 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4480.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1631


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Womack in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 2 
hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the price of gas and the unemployment rate both remain 
way too high, and American families are struggling as a result. That's 
why I support H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, and I urge 
my colleagues to do the same. This bill is truly a win-win for steps 
that it takes to expand supplies of domestic affordable energy that 
will create many jobs in the process.
  It's no secret that I don't see eye-to-eye with President Obama on 
energy policy, but perhaps the most inexplicable energy policy move the 
administration has made was the June 2011 decision to withdraw 30 
million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no 
plan to replace it. It is hard to understand why the President would 
take oil from the Nation's emergency stockpile while at the same time 
keeping off limits the far greater amounts beneath federally controlled 
lands and offshore areas. It's like a couple pawning their wedding 
rings for cash while ignoring a major gold discovery in their own 
backyard.
  The amount of untapped oil in areas kept out of reach by this 
administration is estimated to exceed the entire Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve dozens of times over. And these estimates are not mere 
speculation. Indeed, the recent increases in oil production on State 
and privately owned lands demonstrate the tremendous energy development 
on Federal lands. But that potential will only be realized if the 
administration's roadblocks are removed.
  Title I of this bill does that. It requires that the next time the 
President withdraws oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, he must 
also commit to more oil leasing on Federal lands in offshore areas. The 
result will be greater supplies of domestic oil and lower prices, not 
to mention thousands of new energy industry jobs.
  Gaining access to untapped oil reserves is part of the equation; but 
before that oil can reach consumers at the pump, it has to be refined 
into gasoline and diesel fuel. Title II of this bill will help American 
refiners so they can keep fueling our economy and fueling the country, 
because what refiners really need is a little common sense, a little 
regulatory certainty. It would be an understatement to say that this 
administration's regulators have not been friendly to domestic oil 
production, and the truth is they have been no better to the refiners 
who produce the fuels that we use. In fact, EPA is moving ahead with a 
number of new regs affecting refineries and other facilities--regs that 
are likely to drive up the price at the pump and jeopardize refining 
sector jobs.

[[Page H3876]]

  Title II requires that we learn about the consequences before 
imposing additional red tape. It sets up an interagency committee that 
will analyze the cumulative effects of several upcoming EPA regs on 
fuel prices as well as jobs. It also defers the finalization of three 
measures until after the analysis is completed.
  The good news is that a future of chronically high gas prices is not 
inevitable. These policies that I have discussed and numerous other 
provisions in the legislation will in fact move us toward more secure, 
more affordable American energy and the jobs that go with it. The 
Nation can increase domestic energy supplies, lower future prices at 
the pump, and create many more jobs. This legislation takes the steps 
to usher in this brighter future. I urge my colleagues to join with me 
in supporting it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2012.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to review 
     the text of H.R. 4480, the Strategic Energy Production Act of 
     2012, as ordered reported by the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce for provisions of the bill that fall within the 
     jurisdiction of this Committee.
       Knowing of your interest in expending this legislation and 
     in maintaining the continued consultation between our 
     Committees on these matters, I agree to discharge H.R. 4480 
     from further consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I 
     do so with the understanding that it does not in any way 
     prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or 
     similar legislation in the future.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     our mutual understanding with respect to H.R. 4480, and would 
     ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     inserted into the Congressional Record during consideration 
     on the House floor.
       Thank you for your courtesy and I look forward to continued 
     cooperation between our respective committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Frank D. Lucas,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC June 8, 2012.

     Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lucas: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 4480, the ``Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012.'' 
     As you noted, there are provisions of the bill that fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Agriculture.
       I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 4480, 
     and I agree that your decision should not prejudice the 
     Committee on Agriculture with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or 
     similar legislation.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response in 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4480 on 
     the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,
                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 2012.


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing to you concerning the 
     bill H.R. 4480, the Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012, 
     as amended. This legislation includes a provision that deals 
     with military readiness and training activities, which fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
       Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4480, and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     this legislation, the Committee on Armed Services will waive 
     further consideration of H.R. 4480. I do so with the 
     understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the 
     Committee on Armed Services does not waive any future 
     jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in 
     the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request 
     that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee 
     to any conference committee which is named to consider this 
     provision.
       Please place this letter and your committee's response into 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of the Measure 
     on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in 
     which you have worked regarding this matter and others 
     between our respective committees.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 2012.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 4480, the ``Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012.'' 
     As you noted, there are provisions of the bill that fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
       I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 4480, 
     and I agree that your decision should not prejudice the 
     Committee on Armed Services with respect to the appointment 
     of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or 
     similar legislation.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response in 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4480 on 
     the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Throughout this Congress, House Republicans have made an all-out 
assault on our Nation's most basic public health and environmental 
protections. And they have blocked any effort to address climate 
change, move towards clean energy, or promote energy efficiency.
  On Monday, Congressman Markey and I released a report that documents 
this all-out assault. It confirms that this is the most anti-
environment House in the history of Congress. Over the last 18 months, 
the House has voted 247 times to undermine protection of the 
environment. That's almost one out of every five votes taken in the 
House.
  The oil and gas industry has benefited more than any other sector 
from these anti-environment votes. Since the beginning of 2011, the 
House has voted 109 times for policies that would advance the interests 
of the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment, public 
health, and the taxpayer. The result is a grave and growing peril to 
our environment, to public health, and to our economy. The massive 
wildfires, floods, droughts, and heat waves that have been afflicting 
our country are a harbinger of what is to come.
  Americans know this. As the Washington Post reported this morning, 
the vast majority of Americans believe our environment is 
deteriorating, and they know that unchecked pollution from oil 
refineries and other industrial sources is making the problem worse. 
Yet what are we doing today? Today's bill is one more massive giveaway, 
and it is one more assault on the environment.
  This bill contains two proposals reported by the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. One would block standards for oil companies to clean up 
their pollution. The other seeks to bypass existing leasing programs in 
order to pry open every possible acre of Federal land for oil drilling.
  This legislation has been promoted as a solution to high gasoline 
prices. But this bill is a Trojan horse. This bill would not lower 
prices by one penny. This bill doesn't protect consumers. It hurts 
them. The bill will keep dirty gasoline on the market, allow oil 
refineries to spew toxic emissions, and forestall action to address 
climate change.
  Tucked inside this legislation is the Latta amendment. The language 
of this amendment cuts the heart out of the Clean Air Act, radically 
changing the way air quality standards are set. Rather than basing smog 
standards on what is healthy for our children to breathe, this bill 
would require standards to be based on what industry says it will cost 
to reduce pollution. This radical proposal will undermine decades of 
progress on cleaning up the air. The bill will also cost jobs. The 
regulations blocked by this bill would create tens of thousands of jobs 
installing pollution controls and modernizing oil refineries.

                              {time}  1640

  In addition, this bill would make it harder for the President to tap 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during emergencies by layering on new 
bureaucratic requirements to force drilling across a vast expanse of 
public land.
  This bill may be good for the oil companies, it may be good for the 
special

[[Page H3877]]

interests, but it is a disaster for the American people. The Republican 
energy policy isn't an all-of-the-above policy; it's oil above all.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise today to support the Domestic Energy and Jobs 
Act for a number of reasons. First of all, it would encourage more 
production of energy in the United States. Two, it would lower energy 
costs. Three, it would create additional jobs for the American people. 
And, four, just as important, it would keep America more competitive in 
the global marketplace.
  We live in a global economy, and our ability to have cheap, 
affordable, and abundant energy is absolutely necessary if we are going 
to compete with countries around the world. So that's what this 
legislation is designed to do.
  All of us have a responsibility to the environment, but we genuinely 
believe after hearing after hearing after hearing after hearing, people 
who create jobs come in and talk about the additional costs they're 
incurring because of this overly aggressive EPA, headed up by 
Administrator Lisa Jackson.
  I would also say that one portion of this bill is a very commonsense 
approach. While it would not immediately lower gasoline prices, it does 
ask the President to establish an interagency task force to examine the 
impact on jobs, prices, and competitiveness of three regulations that 
the EPA has initiated. They haven't finalized it, they haven't decided 
they are going to finalize it, but they have started the first steps. 
And so we ask this Agency to look at what is the impact on fuel prices 
with these regulations if they are adopted and to report back to 
Congress and to not finalize any of these rules until at least 6 months 
after they report back to Congress. It seems to me a commonsense 
approach. We have a responsibility to the American people to have some 
idea about the impact of these regulations on the economy.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of 
the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), and I 
would like to ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the 
rest of the time for our side of the aisle on the general debate.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois will control the time.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of the 112th Congress, we 
have held over 30 Energy and Power Subcommittee and joint subcommittee 
hearings. We have held over a dozen subcommittee and full committee 
markups, and including H.R. 4480, which we will vote on today, we have 
had 10 bills that originated from the Energy and Power Subcommittee 
that have been voted on by the full House.
  Yet, Mr. Chairman, from all of that time and all that effort, the 
Energy and Power Subcommittee has produced exactly one substantive 
bill. Let me repeat: only one substantive, significant bill, the 
Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act, the only one that has actually 
become law.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of focusing our efforts on trying to create the 
clean energy jobs of the 21st century, the majority party has spent the 
past 18 months lobbing partisan attacks against the EPA and the Clean 
Air Act in order to appease Big Oil and some of the more extreme 
constituencies that the Republican Party represents.
  Mr. Chairman, most Americans would like to see us utilizing our time 
working in a bipartisan manner to address critical issues, such as 
access to jobs, clean air, and clean water, less dependence on foreign 
oil, enhanced energy-efficiency measures, and an increased reliance on 
the cleaner and renewable energy sources of the future.
  Instead, here we are again debating yet another bill that would 
continue the concerted effort by the majority party to weaken the 
authority of the EPA and to delegitimize the Agency's regulations as 
job killers.
  Mr. Chairman, with just a little over 20 days remaining before the 
August recess, we should be focusing our limited time on legislation 
that will create jobs and move America forward toward a smarter energy 
future that is less vulnerable to the whims of the world oil market. 
However, nothing in this bill accomplishes that.
  The most offensive provision of this bill, the Gasoline Regulations 
Act, would fundamentally change a cornerstone of public health law, the 
Clean Air Act, and I ask my colleagues: Why, to what end?
  This bill will not create any jobs but, rather, would block EPA rules 
to make the fuel we put into our cars cleaner. This bill would also 
block rules that would cut toxic air pollution from refineries.
  This bill blocks the EPA from requiring new refineries from cutting 
carbon pollution that causes climate change, and it even blocks the 
agency from revising the national air quality standard for ozone to 
reflect the best-available science and medical evidence about how much 
ozone is safe to breathe without serious health effects.
  Mr. Chairman, one truth remains, and that truth is that H.R. 4480 
isn't really about jobs, isn't really about lowering gasoline prices. 
It is about an excuse to push a profoundly anti-environmental agenda 
and provide oil companies with more items from their election year wish 
list.
  Oppose this bill because it would strike at the heart of the Clean 
Air Act and would not provide any tangible benefits to the American 
people. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose it as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), and I would ask that at the conclusion of his 2 
minutes that the balance of my time be controlled by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado will control the time.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs 
Act, the legislation we'll vote on before too long, has three very 
simple missions. The first is to lower and create affordable energy for 
folks all across America. The second is to create the jobs that go with 
it. And, finally, it's to begin to put American energy policy back on a 
commonsense, simple standard that allows affordable energy to be 
produced here in America by Americans for Americans.
  You know, we've seen in these discussions, these debates, that there 
are two opposing views on how to do this. The first is the view of the 
folks on the other side who think if we just had one more rule, one 
more set of regulations, another subsidy, another handout from the 
taxpayers, we here in Washington, D.C. could find that next great 
affordable energy source. We've seen how that's worked. We've got 
gasoline at $3.50 a gallon. We've got utilities all across the country 
asking for rate increases.
  There's another view. There's another way to go about it. It's to let 
the market respond to price signals. It's to get the Federal Government 
out of the way, to reduce regulations across the board while making 
sure that we've still got safe drinking water and clean air. Both of 
these objectives can be accomplished.
  This legislation simply streamlines and simplifies the leasing and 
permitting processes on Federal lands to make sure that consumers have 
access to affordable American energy. We have tremendous opportunities 
right here in America. Right in Kansas' Fourth Congressional District, 
in Harper and Kingman and Stafford and Edwards and Barber and Pratt, 
all over south central Kansas, an enormous new opportunity, creating 
real, affordable energy produced by Americans with American jobs.

                              {time}  1650

  We also, through this legislation, say if we're going to tap this 
important American resource, the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
we're going to make sure and replenish it--again, with American 
affordable energy.
  This is one of the most consumer-friendly, ratepayer-friendly, 
taxpayer pieces of energy legislation to reach the House floor in a 
long time, and I would urge all my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from my home State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate 
his leadership on the Energy Subcommittee.

[[Page H3878]]

  As a member of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, frankly, I'm 
ashamed that this House is actually considering legislation that puts 
public health decisions in the hands of the oil industry.
  Title II of H.R. 4480 eliminates a core principle of the Clean Air 
Act with respect to smog. For over 40 years, the Environmental 
Protection Agency has set health-based air quality standards using 
scientific and medical evidence to identify the maximum safe levels of 
air pollution for human beings to breathe. Title II would do away with 
that precedent by requiring that the cost to industry be the primary 
consideration in determining healthy emission standards. Yes, if this 
legislation passes, health-based decisions will play second fiddle to 
dollar considerations for the first time.
  Over the years, our air has become cleaner and safer because industry 
has had to comply with more stringent standards. Lead is no longer 
poisoning our children from the pump. There are fewer kids with asthma 
due to gas pollutants. And oil companies, rather than suffering, are 
now making record profits. We don't have to pass the hat for the oil 
companies. The five largest made $137 billion in profit last year and 
$33.5 billion in the first quarter of 2012. Our health decisions should 
be made by health experts, not our worst polluters.
  H.R. 4480 continues the policy of the 112th Congress: if the oil 
industry asks, the oil industry gets, no matter the impact on American 
families.
  Title II sets up a new interagency bureaucracy to conduct an 
impossible study of the alleged economic impact of several EPA rules to 
reduce pollution from refineries and fuels--which haven't even been 
proposed--using data that doesn't exist. In the meantime, this title 
blocks the EPA from finalizing several air quality protections that the 
oil industry would prefer go away.
  Title II does nothing to protect the consumer from price spikes at 
the pump or to reduce our country's dependence on oil. Instead, it is a 
giveaway to the oil industry under the false pretense of lowering 
gasoline prices.
  The oil industry doesn't want to reduce the amount of toxic air 
pollution spewing from its refineries. The oil industry doesn't want to 
produce cleaner burning gasoline. The oil industry would rather not 
construct new refineries that are more efficient and less damaging to 
the world's climate. Oil industry executives would prefer to pocket all 
their billions in annual profits rather than invest any of it in 
modern, less polluting technology.
  I offered an amendment yesterday that would have simply said that the 
unnecessary and impossible study required under title II would be paid 
for by the one industry that most stands to gain from its 
implementation, Big Oil. My amendment was not made in order.
  The American people deserve better than this. They deserve clean air 
and clean water. They deserve more than a few months of a 
transportation bill. They deserve a jobs package that will put millions 
to work, including teachers and construction workers and firefighters 
and police officers. They deserve affordable student loan rates. 
Instead, the Republicans of this House have elected to carve out 
additional privileges for Big Oil.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Energy Action Committee and a 
Representative from an energy State, I come to the floor today to 
support an all-of-the-above energy bill and an all-of-the-above jobs 
bill.
  I know firsthand the tremendous economic growth and job creation that 
comes from unlocking American-made energy. My State of Kansas is 
undergoing an energy boom. Farmers are making money, tractor 
dealerships are selling new tractors, and families are paying off 
loans. Even church contributions have benefited.
  Sadly, this American success story has been attacked by the current 
administration's repeated rejection of policies that would increase 
domestic energy production and create thousands of high-paying American 
jobs.

  This important legislation strengthens our energy security, it 
removes the bureaucratic red tape hindering American energy production, 
and it creates American jobs.
  Simply, we cannot afford to delay action that would create thousands 
of jobs. I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), a fine member of the subcommittee and a 
distinguished member of the full committee.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill before us.
  Today we're debating a bill that Republicans tell us will embrace an 
all-of-the-above energy strategy. The way this bill purports to do this 
is by opening large swaths of land to oil and gas drilling, halting 
regulations, and gutting the Clean Air Act. It's clear that this is not 
a true effort to develop an all-of-the-above strategy, but instead is a 
narrow-minded approach to oil and gas development at any cost.
  Republicans continue to criticize President Obama and congressional 
Democrats for opposing efforts to increase U.S. domestic oil 
production, but the facts disprove this notion. The President hasn't 
agreed with every proposal to expand oil and gas drilling in the United 
States and its territorial waters, but he has taken action to open up 
substantial new public lands and coastal waters to oil and gas 
development.
  Today, roughly 75 percent of U.S. oil reserves on public lands and 
under our coastal waters have been leased out to oil drillers. In fact, 
domestic oil production is at an 8-year high, and the production of 
natural gas plant liquids--liquefied petroleum gases that are used for 
fuel--is currently at an all-time high of more than 2 million barrels 
per day. All told, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that 
U.S. petroleum production in 2012 will average more than 8 million 
barrels per day.
  The number of oil rigs in the United States has quadrupled under 
President Obama. At the same time, petroleum consumption in the United 
States has dropped by more than 2 million barrels per day since its 
all-time peak in 2006. Now, since domestic oil production is up and 
petroleum consumption is down, U.S. oil imports are at a 17-year low. 
In fact, the United States is importing 10 percent less oil than it was 
8 years ago.
  Now, one might reasonably conclude that since the United States is 
producing more oil and consuming less, oil and gas prices would be 
going down, but that's not happening. Oil and gas prices are going up. 
Well, how can that be? Oil prices--and consequently gas prices--are 
rising because, while oil consumption may be lower in the United 
States, global demand for oil is, in fact, rising.
  Rest assured, this bill does nothing to address the real problem of 
high gas prices, and it does nothing to develop a real all-of-the-above 
energy strategy for the United States. This bill is going nowhere in 
the Senate, and it's a true disappointment as this Congress' effort to 
address high gas prices and an expanded energy portfolio.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership 
and for bringing this legislation to put a good energy policy in place 
in this country, which we do not have today under President Obama.
  If you look at components of the bill, it talks about the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. The President has used the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve as his bailout fund, basically, for his failed policies.

                              {time}  1700

  He's raided it. Last year he raided 30 million barrels from SPR and 
still, to this day, hasn't replaced that oil. But on top of that, the 
President took those dollars, billions of dollars, and spent them on 
unrelated government spending. So that's what the President's been 
doing with SPR--using it as his personal piggy bank and bailout fund 
for his failed policies.
  The President and others like to talk about an all-of-the-above 
strategy. They love to talk about energy production never being higher. 
One thing they fail to mention is that energy production on Federal 
lands, where the Federal Government actually has control,

[[Page H3879]]

is down. In fact, President Obama's own administration, the Energy 
Information Agency, confirmed again recently that production this year 
on Federal lands is down 30 percent just in the Gulf of Mexico from 
last year. So they talk about production being higher. It's higher on 
private lands where they have no control.
  And by the way, through EPA and Department of the Interior and other 
Federal agencies they're trying to regulate and shut that down right 
now, too. So while they're bragging about it, they're trying to shut it 
down.
  Just today, in New Orleans they had a lease sale; first lease sale 
we've had in more than 2 years. And in fact, it shows that there's 
tremendous interest in exploring for American energy. The only problem 
is there is no more plan in place.
  Normally, you always have a 5-year plan in this country. By law, the 
President's supposed to have a 5-year plan. After today, there's 
nothing on the books for any more future lease sales. And, in fact, the 
proposal that the President has been sitting on shuts off 85 percent of 
the areas that were getting ready to be opened up for exploration. And 
what does that lead to? It leads to a greater dependency on Middle 
Eastern oil, on these foreign countries that don't like us.
  The President has shipped tens of thousands of energy jobs out of 
this country. We've tracked rigs that have left the states and gone to 
places like Egypt and Ghana and Brazil. Those jobs ought to be here. We 
ought to be creating those jobs here and seeking energy independence, 
and this bill is a great start. I urge its support.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  This bill, sadly, is a missed opportunity. It would have been an 
opportunity to deal with an all-of-the-above and a jobs bill, but it 
simply is not.
  We're in a situation where domestic oil production is strong. And 
what we are looking at, currently they're talking about giving out, 
encouraging more land to be locked up for the future, rather than using 
the 25 million acres currently authorized for drilling that are not 
being used by oil companies today. They would allow people to sit on 
land, paying only $1.50, $2 an acre for up to 10 years.
  Now, I think it's wise for us to be able to move forward to encourage 
energy production. There would be an opportunity here to deal more 
aggressively with incenting sustainable energy, clean energy, energy 
that will be with us for decades to come, rather than depleting 
existing resources and tying up leases in the future.
  This is an excuse to undermine existing environmental protections. 
Why, in heaven's name, would we seek to undermine tailpipe emission 
regulations that are already supported by the auto industry? It makes 
no sense at all.
  It is not wise to have language that orders the EPA to consider the 
cost of a clean energy rule, rather than the impact on public health, 
turning on its head longstanding priorities.
  I suppose you could diagnose lung cancer, but say, well, it's pretty 
expensive, so let's not say that it's lung cancer. Let's call it a 
cough.
  Mr. Chairman, it's important for EPA to make the decisions to protect 
public health rather than company profits, which are exploding in time.
  This is a missed opportunity. I suggest its rejection.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time my side has remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Illinois has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
  Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding time.
  High energy prices are having a negative impact on our economy and on 
our family budgets. But don't take my word for it. This is what my 
constituents have told me firsthand.
  There's David from Castroville, Texas, who wrote:

       As a self-employed carpenter, gas prices for a large truck 
     cut into my profits. It is madness that the USA is not oil 
     and gas independent. Energy independence is essential for our 
     economy to grow and protect our freedom.

  Another constituent, Ray, stated:

       I'm a retired engineer and planned to travel with my wife 
     this summer but had to curtail these plans because of the 
     high cost of gasoline. This has cut deeply into my retirement 
     pay and I'm spending more time at home because of gasoline 
     prices.

  Mr. Chairman, this isn't rhetoric from Washington insiders, but input 
from working-class Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act in order 
to increase energy production, eliminate red tape, and create jobs.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  Facts are really kind of difficult if you have to deal with them. The 
gentleman just spoke about a sad case of an individual that wasn't able 
to go on a trip because of the high price of gasoline. He may want to 
tell that individual that the oil industry, on average, over the last 
several months, has exported over 24 million gallons of gasoline a day, 
24 million gallons of gasoline a day, exported from the United States. 
Maybe that has something to do with the high prices.
  But a few other facts. As of March of 2011, onshore, the Department 
of the Interior offered, between 2009 and 2011, 6 million acres of land 
for leasing. The oil industry only took 4 million acres. As of that 
time, March 2011, 38 million acres of land were under lease. 25 million 
acres of land were inactive. A full 65 percent of the available leased 
land already in the hands of the oil industry was inactive, not 
explored, not being produced. 65 percent unused, inactive.
  Offshore, 37 million acres were under lease. 2.4 million acres were 
active. 70 percent not being used.
  So why are we here opening more land? There's a reason for it. There 
is a reason why the oil industry wants to do this. If they are able to 
acquire a lease, they put it on their books as an asset, thereby giving 
the appearance that they have a lot of assets available to them, when, 
in fact, they have no intention to, in the near term, probably the next 
decade or so, actually explore and produce. It is a financial game. It 
is not a game of producing oil.
  Now, if we really wanted to do something, we would immediately put in 
place a production tax credit for the wind turbine industry, which is 
languishing now because we are refusing, Republicans, in this case, 
refusing to put forth a renewal of the production tax so that the wind 
industry can actually continue to produce energy for our Nation.
  So what does it mean?
  There are some 70,000 jobs in the wind industry today. Some 17,000 
more would immediately go into place if the production tax credit were 
in this bill and became law.
  What does it mean?
  If we were to enact my bill, H.R. 487, those wind turbines would be 
manufactured in the United States, and thousands more jobs.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RUSH. I yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The bottom line of this: this is simply a play by the 
oil industry to gather more assets on their balance sheet, at the 
expense of the environment and, just as important, at the expense of a 
real, all of the above energy policy.
  It's a sad day that we're here debating an energy bill that really 
doesn't do anything at all to help us meet the energy needs of this 
Nation. There's nothing in this about renewables. It's unfortunate.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. GARDNER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4480, the Domestic 
Energy and Jobs Act.
  This bill comes at a critical time as consumers, farmers, and small 
businesses are facing high fuel prices and as the President is 
restricting Federal leases from oil production while at the same time 
considering releasing oil from the United States' Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.

[[Page H3880]]

  I represent an area of the State of Ohio that has the largest number 
of agriculture producers, manufacturing jobs, and small businesses. 
When you look at these numbers, we'd have a very high, disproportionate 
hit for my constituents because of high oil prices.
  As this bill requires, all regulations should be subject to a 
thorough analysis of cost, benefits, and potential hurdles to 
implementation. The Gasoline Regulations Act of 2012, which is part of 
this bill, will delay regulations that could significantly increase 
fuel prices on consumers, farmers, and small businesses while these 
regulations are under review. It will also provide some much-needed 
regulatory relief to refiners, who are struggling to stay in business 
due to the high cost of fuel.
  Reducing the costs of refining fuel is a great first step, but the 
key to reducing fuel prices is to bring more supply into the market. 
The only time that oil should be released from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is to counter a severe supply interruption. I support 
legislation that will allow the increased access to responsible 
domestic oil production, and for these reasons, I support the bill.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I want to thank freshman Cory Gardner for 
bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to for one moment imagine. I want to imagine a 
country, an America that doesn't have 40 months of 8 percent 
unemployment. I want to imagine an America with 3 percent unemployment. 
Could you imagine a country that had a trade deficit that was shrunk? 
Could you imagine a government that, instead of saying it wants to 
raise taxes, actually cut them? Imagine that, in a housing crisis, 
you're not sitting with foreclosures, but you actually need more houses 
to be built and that people are flying into the country because the 
jobs are there and it is the place to be. I want to imagine, when you 
go down to even work at McDonald's, you're making $15 an hour.
  A lot of people in this country turn on the news and think that's 
farfetched. They think that's impossible to dream or to even imagine. 
But do you know what? That's taking place in parts of this country. 
That's exactly what's happening in North Dakota. And why is it 
happening in North Dakota? It's because they created a State energy 
policy that is unshackled.
  There is a team here, Mr. Chairman, that is called the HEAT Team, the 
House Energy Action Team. We went across the country and saw all walks 
of life--from California, to driving an electric car in Colorado, to 
going into the fields of North Dakota, which is where I went. Do you 
know what? I drove past the windmills. I looked at new technology which 
is able to extract in a much more pinpointed method and environmentally 
friendly way so that we can get those resources. What has it done? It 
has transformed the State with regard to job creation. More 
importantly, it has transformed our Nation because, yes, we are 
importing less today than in 1994, but that's only on private lands, 
not on public lands.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. So today, on this floor, we are debating 
something that can change America. No longer will you sit back at home 
and think, one day, I could only imagine unemployment low, revenues 
high, and everybody who wants a job can have one.
  This bill today is about jobs. It's about jobs that not only create a 
new America but that change our foreign policy. It creates a new 
America in which we invest today, and it makes us energy independent.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask all to vote ``aye,'' and I thank the gentleman 
for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I would like to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise in support of this legislation before us, which will boost 
domestic energy production, spur job creation, and grow the economy.
  The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act opens up more of our domestic energy 
resources, brings greater certainty to leasing on public lands, and 
does take steps to cut red tape that is increasing the cost of fuel and 
blocking energy development. Increasing energy production on our 
Nation's public lands and in its waters can create millions of jobs, 
boost the economy, lower energy costs, and make America more secure.
  It wasn't too long ago that an energy-secure America seemed like an 
unreachable goal. Today, energy security is on the horizon because of 
innovations that have helped increase our domestic energy supply and 
that have created thousands of good-paying jobs along the way. I saw 
these innovative technologies firsthand a few weeks ago when I was out 
on a deep-sea rig off the coast of Louisiana. With this legislation, we 
give our Nation's energy producers the certainty they need to invest in 
the innovations that are essential to American-made energy and 
American-made jobs.
  The oil and gas industry is the lifeblood of so many communities 
across our Nation, but this President's policies have stifled the 
development of many of our Nation's energy resources. Red tape and 
restrictions coming from the Obama administration are keeping America's 
abundant energy resources under lock and key, away from our job-
creating private sector.
  As a result of some of these policies, small businesses are feeling 
the squeeze of high energy costs; families planning their summer 
vacations are facing historically high gas prices; and new jobs are 
being sidelined. People are wondering, when will things get better? 
They're looking for leadership out of Washington. Frankly, this 
administration has not delivered.
  Since the President took office, production on public lands has 
decreased. While I welcome the administration's announcement that it is 
moving forward with a long delayed lease sale in the central Gulf of 
Mexico, it is simply unacceptable that this is the first lease sale the 
administration has held in the central gulf since 2010. Our Nation's 
energy producers have been ready and waiting to put their capital on 
the line to develop our Nation's resources.
  Delaying decisions critical to energy development creates uncertainty 
and slows job creation. In fact, the Obama administration has canceled 
more lease sales than it has actually held, so I think the big question 
is, why aren't we doing more? Why aren't we developing more of our 
Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, such as that off the coast of 
Virginia, where there is broad bipartisan consensus in my State 
supporting such development?
  After years of watching the President fail to embrace a pro-growth 
energy policy, the American people do deserve more. The future of our 
country depends on a true, all-of-the-above energy strategy that 
promotes domestic energy production, job creation, and economic growth.
  By adding certainty to the regulatory process, we can promote 
domestic energy development in an environmentally sensitive way. We can 
promote economic growth and get Americans back to work. These seven 
bills, as part of the HEAT Team package, will help bring down high 
energy costs, which are hurting families and crippling small 
businesses, so that we can then spur the creation of thousands of jobs.
  I want to salute and thank the House Energy Action Team: the bill's 
chief sponsor, Congressman Cory Gardner; Congressman Ed Whitfield; 
Congressmen Scott Tipton and Mike Coffman; and Congressmen Doug Lamborn 
and Bill Johnson for putting forward these measures that will harness 
our domestic energy resources.
  Finally, I would like to thank our whip, Kevin McCarthy, for his 
leadership and for bringing all of us together, as well as thank 
Chairman Fred Upton and Chairman Doc Hastings for their leadership on 
these measures that are essential to our Nation's competitiveness and 
job creation.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to one of the most 
remarkable leaders that this Congress has ever

[[Page H3881]]

seen, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, and I would have come up here just for 
that introduction. I thank him so much.
  I am pleased to follow my friend, the distinguished majority leader, 
Mr. Cantor. I'm going to have some remarks. But before I get to those 
remarks, I want to give you some statistics that I know you'll find 
very interesting. I want you to take them to heart.
  The Energy Information Administration reports that oil production 
from Federal lands and waters was higher the first 3 years of the Obama 
administration than the last 3 years of President Bush's 
administration.
  In addition, oil imports are at the lowest they have been since 1997. 
In 2011, U.S. crude oil production reached its highest level in 8 
years, increasing by an estimated 110,000 barrels per day over 2010 
levels to 5.59 million barrels per day. We now produce more than 50 
percent of the crude oil we use domestically.
  The U.S., by the way, has 1,971 rigs in operation. The rest of the 
world has 1,471.
  The U.S. natural gas production is record breaking. In 2011, 28.5 
million cubic feet. In 1973, which was the previous record, it was 24 
million cubic feet. But hear this: In 2005, during the Bush 
administration, it was 5 million less.
  Net imports as a share of total consumption has declined from 2005, 
where it was 60 percent in the Bush administration, to 2011, where it 
is 47 percent.
  The administration has announced that the 2012 2017 5-year leasing 
plan will open up more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil 
and gas resources. The U.S. production for Federal lands on shore is 
similar to and has surpassed the Bush administration. In 2005, it was 
649 million barrels; in 2010, it was 739 million barrels, otherwise 
known as almost 100 million more barrels.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we understand that we need to produce and use 
energy in America. Mr. Chairman, we should be working, however, 
together to find real solutions to meet our pressing challenges. We 
ought to pass a long-term highway bill to create thousands of 
construction jobs. We ought to address the looming deadline when 
student loan interest rates are set to go up on July 1. We ought to get 
to work on taxes so we can keep low rates in place for middle class 
families. And we ought to get serious about comprehensive deficit 
reduction before we find ourselves on the edge of a fiscal cliff this 
year.
  Instead, Mr. Chairman, once again, we have a solution looking for a 
problem. Our Republican friends have called up two bills on the floor 
this week that make this very clear.
  While gas prices have thankfully retreated, the first bill would 
enact an extreme drill-only energy strategy that won't lower gasoline 
prices. That bill is notable for what it doesn't do: invest in diverse 
energy sources that create jobs, reduce our oil dependence, and enhance 
energy security; nor does it make our Nation a global leader in energy 
technology.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RUSH. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The second bill, which we considered yesterday, would impose a 
radical policy on our border areas that would undermine security 
coordination and bring polluting industries to some of our most 
pristine parks and historic sites, even though our border enforcement 
officials have said such legislation is unnecessary. That's what we 
worked on yesterday. Not jobs, not student loans, not transportation, 
but a piece of legislation that they said wasn't necessary.

  These are not what Congress ought to be focusing on this week or next 
week. Let's turn our attention to our most pressing issues--student 
loans, construction jobs, keeping middle class taxes low, and reducing 
deficits--instead of wasting the American people's time on partisan 
bills that won't solve any of our real problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that either in the next 24 hours or in the 
next 9 days we will, in fact, pass a jobs bill that will create jobs, 
and everybody knows that that's the highway bill.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. The Senate has passed a highway bill in a bipartisan 
fashion with half of the Republicans in the United States Senate voting 
for it, and with a very conservative Republican ranking member, Jim 
Inhofe, and a very liberal chairwoman, Barbara Boxer, who came together 
and had the ability to compromise and come to agreement.
  I tell my friends on the Republican side, that's what the American 
people want us to do. If we do that, it will raise the confidence of 
our people, of our business community, of our country. That will be the 
best thing we can do for our country, to come together in a bipartisan 
fashion, as the United States Senate did, and act.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady 
from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Domestic Energy and Jobs 
Act.
  Oil accounts for 37 percent of U.S. energy demand, with 71 percent 
directed to fuels that are used in transportation. Our energy policy is 
vitally important to our national and economic security. It's 
especially as important to the mother who drives her children to school 
as it is the business owner who operates a fleet of delivery vehicles. 
When the price of gasoline increases, Americans hurt.
  Last year, the price of gasoline increased 81 cents per gallon. That 
is why I do support an all-of-the-above approach to energy. This 
includes opening up new areas for American energy exploration, 
transitioning to renewable and alternative energy, and using more clean 
and reliable nuclear.
  The President in his last State of the Union stated the same belief, 
but this administration has done nothing to back up that statement. The 
executive branch is using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for political 
purposes by imposing overburdensome regulations on refineries and 
placing obstacles to increasing permitting and leasing on Federal lands 
for gas and oil production.
  During this administration, we have seen a drastic decrease of oil 
production on federally owned lands at a time with high gas prices. 
From 2010 to 2011, there has been a 14 percent decrease. The Domestic 
Energy and Jobs Act will enable job creators in the energy industry and 
increase domestic energy production here at home.
  The legislation that is before us today will turn the tide on this 
administration's actions, or lack thereof, and allow our Nation to move 
forward on our Nation's energy production, thereby increasing jobs and 
bringing us closer to energy independence.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on this side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 3 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Colorado has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Rush. I appreciate the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4480. This is a bill that 
is totally a giveaway to Big Oil.
  The fact is, if we want to be energy independent, we can't drill our 
way to energy independence. We can get there by having alternative 
green energies that will create jobs and make us independent. We can 
have wind and solar, and we can have higher fuel standards for 
automobiles. That's the best thing we can do is reduce the demand for 
oil by having higher fuel standards, which we don't have in this bill. 
Regarding the price of oil and making ourselves energy independent, 
it's not going to happen.
  My colleagues on the other side--at least some of them--have for 
quite a while, about 2 or 3 months ago, blamed the rising prices of 
gasoline on President Obama. Gasoline has come down considerably since 
that time. Has one person had the veracity, the bipartisanship to say, 
Mr. President, thank you for bringing the price of oil down?

[[Page H3882]]

No, they haven't, because the President didn't bring the price of oil 
down, just like he didn't take the price of oil up. It's political 
rhetoric to say he caused the prices to go up, and it would be wrong to 
say he brought them down.

                              {time}  1730

  There are world markets, demand in China, demand in India, demand 
even in Bangkok; and those demands have put the price of oil up. The 
situation in Iran with Israel has created concerns about the future of 
oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. Because of that, prices 
went up. That situation has been rectified.
  This bill is only a giveaway to Big Oil. It threatens people's First 
Amendment rights because it says they have to put up a $5,000 bond 
simply to protest. It threatens jobs. In many industries--the outdoors 
industry--it threatens public health and people's opportunity to be 
free from air pollution. It threatens hunting, fishing, and recreation 
and grazing because it violates the multiple-use doctrines established 
in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
  This is not a good bill for America. And to be energy independent, we 
need to find green energy and green jobs.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support for the 
Domestic Energy and Jobs Act of 2012 because I personally know the 
importance of the oil and gas industry to the future of America.
  I am fortunate to call West Texas home. Growing up in the Permian 
Basin has given me a better perspective on what it means to produce the 
raw resources that our Nation needs to power its industry. It is a 
perspective that has come from working on a drilling rig in Fort 
Stockton, Texas, drilling miles and miles below the surface of the 
Earth.
  It's this pursuit of oil and gas miles below our feet that is 
reinvigorating pockets of the American economy from Texas to 
Pennsylvania to North Dakota. The work is hard, but the rewards can be 
great. Not just for the producers, but also for the roughnecks, the 
thousands of small and large firms that support the drilling activity, 
and the communities that host them.
  Our Nation relies and prospers, Mr. Chairman, on affordable, abundant 
energy like oil and gas. This bill will ensure that not only do we have 
affordable energy, but that Americans are put back to work producing 
it.
  The oil and gas industry on private lands is thriving in spite of 
this administration's attempt to slowly suffocate it. Today's 
legislation would reverse the glacial pace of permitting and the 
pointless regulations designed solely to slow down production on 
Federal lands.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will do the things that the President's 
stimulus act has failed to do. It will drive investment into American 
businesses and will put Americans back to work, just like the oil and 
gas industry has been doing in District 11 for over 80 years.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I intend to close, so I will reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Domestic 
Energy and Jobs Act of 2012.
  Every developed economy in the world looks to their own resources as 
assets to fuel their economic growth. Yet many folks in Washington view 
our domestic energy resources as a liability. Unelected and 
unaccountable Federal bureaucrats continue to dream up ways to lock up, 
restrict, tax, or otherwise regulate these assets away from benefiting 
the American people.
  This is an issue of critical importance for our economic security, 
our national security, our energy security, and most importantly for 
the opportunities that we hope to leave for future generations.
  We desperately need the stability that comes from unlocking access 
and tapping into our American energy resources. The Domestic Energy and 
Jobs Act does just that by allowing us to pursue an all-of-the-above 
energy plan that removes unwarranted government roadblocks to domestic 
energy production and supply.
  This bill will also help reduce our Federal deficits and our trade 
deficits. In the case of the former, it helps to reduce our Federal 
deficit in multiple ways: one, by growing the American economy and 
American jobs; two, by increasing royalties and lease payments to the 
Federal Treasury; and, three, by reducing the cost of our energy for 
the American economy. In the case of the latter, increased production 
of American energy will result in lower oil imports from foreign 
sources and reduced payments for those imports, thereby keeping more 
American money at home to rebuild our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, 
which would create jobs, grow our economy, reduce our dependence on 
unstable Middle Eastern oil, improve our national security, and restore 
the American Dream for future generations.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry), my freshman 
colleague.
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, here are some facts: an estimated 13 
million Americans are out of work. The State of Colorado's unemployment 
rate is 8.1 percent, which correlates with the national unemployment 
rate. Today, the State of Colorado's estimated reserves are 1 billion 
barrels of oil.
  In 1995, the State of North Dakota's estimated reserves were 151 
million barrels. Today, those reserves have been increased to 4.2 
billion barrels of oil; yet today, the State of North Dakota's 
unemployment rate is 3 percent. What do those facts tell us? Those 
facts tell us that drilling equals jobs, Mr. Chairman. And it's very 
simple. In North Dakota, they are drilling on private lands. They are 
driving unemployment rates down.
  Please, if the President wants a jobs plan, it is here. And I urge 
all Members to vote for this bill.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 
4480, a bill that promises to open up more public land to energy 
development and to streamline burdensome rules and heavy-handed 
regulations that now thwart new domestic energy development in the 
United States.
  The President and the Democratic-led Senate continue to obstruct the 
utilization of America's enormous natural resources. What are they? 
These resources are a God-given asset that has elevated the well-being 
and prosperity of our people ever since the time of our Nation's 
founding. Now, when we need the wealth of those resources more than 
ever, we suffer the obstructionism of our own government.
  The President has prevented the construction of the Keystone XL 
pipeline. The President has shut down oil and gas production offshore. 
And most recently, this administration--and perhaps most heinously--
this administration has moved forward with plans to add onerous rules 
and regulations on a new and emerging technology. The efforts of this 
administration are mind-boggling because there is no evidence that this 
technology has done any harm to our people, and there is ample evidence 
that this technology would produce significant economic growth, thus 
jobs. And I am referring to, of course, fracking, which has clearly 
been targeted by the President and by his environmental gestapo 
friends.
  While we are talking today and while we are trying to determine 
whether or not we are going to be using more resources, gasoline prices 
are changing the lifestyle of the American people. We're talking about 
people who are paying $3.50 a gallon and, in my State, $4 a gallon. Why 
are we allowing our people--13 million people who are currently out of 
work and suffering under these conditions--why are we adding such costs 
for them to bear?
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. What we need, Mr. Chair, is we need to make sure 
that we move forward, as this bill will do, to ensure that we are 
fulfilling our commitment to the American people to do

[[Page H3883]]

everything we can to make sure that they will live in prosperity and 
freedom and hope for a better life for their children.
  This has always been tied to the utilization of natural resources, 
and this bill will ensure that our people will benefit from those gifts 
that God gave us underneath our ground and public lands.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 1 
minute to another freshman, Mr. Gosar from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, outside these walls people across our country 
are suffering. Electric bills and gasoline prices are increasing as we 
enter the heat of the summer.

                              {time}  1740

  Over 13 million Americans are still without work. Our constituents 
are counting on us to take action.
  The Republican-led House has been leading the way with solutions to 
our country's energy problems. The bill before us today, the Domestic 
Energy and Jobs Act, is just another part of that agenda. It will 
remove government roadblocks and bureaucratic red tape that hinder 
onshore oil, natural gas, and renewable energy production and 
facilitate job creation. This act truly embraces an all-of-the-above 
approach that our country so desperately needs.
  A country is only as strong as its people. Henry Ford II once said:

       What's right about America is although we have a mess of 
     problems, we have great capacity--intellect and resources--to 
     do something about them.

  Let's use that capacity to address our country's energy crisis and 
put people back to work. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.
  Mr. RUSH. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I am prepared to close. I have no further requests for 
time.
  Mr. RUSH. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is widespread opposition to the Republican oil-above-all bill. 
The Obama administration opposes the Republican bill. Its Statement of 
Administration Policy says:

       The administration strongly opposes H.R. 4480, which would 
     undermine the Nation's energy security, roll back policies 
     that support the continued growth of safe and responsible 
     energy production in the United States, discourage 
     environmental analysis and civic engagement in Federal 
     decisionmaking, and impede progress on important Clean Air 
     Act rules to protect the health of American families.

  If the President were presented with H.R. 4480, his senior advisers 
would recommend that he veto the bill. Numerous public health 
organizations oppose this bill, including the American Academy of 
Pediatrics and various others.
  Mr. Chair, this bill is nonsensical and is another bill in a long 
list of Big Oil giveaways pushed by the most anti-environmental House 
in the history of our Nation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I would just inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the Chair and I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Sixty four thousand eight hundred five jobs, $4.3 billion in wages, 
$14.9 billion in annual economic impact. That is the number of jobs, 
the amount of wages, and the economic impact that we would have seen 
today if not for the backlog of BLM projects over the past 3 years.
  Sixty-five thousand jobs. There are 22 proposed projects in the 
Western United States that would create nearly 121,000 jobs.
  Over the past few years, we have seen gas prices increase 
dramatically: $3.50, $3.60, $3.70. Since we've heard debate on the 
House floor tonight, they're going down. Even a flood can be lowered by 
a foot the next day, but it's still a flood. Our constituents who are 
paying $60, $70 to fill up with a tank of gas to drive their families 
to school, trying to put food on the table, to get to work, cannot 
afford high energy prices year after year.
  This bill presents us with an opportunity to create jobs to build on 
American energy independence, to make sure that we are doing the one 
thing that we set out to do, and that is improve the economic chances 
of this country, our competitiveness, and the lives of our 
constituents. But they can't do it with gas prices exceeding $3, $4. 
What's next? Because here we are again.
  The policies presented in this bill will allow us to cut through red 
tape and to increase exploration on our great lands in the Western 
United States across this country in an environmentally responsible 
fashion. It will allow us to make sure that when we access the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve because of a supply problem that we're also 
addressing a long-term supply fix instead of just quick-fix politics.
  We have an opportunity to make sure that when it comes to the 
regulations that are driving up the price of gasoline--and they have a 
real impact; we have both heard before our committee testimony from EPA 
administrators who say, yes, it will increase the price of gasoline--we 
stop and take a look before we leap to make sure that we are analyzing 
to understand the impact they will have on our constituents, who 
continue to suffer.
  The best way to improve our economy is to make sure that we are 
unleashing every sector of our economy. And yes, that means renewable 
energy. This bill includes renewable energy. It takes a 4-year look at 
renewable energy on public lands, to take advantage of our opportunity 
with solar on Federal lands, with wind on Federal lands. But we will 
not sit idly by while our constituents pay thousands of dollars a more 
each year to put fuel in the tank, competing with the food on their 
table.
  And so, Mr. Chair, this bill presents us all with a great chance to 
increase our energy supply, create American jobs, and make sure that we 
understand the full ramifications of regulations and drawdowns of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve before we act. And I think it's important 
that we send one strong message to our constituents that we've heard 
you. We've heard you loud and clear. And we are going to do everything 
we can to improve our economy, bring down the cost of energy, create 
jobs. That's when this Congress will do our job. This Congress will do 
our job when we pass this legislation, and I urge passage of H.R. 4480.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we are debating and considering 
today is a clear all-of-the-above plan to increase American energy 
production, to lower gasoline prices, and to reduce our dependence on 
unstable foreign energy. But more than anything else, Mr. Chairman, 
this is a bill about creating jobs. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act 
creates good-paying permanent jobs that will put people back to work 
and help grow our economy.
  The only thing that the Obama administration has been more hostile to 
than American job creation, Mr. Chairman, is American energy 
production. Frankly, that shouldn't surprise anyone because the two do 
go hand-in-hand.
  President Obama likes to talk about an all-of-the-above energy plan. 
But in reality, it's a nothing-from-America energy plan. This 
administration has consistently said ``no'' to new American energy 
production while happily forcing hardworking American taxpayers to 
spend over $1 million a minute on foreign energy.
  President Obama doesn't want to drill for oil in Utah; perhaps he'd 
rather get it from Venezuela. President Obama doesn't want to drill for 
natural gas in New Mexico; perhaps he'd rather get it from Yemen.

                              {time}  1750

  President Obama doesn't want to develop our oil shale in Colorado; 
perhaps he'd rather get oil from OPEC.
  President Obama doesn't want to import oil from our friends in Canada 
by approving the Keystone pipeline; perhaps he'd rather import oil from 
countries that aren't our friends in the Middle East.
  Finally, President Obama doesn't want to drill off America's coasts, 
but he doesn't seem to mind Fidel Castro drilling 60 miles from 
America. And he doesn't seem to mind giving Brazil billions of dollars 
to help them drill off their coasts and then promise to be their ``best 
customer.''
  The American people need to understand that this administration has

[[Page H3884]]

taken this country in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to 
developing our vast energy resources. While President Obama has been 
digging the United States into massive fiscal deficits, he has also 
gotten America into an energy deficit on Federal lands from which it 
could take years to recover.
  Energy production on Federal lands is one of our best opportunities 
for job creation and energy security. But time and again, that 
production has been blocked or delayed by this administration. Under 
this administration, from 2010 2011, oil production on Federal lands 
fell by 14 percent. And natural gas production on these same lands fell 
by 11 percent. Mr. Chairman, this is in stark contrast to the oil and 
natural gas production on State and private lands because that 
production has boomed.
  American energy equals American jobs. It's a simple formula for job 
creation and economic growth, but clearly it's one that this 
administration doesn't seem to understand. Maybe that's because they 
just don't know how desperate Americans are for jobs. Just a few weeks 
ago, with unemployment above 8 percent and 23 million Americans looking 
for work, our President told the American people that the private 
sector is doing ``just fine.'' Well, if you don't know what the problem 
is, how can you possibly know how to fix it?
  Mr. Chairman, in summary, this is the same President that has issued 
the lowest number of onshore energy leases since 1984. This is the same 
President who talks about an all-of-the-above energy plan, but actively 
blocks ability to produce more oil and natural gas and coal, and 
specifically doing so on public lands. For President Obama, ``all of 
the above'' is just a politically convenient slogan. But for House 
Republicans, it's a real job-creating energy policy.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act 
to put Americans back to work and make us less dependent on foreign 
sources.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleagues, the short title of this bill, the Domestic Energy and 
Jobs Act, spells out the word D-E-J-A. But what we're seeing here is 
not just deja vu, the feeling that we've seen all these Big Oil 
giveaways before. No, this bill is a deja preview, a look ahead into 
what the Romney administration would do if elected and had a GOP House 
and Senate to fully implement the oil companies' legislative agenda and 
block all efforts to help clean energy.
  There's been a lot of discussion of the DREAM Act recently, but the 
bill we have before us today is really the Big Oil dream act. This 
package represents everything Big Oil could ever possibly dream up to 
drill on our public lands and roll back public health protections.
  As the world gathers in Rio de Janeiro right now to try to head off 
catastrophic global warming from the burning of fossil fuels, here we 
are in the House of Representatives looking for ways to give more 
benefits to fossil fuel industries.
  And as America's wind and solar companies look to hire more American 
workers, here we are in the GOP-controlled House, where the Republican 
leadership refused to make my amendment in order to establish national 
goals for wind and solar, clean energy and energy efficiency. They 
won't even allow that debate to take place on the floor of the House of 
Representatives during what they say is the big energy debate for 
America. Can you imagine, it's 2012, we are having a big energy debate, 
big, big debate on the energy future of our country, and the words 
``wind'' and ``solar'' are not going to be permitted by the Republicans 
to be out here on the House floor and being debated. And by the way, 
did I throw in biomass? Did I throw in geothermal? Did I throw in 
energy efficiency? They won't allow the words to be spoken. There's a 
gag order here, a big gag order by the Republicans. No debating that.
  And then they have the temerity to call it an all-of-the-above bill. 
Oh, a comprehensive energy plan without wind, without solar, without 
geothermal, without biomass, without plug-in hybrids or energy 
efficiency debated out here because they have a gag order. They 
prohibit any debating of those issues on the House floor. And yet here 
they are, saying it's an all-of-the-above energy bill.
  Great. Great. So fair. Fair and square. A real debate. Let all the 
Members decide what our energy future looks like.
  But before the end of this year, the Republicans are allowing all of 
the tax breaks for the wind industry to expire. And what are they 
doing? They are actually going to continue the $4 billion a year that 
ExxonMobil and Chevron get. That's fair, huh? A gag order on even 
mentioning wind and solar out here as part of an amendment, a debate, 
$4 billion for the oil industry. And by the way, let's take a look at 
what's going on in oil production in the United States.
  Oh, by the way, did you hear the news? It's now at an 18-year high. 
Obama, drill, baby, drill. Obama, what a great job. An 18-year high 
under Barack Obama, way better than George Bush. Way better. You have 
to go back to almost a time when a kid who's graduating from high 
school has no memory of. It's 18 years ago the last time there was this 
much oil drilling in the United States--Federal, State, private lands.
  But if you listen to the Republicans, they're saying there's not 
enough breaks for ExxonMobil. No, no, no, we have to give them more. 
This poor, beleaguered company, and all of the other oil companies of 
the same size, they have been beleaguered as they are now at an 18-year 
peak in oil production in the United States. And you know who's beating 
them up--wind and solar, geothermal, biomass, plug-in hybrids. Very 
scary things to the Republican. So scary that because they control the 
Speakership, because they control the Rules Committee, we're not 
allowed to debate wind and solar. They're prohibiting it today. An 
absolute, all-out prohibition this week on the discussion of wind and 
solar. Huh?
  When I asked to have an amendment be put in place that we could 
debate whether or not we had a national renewable electricity standard 
for the whole country, setting goals for what our country should have 
for wind and solar by the year 2020, you know what they said: No, we're 
gagging you. You can't have that debate out on the House floor. You 
can't even raise the words ``wind'' and ``solar.''
  Yet they're going to keep coming out here saying we're for all of the 
above. All of the above that Exxon and Shell and BP want. Right on 
their list. And do you know where wind and solar are on the BP and 
ExxonMobil list? Oh, they just forgot to put it on their list. And 
that's what we get to debate out here, and it's going to be called an 
all-of-the-above energy future.
  Well, let me tell you something--the American people deserve a lot 
better. They really do have a real sense that America has to be the 
leader in these new energy technologies. And President Obama has done 
his best or else we would not be at an 18-year high.
  By the way, there are more oil rigs drilling in the United States for 
oil today--are you ready for this--than all of the other countries in 
the world combined. Barack Obama, drill, baby, drill. You are really 
doing the job. More oil rigs right here in the United States right now 
drilling than all the rest of the world combined.
  But you're going to listen to these Republicans talk as though 
somehow or other, although ExxonMobil and BP and Shell are reporting 
the largest profits of any corporation in the history of the world, 
that they are being discriminated against.

                              {time}  1800

  What do ExxonMobil and BP expect? They expect there to be a gag 
applied out here on the floor so we cannot debate wind and solar, we 
cannot debate biomass and geothermal, we cannot debate energy 
efficiency. And yet we're supposed to sit over here in silence and 
listen to them say that they have an all-of-the-above energy strategy 
when we all know their entire strategy is oil above all--as a matter in 
fact, to exclude all else, exclude it, can't even debate it. They 
actually passed a rule here last night prohibiting us from debating 
wind and solar, from debating the future, from unleashing this 
technological revolution.
  And why is that the case? I'll tell you why it's the case. Because in 
the last 5

[[Page H3885]]

years there have been 45,000 new megawatts of wind installed here in 
the United States. In this year, there will be 4,000 new megawatts of 
solar installed in the United States. Do you know who hates that? 
ExxonMobil hates that. Shell, BP, they hate it. Peabody Coal, Arch 
Coal, they hate it. They see this new clean energy future unfolding.
  Out here on the floor of the House, as we debate the big energy bill 
here of 2012, I'm prohibited, as the senior Democrat, from bringing out 
an amendment that talks about wind and solar, that talks about 
geothermal and biomass, that talks about energy efficiency. I'm not 
allowed to bring it out here. So this is not an auspicious day for the 
United States Congress.
  If there were any kernel of truth about Obama and his incredible work 
here, lifting us to an 18-year high in total oil production in the 
United States--by the way, since Bush left, since he left, we have 
dropped from being 57 percent dependent upon imported oil down to 45 
percent dependent upon imported oil. Did Bush do that? No. Did Bush's 
father do that? No. Barack Obama did that, ladies and gentlemen. And 
what Barack Obama is saying, in addition to the dramatic decline in the 
amount of oil that we import from the Middle East, I would also like to 
add wind and solar and geothermal and biomass and energy efficiency. 
And they're saying, oh, no, it's already going too fast. This 
dependence thing is already happening much too fast for us.
  And, by the way, this revolution in wind and solar and geothermal, 
people might start driving cars that are all electric and dependent 
upon wind and solar to give them the electricity so they don't even 
have to go into a gas station.
  Do you know what they're really afraid of? They're afraid that what 
is going to happen to them is what happened to the typewriter, that in 
20 years we went from everyone using a typewriter to everyone using a 
computer. People have to look into a history book to now find what a 
typewriter looks like. It only took 20 years. They can see this wind 
and solar revolution happening so fast that they're afraid that in 2030 
a kid won't even know how to fill up a car with gasoline because 
they'll be plugging in the car at home with solar and wind-generated 
electricity. That's what they're most afraid of.
  That's what this debate is really all about and that's why there's a 
gag on the Democrats, why we're not allowed to talk about wind and 
solar and geothermal and biomass and energy efficiency. Oh, I'm sorry, 
we're allowed to talk about it, we're just not allowed to have an 
amendment out here on the floor. We're just not allowed to put everyone 
on record as to where they stand on those issues. We're just not 
allowed to do that. You cannot have an amendment out here on the floor.
  So this is the full extent of our ability to help those industries, 
those competitive industries, those Microsofts and Googles and eBays 
and Hulus and YouTubes of the energy industry get out there and 
reinvent the way in which we generate electricity here in our country. 
That's what this debate is really all about.
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), author of one of 
the provisions in this.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Domestic Energy 
and Jobs Act. This energy package will unlock some of the vast 
resources this country has been blessed with, create stable jobs to put 
Americans back to work, and ensure America's energy security for the 
future.
  While President Obama believes that the private sector is doing fine 
with an unemployment rate of over 8 percent and 23 million Americans 
looking for work, more Americans on food stamps than ever before, the 
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us far too many Americans are not 
doing fine. And while private sector oil and gas are booming, our 
Federal lands are left behind.
  Rather than encouraging and implementing policies that will create 
jobs for Americans, the Democrats and the Obama administration 
unfortunately support antienergy, job-destroying policies and have 
refused to act on or have reversed policies that would have created 
jobs for Americans and allowed for the development of American-made 
energy.

  The Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012 takes the steps necessary 
to increase production of American-made energy and creates stable jobs 
for Americans. The plan, lease, permit provisions from the Natural 
Resources Committee in this legislation requires the administration to 
create a definitive, all-of-the-above, 4-year production plan to ensure 
American production of conventional--and, yes, renewable--energy to 
meet our energy needs.
  While the administration has been unwilling to make land available 
for energy production, this legislation requires that they annually 
lease land for onshore development to ensure that the energy production 
process moves forward. It also streamlines the permitting process to 
ensure the expeditious and timely permitting of approvals. The 
legislation also ensures that understaffed and underfunded BLM field 
offices receive the funding they need to keep up with their workloads.
  In addition to these reforms, this legislation opens one of our most 
promising areas for energy production: the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska, which would expand American energy production and support 
current energy jobs for Alaska.
  Finally, this legislation brings oil and natural gas leasing into the 
21st century by allowing the BLM the authority to conduct Internet 
lease sales.
  This legislation will take huge strides in securing our Nation's 
energy future. It will lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil 
and create good-paying jobs for Americans across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Domestic Energy and 
Jobs Act.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4480, which I 
heard my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Representative 
Markey, refer to as the ``Deja Preview Act'' or the ``Big Oil Drain 
Act.''
  Any student of history will tell you that the Congress was not 
designed to be efficient--while there were some good reasons for that--
but deliberately celebrating that particular design of Congress with 
yet another partisan, short-sighted piece of legislation that moves 
United States energy policy backward is truly disappointing.
  H.R. 4480 leaves our energy policy stuck somewhere in the 1950s. 
While other nations are making serious investments to diversify their 
energy supplies, support new clean energy businesses, and become less 
dependent on traditional fossil fuels, we are marching in place.
  H.R. 4480, with its gag order on renewables and energy efficiency, is 
another missed opportunity and a waste of time. H.R. 4480 is nothing 
more than a wish list for Big Oil companies at a time when these 
companies are making record profits on the backs of America's taxpayers 
and her middle class.
  Our energy crisis isn't that we need to drill for more oil. In fact, 
we're actually quite good at it as we saw in Representative Markey's 
presentation. This bill will only make us more dependent on a limited 
resource that is priced on the global market and enjoys a century-old 
taxpayer giveaway while making record profits on the backs of our 
middle class.
  The answer to our energy crisis is to diversify our supply, support 
new clean energy businesses, become less dependent on fossil fuels--to 
focus on the demand side of the energy equation as much as we do our 
supply side.
  While we consider this bill, policies that would provide modest 
assistance to companies that are working on solar, wind, fuel cells, 
combined heat and power, geothermal and energy efficiency, to name a 
few, are languishing in committee.

                              {time}  1810

  These are the technologies that will take us into the future, a bold 
future. True, they are not yet ready to provide all the energy we need, 
but that is all the more reason for us to help them move forward 
aggressively.
  Jobs in the industries I've mentioned, good-paying jobs, are at risk

[[Page H3886]]

due to our failure to renew the production tax credit, the 1603 
program, and the research and development tax credit. We are stifling 
job growth and innovation with this act.
  Eventually, traditional fossil fuels will run out. Already, the human 
health and environmental costs of extracting and using these fuels have 
risen tremendously. We choose to ignore this at our peril, or at least 
at the peril of the next generation and generations to come.
  Over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has shown we can have both 
clean air and a vibrant economy. Since 1960, air pollution has 
decreased by more than 70 percent, while the economy has grown by more 
than 200 percent.
  But this bill is likely to eliminate jobs, while making the air we 
breathe more toxic. But that doesn't seem to matter to the majority in 
the House. It does so by eliminating standards for cleaner vehicles and 
cleaner fuels, likely costing nearly 25,000 jobs a year for 3 years. 
Yet more backward motion.
  The public lands policy put forward today and in yesterday's 
legislation is an insult to the previous generations whose foresight 
and concern for future generations granted us a rich inheritance of 
natural resources in our wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and 
national parks.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), an author of one 
of the provisions of the bill.
  Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, for yielding me time.
  America has always had a competitive advantage as a Nation. It's been 
the entrepreneurship, the hard work, the innovation of the American 
people. But we've also always had a different advantage as well--
affordable energy in this country. We see that now imperiled.
  In 1979, Jimmy Carter challenged this Nation to move to energy self-
sufficiency. Decade after decade it has not been addressed. This piece 
of legislation is to move America fully into the 21st century, to be 
able to secure for us and for our children this land of liberty, 
opportunity, and growth. It comes with American energy.
  The ranking member from Massachusetts, I have good news for you. When 
you read the actual legislation that is put forward, it states in my 
portion of the bill, the Planning for American Energy Act of 2012, page 
16, line 16, calling on the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan 
for American energy.
  What does it say?

       Creating the best estimate, based upon commercial and 
     scientific data of the expected increase in megawatts for 
     electricity production from each of the following sources: 
     wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, and geothermal energy 
     produced on Federal lands.

  The very thing you asked for is in the bill. We have an opportunity 
to be able to create an American energy future in this Nation, to be 
able to secure for our children that birthright that many of us grew up 
believing was an American birthright--the right to be able to live that 
American Dream--to be able to put Americans back to work.
  The Planning for American Energy Act of 2012, my portion of this 
bill, speaks to that commonsense, all-of-the-above proposal that we all 
seek: wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, using the minerals, the 
resources, the natural gas, the oil that we find on American soil.

  When we see what is happening right now in the Middle East, when we 
see at the gas pump our prices doubled from just 3 short years ago, 
when we talk to senior citizens on fixed incomes who are finding out 
when they turn on that light switch that their bill has increased, is 
it time, is it appropriate for us to seek an American energy solution? 
The time has come. The day has arrived.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Stutzman). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. TIPTON. Rather than encouraging energy development off of our 
shores, as the President has done with his $2 billion loan guarantee to 
Brazil to develop their energy sources, if we're going to make those 
kind of investments, if we're going to look to that type of future, 
would it not be better for us to develop American energy on American 
soil to put Americans back to work and create American energy 
certainty? That day has come. The time is now.
  This is a good piece of legislation for American security and 
American jobs.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  Yes, what the Republicans are saying is, in their bill, that they 
want a study for 4 years of wind and solar. A study?
  Well, maybe they should study the fact that it's very sunny in 
Florida. It's very windy out in the Midwest and, as a matter of fact, 
so sunny and so windy that there have been 45,000 megawatts of wind 
installed over the last 6 years in the United States, that there's 
going to be 4,000 new megawatts of solar installed in the United States 
just this year.
  So maybe the Republicans should study the studies that are already 
out there, and maybe they could actually look over and ask the coal 
industry what they're thinking as they've dropped from 51 percent of 
all electrical generation down to 36 percent of all electrical 
generation in the last 5 years.
  Maybe they're looking at the wind industry. Maybe they're looking at 
the solar industry. Maybe you could call them. But you don't have to 
wait 4 years, because all you want to do is study it. What we want to 
do is give the incentive for the wind and solar industry to continue 
their revolution.
  I yield 5 minutes, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I 
thank him for laying out so clearly all the shortcomings of this 
legislation, this oil-above-all legislation. It really is nothing but a 
big giveaway to Big Oil.
  The only jobs it will create will be in the boardrooms and the 
executive offices of the Big Oil companies because, since 2005, even as 
ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell have made more than $650 billion in 
profits--need I repeat that? $650 billion in profits--they eliminated 
more than 11,000 jobs, U.S. jobs, American jobs. And this is even while 
wind and solar were creating 50,000 jobs.
  Yes, there's a mismatch here. The bill before us presented by the 
Republicans says we'll study to see how much solar and wind energy 
might come from these lands in the future instead of saying let's get 
these energy sources of the 21st century rolling in these lands. It's 
not a plan of what we might get. The Markey amendment would have set 
standards for what we would get.
  Now, the Republicans have a long record of protecting tax breaks for 
Big Oil while cutting clean energy initiatives. That's what we see 
here.
  But what I wanted to talk about is the damage that would be done 
under this legislation. Health officials today here in Washington are 
warning people to avoid the heat and stay indoors. I don't think they 
had in mind that we stay indoors to pass legislation that chokes off 
public health protections, that modifies the Clean Air Act to make it 
ineffective, and yet that's what this bill does.

                              {time}  1820

  By rejecting clean energy and pushing only for more fossil fuels to 
blanket the world with heat-trapping pollution, the Republican majority 
is essentially turning off the world's air conditioner and turning on 
the heater.
  There is a reason that the term ``fossil fuels'' applies--actually, 
two reasons. One is that these are derived from ancient plants that 
have decayed deep in the Earth and have produced petroleum. But there 
is another reason. ``Fossil'' means ``archaic.'' ``Fossil'' means ``out 
of date.'' ``Fossil'' does not mean ``21st century.''
  Yet that's where this legislation is taking us--in the wrong 
direction and in the wrong direction with regard to environmental 
protection.
  In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, we shouldn't be 
playing games with safety and the environment. The spill exposed a 
woefully inadequate environmental review process that was done prior to 
the oil and gas leasing. The environmental review done prior to the BP 
spill was so sloppy that response plans talked about protecting 
walruses. Obviously, they were

[[Page H3887]]

just, in an unthinking way, using old Alaska pages.
  Tourism is the lifeblood of so many of our coastal communities. As 
the economy is struggling to recover, we can't risk the kind of 
environmental damage that derails economic progress in these areas. We 
should understand the risks of drilling, and we should strengthen the 
protections, not weaken them. Furthermore, there will be damage done to 
the whole leasing process.
  For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are so worried 
that putting some real standards--some expecting of good performance 
from oil companies--would somehow interfere with their production, let 
me point out some good news. Today, the Interior Department announced 
the results of an oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. Would the Chair tell me how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend.
  According to the Interior Department, today's leases that were bid on 
today, which have some lease standards apply that require increasing 
rental rates and shorter lease terms--the very things that the folks on 
the other side of the aisle here say would be killers, would stop the 
drilling--were record-setting lease sales, bringing in $11.7 billion 
even with these new conditions for offshore drilling; and they're 
saying what works here offshore won't work on the lands that we are 
talking about in this legislation.
  Now, I'll tell you what's a killer in this. A killer is the relaxing 
of the public health and environmental standards in the legislation. 
That's literally a killer.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), whose State has 
tremendous resources.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I support this legislation. It's long overdue. 
Title VI of this legislation is a good step forward in Pet 4 in Alaska, 
so it is with great amazement that I listened to the two previous 
speakers.
  Wind power, you can take and cover every acre of the United States, 
including the parks and refuges, and put solar panels on them, but 
you'll only produce 20 percent of the consumption of energy we use 
today. Now, think about that--no parks, no refuges--all solar panels, 
and we're going to take care of the problem. By the way, it has to be 
transported to a battery, taken and made by rare earths from China.

  That's what this is all about. It's nonsense.
  The idea that wind is going to solve the problem and that solar is 
going to solve the problem, that's nonsense because, in reality, fossil 
fuel, to this day, is the only fuel that can move an object, ladies and 
gentlemen. It moves your car; it moves your truck; it moves your plane; 
it moves your train; and it moves your ship that brings all the product 
to and from the United States.
  You're not going to do it with a beanie on your hat. You're not going 
to do it with solar panels that have to cover every acre of the United 
States of America. It's because we're collecting the power of the Sun 
down here at the bottom of the pyramid. We're not collecting from the 
source. If you want to go far, if you want to be really reaching into 
the future, collect it up there and beam it down to a point where we 
can create electricity.
  This is a good bill because, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Tipton said it 
right. In his bill, we do have action on wind and solar, although it 
will not work, and we know it won't work. We need fossil fuels now 
until we have the time to produce another source of energy that does 
not need electrical batteries to run a car. We're going to plug a car 
in? Nonsense. It won't happen, because you need to produce energy from 
some other source to create the electricity. You're against nuclear 
power. You're against hydropower. By the way, you'd like to take and 
grow our way into new power by using corn--a food--for energy. That's 
absolutely nonsense.
  Shame on you to say this is not a good bill. This is a good bill. 
It's not a nonsense bill.
  Today, the NPRA remains in various stages of exploration, and 
experiences no shortage of interest from producers. However, there have 
been a series of bureaucratic delays that have impeded production from 
this vast area. This bill seeks to remedy that situation and give the 
American people the energy resources they need.
  The Trans Alaska Pipeline System is running at one-third capacity. 
Soon, without the addition of increased oil supplies, that pipeline 
will no longer be economical to operate. Carrying 11% of our Nation's 
supply, TAPS is critical infrastructure for this nation that must be 
protected. This winter TAPS was shut down for a period of days and fuel 
prices on the West coast shot up immediately in a drastic manner. 
Luckily, NPRA is only tens of miles from existing pipeline 
infrastructure that leads into TAPS.
  A few weeks ago, clearly acknowledging that increased supplies will 
bring down energy prices, President Obama released 30 million barrels 
of oil form the Strategic Petroleum reserve. The National Petroleum 
Reserve--Alaska has 2.7 billion barrels and already has infrastructure 
in place to bring the oil to market!
  Title VI of H.R. 4480 is a good first step towards harnessing the 
potential that these federal lands in Alaska have to provide domestic 
energy supplies.
  Mr. MARKEY. Again, I ask how much time is remaining on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 17\1/2\ minutes. 
The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the Natural 
Resources Committee, Mr. Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank the chairman.
  There can be no national security without energy security. Let that 
sink in. There can be no national security without energy security.
  House Republicans support a truly all-of-the-above energy policy, not 
one put forth by the Obama administration and House Democrats, which 
basically is an all-of-the-above, except for X, Y, and Z, policy, which 
blows through Americans' hard-earned tax dollars by chasing phantom 
solutions to our energy needs with companies like Solyndra. ``All of 
the above'' means opening up Federal lands for energy production and 
exploration, and it puts Americans to work.
  Americans simply need to look to one western State to see a microcosm 
of what America could be with an energy-driven economy. That State is 
North Dakota. When you get off the plane in North Dakota, they give you 
a job whether you need one or not. They're approaching a zero percent 
unemployment rate--zero. It is an energy-driven economy. It is the 
microcosm of what this Nation could be if we would pursue an energy-
driven economy.
  Energy from Federal lands could be a reality. Energy from the Outer 
Continental Shelf could be a reality if we would embrace opening up 
American resources for production, which is like the folks in North 
Dakota have done on State and private lands. This is good policy for 
America. Energy policy works.
  Mr. MARKEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. This important legislation 
begins to put in place a true all-of-the-above energy plan, a type of 
plan that has been missing since this President came into office in 
2009.
  This legislation will expand oil, gas, and renewable energy 
development on Federal lands to help increase the supply of energy and 
lower energy prices for consumers. It will also give relief to drivers 
who are paying high prices at the pump every month due to very costly 
EPA regulations that are scheduled to go into place.

                              {time}  1830

  This legislation also contains a bill that I introduced, the BLM Live 
Internet Auctions Act. This section of the bill is supported by my 
friends on the

[[Page H3888]]

opposite side of the aisle here and even the administration. The BLM 
Live Internet Auctions Act will bring the BLM Lease Auction program 
into the 21st century by allowing BLM to conduct online leases just 
like the private sector has been doing for over 10 years.
  We hear a lot about an all-of-the-above energy policy. The President 
even talked about an all-of-the-above energy policy in the State of the 
Union. I'm convinced that what the President means by an all-of-the-
above energy policy is anything all and above the ground, because it 
seems like he doesn't want us going after our own natural resources.
  If we had an energy policy that said, Look, we're going to draw a 
line in the sand, and over the next 10 years we're going to become 
energy independent and secure in America, we're going to go after the 
trillions of barrels of oil that we already own, we're going to harvest 
the vast volumes of natural gas and oil that we own, we're going to 
continue to mine and harvest coal and use it environmentally soundly, 
we're even going to expand our nuclear footprint because it's the 
safest and most reliable form of energy on the planet, and, yeah, we'll 
even look at wind and solar and find out where those renewable energy 
sources fit into an overall scheme, but we're not going to sit on the 
sidelines any longer and be beholden to foreign countries for our 
energy, if we had that kind of vision backed with regulatory reform 
that said to the regulatory agencies like the EPA and the Department of 
the Interior, Starting today, you become partners in progress with 
America's industries and businesses--if you've a got a national 
security or public health or public safety reason for saying ``no,'' 
then say ``no.'' But don't let ``no'' be the final answer.
  I think the American people have an expectation that their elected 
officials and the bureaucracies that are sent here to manage the 
American system are partners in progress, not barriers to progress.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and 
Jobs Act. I certainly do, and I urge them to, as well.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. I would like to thank you, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Hastings, 
as well, for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, my friends on the other side of the aisle keep on using 
this mantra, ``all of the above, all of the above.'' I think they 
should really name it ``oil above all.'' Oil above all would be a 
better name because it's very clear that this bill is really just a 
wish list and a checkoff for the big oil industry. It weakens public 
health protections, it forces arbitrary giveaways on public land, and 
it puts energy drilling ahead of all uses of Federal land. This is not 
a long-term strategy solution. It is an oil-above-all strategy.
  The oil, gas, and coal industry are already getting billions in 
corporate welfare while they're making record profits. How much of the 
American taxpayers' money do they need? They will receive at least $110 
billion in subsidies over the next 10 years. These subsidies have been 
won by decades of lobbying. In 2011, the oil, gas, and coal industry 
spent $167 million lobbying. But in comparison to the return on their 
investment, $167 million is small because they got subsidies of $110 
billion. It is lucrative for them to do so.
  They don't even need our help, Mr. Chairman. In 2011, just last year, 
the Big Five oil companies made $137 billion in profits. That's good by 
any measure. Why in the world would an industry that makes $137 billion 
in profits need the help of the American people with these tax breaks 
that the Republican majority won't even agree to get rid of?
  This bill is simply checking off from Big Oil's wish list.
  It weakens public health protections.
  It forces arbitrary giveaways of public land.
  It puts energy drilling ahead of all other uses of federal land.
  This is not a long-term energy solution.
  The oil, gas, and coal industries are already getting billions in 
corporate welfare.
  They will receive at least $110 billion in subsidies over the next 10 
years.
  These subsidies have been won by decades of lobbying.
  In 2011, the oil, gas, and coal industries spent $167 million 
lobbying the federal government.
  They don't need our help.
  In 2011, the Big Five oil companies made $137 billion in profits.
  But the renewable energy industry does need investment.
  Renewable energy is an emerging industry that can create thousands of 
new jobs.
  Yet we are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry at 6 times the rate 
we are supporting renewable energy.
  I offered a simple amendment to this bill.
  It was a sense of Congress that fossil fuel subsidies should be 
reduced to help control the budget deficit.
  Unfortunately, it seems the Republicans are too beholden to Big Oil 
to even allow a vote on my amendment.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side--especially fiscal 
conservatives--agree that $110 billion in fossil fuel subsidies to 
profitable companies makes no sense.
  We need a true ``All of the above bill'' that invests in clean, 
renewable energy--not this ``Oil above all'' bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  The previous speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota, it sounds like 
his policy on his side of the aisle is: No oil, no matter what.
  This is a very good bill. If it becomes law, H.R. 4480, the Domestic 
Energy and Jobs Act, will put people back to work. It will be a great 
giant step toward creating energy independence for this country. And, 
yes, indeed, my colleagues, it will bring down the price of gasoline at 
the pump, which has actually doubled in 3\1/2\ years under President 
Obama's watch.
  As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, let me focus on one 
specific title of this legislation: The Strategic Energy Production 
Act. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve that we have in this country is 
about 700 million barrels of oil. Mr. Chairman, that reserve is there 
for a situation of a domestic crisis, not a political crisis. We use 20 
million barrels of oil a day in this country. If you assume that 60 
percent of it was domestically produced and we had to import 8 million 
barrels of oil a day, then think about how many days it would last if 
we truly had a crisis and OPEC cut us off completely from what we 
import. That reserve would last about 90 days. That is a 3-month period 
of time. Yet, President Obama wants to take that reserve and use it for 
political purposes.
  This title of the bill, Mr. Chairman, just simply says that every 
ounce of oil that he takes out of the strategic reserve, we would 
increase that same amount on Federal lands.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman.
  Here is an important point, my colleagues. What this President has 
done has simply cut the production on Federal lands by 11 percent on 
his watch.
  Let's pass this bill so that we do create jobs, we put people back to 
work, we become independent in this country, and not dependent on 
nations that hate us.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4480.
  The average American family buys 1,100 gallons of gasoline per year. 
If the price of gas fell just $1 from the current national average of 
$3.49, families would save $1,100 a year.
  For far too long, this administration has prioritized politics over 
the needs of the American people, and today in this body we have an 
opportunity to work together and do what's right for the future of this 
country. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act will help ease the pain at 
the pump, create jobs, and push this country towards energy 
independence.
  This commonsense legislation would put several costly and potential 
burdensome EPA regulations on hold while an analysis of the potential 
costs and consequences of these rules is

[[Page H3889]]

done. To me, it is unthinkable that we wouldn't ask agencies to 
consider the impact of a regulation on jobs and the economy, 
particularly at a time of such economic uncertainty.
  To boost our energy production, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act will 
require the Secretary of the Interior to act on oil and natural gas 
lease applications and will cut red tape on opening up new reserves in 
Alaska. This legislation would also restrict the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve from being tapped unless the administration develops a plan to 
explore for additional sources of oil.
  Let me put this in perspective. As a young Army officer in Korea in 
1973 and 1974, there was an oil embargo. OPEC cut off oil production 
and sending it to the U.S. We only got heat 3 hours a day. We had to 
keep the heat for our tanks and our aircraft to protect this Nation. So 
it is one of strategic importance, and energy is a very important 
source of that.

                              {time}  1840

  To obtain energy independence is not only a key component to our 
domestic recovery, but it's also an issue of national security, as I 
just mentioned. Becoming energy independent is far too important for 
the future of this country to continue to put politics above people.
  I encourage my colleagues to join in supporting the Domestic Energy 
and Jobs Act.
  Mr. MARKEY. May I ask again, Mr. Chairman, that we review where the 
majority and minority are in terms of time remaining in debate?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Washington has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I will yield myself 1 minute at this time.
  I would just like to review, once again, the Republican ``all-of-the-
above'' plan: One, light, sweet crude oil. Two, sour, high sulfur oil. 
Three, heavy oil. Four, tar sands oil. Five, oil shale. And oh, just to 
mix it up, a little natural gas. What they forgot was, of course, wind, 
solar, geothermal, and biomass. And they won't even allow us to have an 
amendment out here on the floor in order to have a debate over it.
  But that ``oil above all'' agenda you have, it is very comprehensive, 
and I give you credit for figuring out every single way that we can 
help all the oil companies in the United States at the expense of all 
the renewable energy industries.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I would like to thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. You know, 
America's been blessed with an abundance of natural resources under our 
feet and off our shores. We have the largest coal reserves in the 
world. New technologies are making it possible to unlock vast new 
reserves of oil and natural gas. We need to do everything possible to 
safely and responsibly develop those natural resources because doing so 
will create good, high-paying jobs, and it will improve national 
security by reducing our dependence on energy from unstable regions of 
the world.
  Higher gas prices are a cruel tax. They're a cruel tax on hardworking 
men and women who are trying to find a way to get back and forth to 
work. Higher gas prices are a cruel tax on seniors living on a fixed 
income.
  And unfortunately, this administration is full of people that are 
pushing a radical environmental agenda that's hostile to energy 
development. They believe the solution is to force the price of 
traditional energy supplies to skyrocket so that alternative green 
energy becomes artificially competitive.
  Alternative energy should be a part of the mix. But the reality is 
that fossil fuels will be the main source of our energy for at least 
the next two generations, and it's fantasy to suggest otherwise.
  Now we do support an all-of-the-above strategy, but that all-of-the-
above strategy also includes an all-of-the-below strategy. We support 
developing those resources that are below our feet and off our shores. 
That's why I am proud to support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.
  Mr. MARKEY. At this time I yield myself 2 minutes.
  You know, I hate giving all the bad news to the Republicans. But I'll 
give you some more bad news. You hate to hear it, but I will give it to 
you anyway.
  In 2011, in terms of new electrical generation in the United States, 
33 percent came from natural gas, 29 percent from wind, 20 percent from 
coal, and 8 percent from solar. Got that again? Wind and solar were 
about 37 percent of all new electrical generating capacity in the 
United States in the year 2011. But you guys want to study it. You want 
to have more information about this technology.
  And by the way, in that study, you should also throw a few other 
things--a single device from which you can talk to your family, send 
emails, and watch videos. That's a concept some people have. You might 
want to study that as well. Oh, no, we already have that.
  Sending a man to the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. Oh, 
I guess that's something else we already did. How about studying the 
possibility of mapping the entire human genome so we can have an idea 
of what material humanity is made out of, to kind of break a 
breakthrough. Oh, I think we've already done that. And there may be 
many other things that we can throw into that solar and wind study that 
we also don't need to have studied that you can also throw in there as 
part of your technological and scientific phobia that refuses to have 
you admit that things are already happening.
  And by the way, something else you are refusing to admit that 
happened--during Bush's term as President, the production of oil went 
down, down, down, down from 2001 2008. Do you know what happened once 
Obama took over? Up, up, up, up. So much oil drilling, in fact, that 
all the rigs in the world combined are not matching what Obama has done 
in terms of total oil rigs out there. And we are now at an 18-year high 
in oil.
  Maybe you should study this. Maybe this is hard for you to 
understand. I've heard all the Members out here saying that there is a 
jihad against oil being waged by the Obama administration. It just 
doesn't match any of the evidence.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will advise my very good 
friend from Massachusetts that I am prepared to close if he is prepared 
to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. I will yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just say that I know it's not anything that has been observed 
by the Republicans. But the price of gasoline has dropped for the last 
11 weeks in a row, ever since the President threatened to use the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because it was never about supply and 
demand. It was always about fear and greed. It was what Wall Street was 
doing and manipulating the price of oil and the commodities futures of 
the marketplace. It was about the fear that people had about a war in 
Iran breaking out.
  But what's the response from the Republicans? Well, they have a 
brilliant amendment inside of their bill. What they say here is that 
if, God forbid, the Ayatollah ever attacked the United States, a Middle 
Eastern war ever broke out, and the President deployed the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, 10 million barrels worth of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, you know what their bill says? That we, the Federal 
Government--if the Republican bill passes today--would then have to 
sell to ExxonMobil and the other Big Oil companies 200 million acres of 
Federal lands for ExxonMobil and the other Big Oil companies to drill 
on.
  Understand that? That the Ayatollah attacks us, there's a war in the 
Middle East, and who do we have to pay the ransom to? To the Big Oil 
companies of the United States, if we deploy the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.
  Now how nonsensical is that? That is an absolutely crazy idea, that 
the oil companies become the beneficiaries of a Middle Eastern 
conflict. They get the public lands of the United States, 200 million 
acres that we have to sell them simultaneously. It's almost a trigger 
that occurs inside of their legislation. That's how meshuggah this all 
is.
  This is an absolutely crazy set of concepts, where we can't have an

[[Page H3890]]

amendment on wind and solar, geothermal, biomass, plug-in hybrids, all 
new technologies and efficiency that back out the need for all this oil 
to ever come in in the first place. And as a penalty, the country will 
use this Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a weapon of our national 
security against OPEC, that if the President uses it, we have to sell 
200 million acres of American land to the oil companies so that they 
can even drill for bargain basement prices here in the country.
  This bill is absolutely the wrong recipe for our country as we head 
into the 21st century. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to know where to 
start as I close the debate on this portion of the bill because there's 
been so much information out there and so much information that, 
frankly, I won't say it's untrue, but it's not exactly accurate.
  Let me start with the idea that the price of gasoline has dropped 
with this administration. In January of 2009, the average price of 
gasoline in this country was $1.82 a gallon. Now what is magic about 
January 2009? Well, that was the month that the President was 
inaugurated and the price of gasoline was $1.82 a gallon. Today, the 
average price of gasoline is $3.48. Now if your math is such that the 
price of gasoline drops when it starts at $1.82 and ends at $3.48, 
you've got fuzzy math. But that's what we keep hearing.
  Furthermore, we have heard I don't know how many Members on the other 
side speak, but I dare say every one of them said that this is a 
giveaway to oil and gas. If they didn't say it, they implied it, trying 
to get that message across.
  Now, I wondered when I heard the debate here about there's no 
reference to renewables if they read the bill. I am now convinced they 
did not read the bill, Mr. Chairman. And let me tell you why. Because 
when we talk about renewables, we're talking about Federal lands and we 
say that the Secretary--and I'm reading from page 15, title III, 
section 44, paragraph 3. It says:

       The Secretary shall determine a domestic strategic 
     production objective for the development of energy resources 
     from Federal onshore lands.

  Now that's the directive.
  So on page 16 we make reference to renewable energy. And they said, 
Oh, it's just a study. What do you mean it's just a study? Well, if you 
read, Mr. Chairman, we are asking for a study for the estimates of 
what? On subsection A, it's oil and natural gas. What? We're asking for 
a study of oil and natural gas on Federal lands. Then, you go to C. It 
talks about the critical minerals. Then it goes on to renewables.
  In other words, the point I'm making, Mr. Chairman--and this is very 
important--if this is a giveaway to oil and gas companies and not 
helping renewables, then why is it the precise same language for the 
type of production of energy on Federal lands? You can't have it both 
ways.
  So I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very good bill because we're 
focusing on where the greatest resources we have in this country are on 
Federal lands. That's where the greatest potential resources are. This 
bill is aimed at those resources. That's why this bill is so important.
  Let's set production goals on all energy development. And that means 
all-of-the-above. That means above ground. That means underground, as 
my friend from Mississippi said. That's what we are attempting to do. 
But to suggest that this is a giveaway when precisely the same language 
applies to all energy production, frankly, is inaccurate.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
piece of legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4480, the 
Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.
  While I support pieces of H.R. 4480, unfortunately I am not able to 
vote for the bill because I believe it will actually create more 
regulatory confusion and impediments for our domestic producers. Title 
I, for example, requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to 
increase domestic oil and gas leasing from onshore and offshore federal 
lands that are under the jurisdiction of the Departments of 
Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Defense within 180 days of a release 
of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A new government 
bureaucracy at the Department of Energy would develop this plan, which 
duplicates the oil and gas leasing programs at the Departments of 
Interior and Agriculture. During a House Energy and Commerce Hearing on 
the bill, the Secretary of Energy expressed many concerns about their 
ability to effectively do this.
  I am also concerned with Title III of the bill, which would overturn 
the multiple-use principle established in the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976. This would undermine the basic principal which 
has guided the management of public lands for 35 years.
  I also have concerns with Section 206 of the bill, which would 
require the Environmental Protection Agency to consider industry costs 
when determining what level of air pollution is ``safe.'' By doing this 
we would be rolling back one of the core aspects of the Clean Air Act--
a requirement that was passed on a bipartisan basis over 40 years ago, 
signed into law by a Republican President and unanimously upheld by the 
Supreme Court in 2001. I plan to offer an amendment that would strike 
section 206 and I hope that my colleagues will support it.
  As a strong supporter of policies that encourage and support domestic 
energy production, my hope is that in the future, the House takes up 
legislation that deals with this important issue without including 
controversial policy riders that prevent bipartisan support in the 
House and movement in the Senate.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-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.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4480

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Domestic Energy and Jobs 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I--INCREASING DOMESTIC IN RESPONSE TO STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE 
                               DRAWDOWNS

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Plan for increasing domestic oil and gas exploration, 
              development, and production from Federal lands in 
              response to Strategic Petroleum Reserve drawdown.

      TITLE II--IMPACTS OF EPA RULES AND ACTIONS ON ENERGY PRICES

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Transportation Fuels Regulatory Committee.
Sec. 203. Analyses.
Sec. 204. Reports; public comment.
Sec. 205. No final action on certain rules.
Sec. 206. Consideration of feasibility and cost in revising or 
              supplementing national ambient air quality standards for 
              ozone.

  TITLE III--QUADRENNIAL STRATEGIC FEDERAL ONSHORE ENERGY PRODUCTION 
                                STRATEGY

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Onshore domestic energy production strategic plan.
Sec. 303. Definitions.

            TITLE IV--ONSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING CERTAINTY

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Minimum acreage requirement for onshore lease sales.
Sec. 403. Leasing certainty.
Sec. 404. Leasing consistency.
Sec. 405. Reduce redundant policies.

                 TITLE V--STREAMLINED ENERGY PERMITTING

Sec. 501. Short title.

      Subtitle A--Application for Permits to Drill Process Reform

Sec. 511. Permit to drill application timeline.
Sec. 512. Solar and wind right-of-way rental reform.

        Subtitle B--Administrative Protest Documentation Reform

Sec. 521. Administrative protest documentation reform.

                    Subtitle C--Permit Streamlining

Sec. 531. Improve Federal energy permit coordination.

[[Page H3891]]

Sec. 532. Administration of current law.
Sec. 533. Policies regarding buying, building, and working for America.

                      Subtitle D--Judicial Review

Sec. 541. Definitions.
Sec. 542. Exclusive venue for certain civil actions relating to covered 
              energy projects.
Sec. 543. Timely filing.
Sec. 544. Expedition in hearing and determining the action.
Sec. 545. Standard of review.
Sec. 546. Limitation on injunction and prospective relief.
Sec. 547. Limitation on attorneys' fees.
Sec. 548. Legal standing.

 TITLE VI--EXPEDITIOUS PROGRAM OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE NATIONAL 
                      PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Sense of Congress and reaffirming national policy for the 
              National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Sec. 603. National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: lease sales.
Sec. 604. National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: planning and permitting 
              pipeline and road construction.
Sec. 605. Departmental Accountability for Development.
Sec. 606. Updated resource assessment.

       TITLE VII--INTERNET-BASED ONSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Internet-based onshore oil and gas lease sales.

TITLE I--INCREASING DOMESTIC IN RESPONSE TO STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE 
                               DRAWDOWNS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Strategic Energy 
     Production Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 102. PLAN FOR INCREASING DOMESTIC OIL AND GAS 
                   EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION FROM 
                   FEDERAL LANDS IN RESPONSE TO STRATEGIC 
                   PETROLEUM RESERVE DRAWDOWN.

       Section 161 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6241) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(k) Plan.--
       ``(1) Contents.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     on which the Secretary executes, in accordance with the 
     provisions of this section, the first sale after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection of petroleum products in the 
     Reserve the Secretary shall develop a plan to increase the 
     percentage of Federal lands (including submerged lands of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf) under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, the 
     Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Defense 
     leased for oil and gas exploration, development, and 
     production. The percentage of the total amount of the Federal 
     lands described in the preceding sentence by which the plan 
     developed under this paragraph will increase leasing for oil 
     and gas exploration, development, and production shall be the 
     same as the percentage of petroleum in the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve that was drawn down.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The plan developed under this 
     paragraph shall--
       ``(i) be consistent with a national energy policy to meet 
     the present and future energy needs of the Nation consistent 
     with economic goals; and
       ``(ii) promote the interests of consumers through the 
     provision of an adequate and reliable supply of domestic 
     transportation fuels at the lowest reasonable cost.
       ``(C) Energy information.--The Secretary shall base the 
     determination of the present and future energy needs of the 
     Nation, for purposes of subparagraph (B)(i), on information 
     from the Energy Information Administration.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The plan developed under paragraph (1) 
     shall not provide for oil and gas exploration, development, 
     and production leasing of a total of more than 10 percent of 
     the Federal lands described in paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall develop the plan 
     required by paragraph (1) in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 
     Secretary of Defense. Additionally, in developing the plan, 
     the Secretary shall consult with the American Association of 
     Petroleum Geologists and other State, environmentalist, and 
     oil and gas industry stakeholders to determine the most 
     geologically promising lands for production of oil and 
     natural gas liquids.
       ``(4) Compliance with requirements.--Each Federal agency 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) shall comply with any 
     requirements established by the Secretary pursuant to the 
     plan, except that no action shall be taken pursuant to the 
     plan if in the view of the Secretary of Defense such action 
     will adversely affect national security or military 
     activities, including preparedness and training.
       ``(5) Exclusions.--The lands referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A) shall not include lands managed under the National 
     Park System or the National Wilderness Preservation System.
       ``(6) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to limit or affect the application of existing 
     restrictions on offshore drilling or requirements for land 
     management under Federal, State, or local law.''.

      TITLE II--IMPACTS OF EPA RULES AND ACTIONS ON ENERGY PRICES

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Gasoline Regulations Act 
     of 2012''.

     SEC. 202. TRANSPORTATION FUELS REGULATORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--The President shall establish a 
     committee to be known as the Transportation Fuels Regulatory 
     Committee (in this title referred to as the ``Committee'') to 
     analyze and report on the cumulative impacts of certain rules 
     and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency on 
     gasoline, diesel fuel, and natural gas prices, in accordance 
     with sections 203 and 204.
       (b) Members.--The Committee shall be composed of the 
     following officials (or their designees):
       (1) The Secretary of Energy, who shall serve as the Chair 
     of the Committee.
       (2) The Secretary of Transportation, acting through the 
     Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration.
       (3) The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Chief 
     Economist and the Under Secretary for International Trade.
       (4) The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Commissioner 
     of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
       (5) The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy of the 
     Department of the Treasury.
       (6) The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief 
     Economist.
       (7) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (8) The Chairman of the United States International Trade 
     Commission, acting through the Director of the Office of 
     Economics.
       (9) The Administrator of the Energy Information 
     Administration.
       (c) Consultation by Chair.--In carrying out the functions 
     of the Chair of the Committee, the Chair shall consult with 
     the other members of the Committee.
       (d) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate 60 days 
     after submitting its final report pursuant to section 204(c).

     SEC. 203. ANALYSES.

       (a) Scope.--The Committee shall conduct analyses, for each 
     of the calendar years 2016 and 2020, of the cumulative impact 
     of all covered rules, in combination with covered actions.
       (b) Contents.--The Committee shall include in each analysis 
     conducted under this section the following:
       (1) Estimates of the cumulative impacts of the covered 
     rules and covered actions with regard to--
       (A) any resulting change in the national, State, or 
     regional price of gasoline, diesel fuel, or natural gas;
       (B) required capital investments and projected costs for 
     operation and maintenance of new equipment required to be 
     installed;
       (C) global economic competitiveness of the United States 
     and any loss of domestic refining capacity;
       (D) other cumulative costs and cumulative benefits, 
     including evaluation through a general equilibrium model 
     approach; and
       (E) national, State, and regional employment, including 
     impacts associated with changes in gasoline, diesel fuel, or 
     natural gas prices and facility closures.
       (2) Discussion of key uncertainties and assumptions 
     associated with each estimate under paragraph (1).
       (3) A sensitivity analysis reflecting alternative 
     assumptions with respect to the aggregate demand for 
     gasoline, diesel fuel, or natural gas.
       (4) Discussion, and where feasible an assessment, of the 
     cumulative impact of the covered rules and covered actions 
     on--
       (A) consumers;
       (B) small businesses;
       (C) regional economies;
       (D) State, local, and tribal governments;
       (E) low-income communities;
       (F) public health; and
       (G) local and industry-specific labor markets,
     as well as key uncertainties associated with each topic 
     listed in subparagraphs (A) through (G).
       (c) Methods.--In conducting analyses under this section, 
     the Committee shall use the best available methods, 
     consistent with guidance from the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A 4.
       (d) Data.--In conducting analyses under this section, the 
     Committee is not required to create data or to use data that 
     is not readily accessible.
       (e) Covered Rules.--In this section, the term ``covered 
     rule'' means the following rules (and includes any successor 
     or substantially similar rules):
       (1) ``Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: 
     Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards'', as 
     described in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
     Deregulatory Actions under Regulatory Identification Number 
     2060 AQ86.
       (2) Any rule proposed after March 15, 2012, establishing or 
     revising a standard of performance or emission standard under 
     section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411, 
     7412) that is applicable to petroleum refineries.
       (3) Any rule proposed after March 15, 2012, for 
     implementation of the Renewable Fuel Program under section 
     211(o) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)).
       (4) ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'', 
     published at 73 Federal Register 16436 (March 27, 2008); 
     ``Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone Primary and Secondary 
     National Ambient Air Quality Standards'', as described in the 
     Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 
     under Regulatory Identification Number 2060 AP98; and any 
     subsequent rule revising or supplementing the national 
     ambient air quality standards for ozone under section 109 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409).
       (f) Covered Actions.--In this section, the term ``covered 
     action'' means any action, to the extent such action affects 
     facilities involved in the production, transportation, or 
     distribution

[[Page H3892]]

     of gasoline, diesel fuel, or natural gas, taken on or after 
     January 1, 2009, by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, a State, a local government, or a 
     permitting agency as a result of the application of part C of 
     title I (relating to prevention of significant deterioration 
     of air quality), or title V (relating to permitting), of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to an air pollutant 
     that is identified as a greenhouse gas in the rule entitled 
     ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
     Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act'' 
     published at 74 Federal Register 66496 (December 15, 2009).

     SEC. 204. REPORTS; PUBLIC COMMENT.

       (a) Preliminary Report.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Committee shall make 
     public and submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate a preliminary report 
     containing the results of the analyses conducted under 
     section 203.
       (b) Public Comment Period.--The Committee shall accept 
     public comments regarding the preliminary report submitted 
     under subsection (a) for a period of 60 days after such 
     submission.
       (c) Final Report.--Not later than 60 days after the close 
     of the public comment period under subsection (b), the 
     Committee shall submit to Congress a final report containing 
     the analyses conducted under section 203, including any 
     revisions to such analyses made as a result of public 
     comments, and a response to such comments.

     SEC. 205. NO FINAL ACTION ON CERTAIN RULES.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall not finalize any of the following 
     rules until a date (to be determined by the Administrator) 
     that is at least 6 months after the day on which the 
     Committee submits the final report under section 204(c):
       (1) ``Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: 
     Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards'', as 
     described in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
     Deregulatory Actions under Regulatory Identification Number 
     2060 AQ86, and any successor or substantially similar rule.
       (2) Any rule proposed after March 15, 2012, establishing or 
     revising a standard of performance or emission standard under 
     section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411, 
     7412) that is applicable to petroleum refineries.
       (3) Any rule revising or supplementing the national ambient 
     air quality standards for ozone under section 109 of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409).
       (b) Other Rules Not Affected.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     affect the finalization of any rule other than the rules 
     described in such subsection.

     SEC. 206. CONSIDERATION OF FEASIBILITY AND COST IN REVISING 
                   OR SUPPLEMENTING NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 
                   STANDARDS FOR OZONE.

       In revising or supplementing any national primary or 
     secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone under 
     section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409), the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     take into consideration feasibility and cost.

  TITLE III--QUADRENNIAL STRATEGIC FEDERAL ONSHORE ENERGY PRODUCTION 
                                STRATEGY

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Planning for American 
     Energy Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 302. ONSHORE DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION STRATEGIC PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et 
     seq.) is amended by redesignating section 44 as section 45, 
     and by inserting after section 43 the following:

     ``SEC. 44. QUADRENNIAL STRATEGIC FEDERAL ONSHORE ENERGY 
                   PRODUCTION STRATEGY.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) The Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this 
     section referred to as `Secretary'), in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture with regard to lands administered by 
     the Forest Service, shall develop and publish every 4 years a 
     Quadrennial Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy. This 
     Strategy shall direct Federal land energy development and 
     department resource allocation in order to promote the energy 
     security of the United States.
       ``(2) In developing this Strategy, the Secretary shall 
     consult with the Administrator of the Energy Information 
     Administration on the projected energy demands of the United 
     States for the next 30-year period, and how energy derived 
     from Federal onshore lands can put the United States on a 
     trajectory to meet that demand during the next 4-year period. 
     The Secretary shall consider how Federal lands will 
     contribute to ensuring national energy security, with a goal 
     for increasing energy independence and production, during the 
     next 4-year period.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall determine a domestic strategic 
     production objective for the development of energy resources 
     from Federal onshore lands. Such objective shall be--
       ``(A) the best estimate, based upon commercial and 
     scientific data, of the expected increase in domestic 
     production of oil and natural gas from the Federal onshore 
     mineral estate, with a focus on lands held by the Bureau of 
     Land Management and the Forest Service;
       ``(B) the best estimate, based upon commercial and 
     scientific data, of the expected increase in domestic coal 
     production from Federal lands;
       ``(C) the best estimate, based upon commercial and 
     scientific data, of the expected increase in domestic 
     production of strategic and critical energy minerals from the 
     Federal onshore mineral estate;
       ``(D) the best estimate, based upon commercial and 
     scientific data, of the expected increase in megawatts for 
     electricity production from each of the following sources: 
     wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, and geothermal energy 
     produced on Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
     Management and the Forest Service;
       ``(E) the best estimate, based upon commercial and 
     scientific data, of the expected increase in unconventional 
     energy production, such as oil shale; and
       ``(F) the best estimate, based upon commercial and 
     scientific data, of the expected increase in domestic 
     production of oil, natural gas, coal, and other renewable 
     sources from tribal lands for any federally recognized Indian 
     tribe that elects to participate in facilitating energy 
     production on its lands.
       ``(4) The Secretary shall consult with the Administrator of 
     the Energy Information Administration regarding the 
     methodology used to arrive at its estimates for purposes of 
     this section.
       ``(5) The Secretary has the authority to expand the energy 
     development plan to include other energy production 
     technology sources or advancements in energy on Federal 
     lands.
       ``(b) Tribal Objectives.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     federally recognized Indian tribes may elect to set their own 
     production objectives as part of the Strategy under this 
     section. The Secretary shall work in cooperation with any 
     federally recognized Indian tribe that elects to participate 
     in achieving its own strategic energy objectives designated 
     under this subsection.
       ``(c) Execution of the Strategy.--The relevant Secretary 
     shall have all necessary authority to make determinations 
     regarding which additional lands will be made available in 
     order to meet the production objectives established by 
     strategies under this section. The Secretary shall also take 
     all necessary actions to achieve these production objectives 
     unless the President determines that it is not in the 
     national security and economic interests of the United States 
     to increase Federal domestic energy production and to further 
     decrease dependence upon foreign sources of energy. In 
     administering this section, the relevant Secretary shall only 
     consider leasing Federal lands available for leasing at the 
     time the lease sale occurs.
       ``(d) State, Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, Local 
     Government, and Public Input.--In developing each strategy, 
     the Secretary shall solicit the input of affected States, 
     federally recognized Indian tribes, local governments, and 
     the public.
       ``(e) Reporting.--The Secretary shall report annually to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate on the progress of meeting the 
     production goals set forth in the strategy. The Secretary 
     shall identify in the report projections for production and 
     capacity installations and any problems with leasing, 
     permitting, siting, or production that will prevent meeting 
     the goal. In addition, the Secretary shall make suggestions 
     to help meet any shortfalls in meeting the production goals.
       ``(f) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.--Not 
     later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this 
     section, in accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), the 
     Secretary shall complete a programmatic environmental impact 
     statement. This programmatic environmental impact statement 
     will be deemed sufficient to comply with all requirements 
     under that Act for all necessary resource management and land 
     use plans associated with the implementation of the strategy.
       ``(g) Congressional Review.--At least 60 days prior to 
     publishing a proposed strategy under this section, the 
     Secretary shall submit it to the President and the Congress, 
     together with any comments received from States, federally 
     recognized Indian tribes, and local governments. Such 
     submission shall indicate why any specific recommendation of 
     a State, federally recognized Indian tribe, or local 
     government was not accepted.''.
       (b) First Quadrennial Strategy.--Not later than 18 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall submit to Congress the first Quadrennial 
     Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy under the 
     amendment made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 303. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title, the term ``strategic and 
     critical energy minerals'' means those that are necessary for 
     the Nation's energy infrastructure including pipelines, 
     refining capacity, electrical power generation and 
     transmission, and renewable energy production and those that 
     are necessary to support domestic manufacturing, including 
     but not limited to, materials used in energy generation, 
     production, and transportation.

            TITLE IV--ONSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING CERTAINTY

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Providing Leasing 
     Certainty for American Energy Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 402. MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT FOR ONSHORE LEASE 
                   SALES.

       In conducting lease sales as required by section 17(a) of 
     the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(a)), each year the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall perform the following:
       (1) The Secretary shall offer for sale no less than 25 
     percent of the annual nominated acreage not previously made 
     available for lease. Acreage offered for lease pursuant to 
     this paragraph shall not be subject to protest and shall be 
     eligible for categorical exclusions under section 390 of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15492), except that it 
     shall not be subject to the test of extraordinary 
     circumstances.
       (2) In administering this section, the Secretary shall only 
     consider leasing of Federal lands that

[[Page H3893]]

     are available for leasing at the time the lease sale occurs.

     SEC. 403. LEASING CERTAINTY.

       Section 17(a) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(a)) 
     is amended by inserting ``(1)'' before ``All lands'', and by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary shall not withdraw any covered 
     energy project issued under this Act without finding a 
     violation of the terms of the lease by the lessee.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall not infringe upon lease rights 
     under leases issued under this Act by indefinitely delaying 
     issuance of project approvals, drilling and seismic permits, 
     and rights of way for activities under such a lease.
       ``(C) No later than 18 months after an area is designated 
     as open under the current land use plan the Secretary shall 
     make available nominated areas for lease under the criteria 
     in section 2.
       ``(D) Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary shall 
     issue all leases sold no later than 60 days after the last 
     payment is made.
       ``(E) The Secretary shall not cancel or withdraw any lease 
     parcel after a competitive lease sale has occurred and a 
     winning bidder has submitted the last payment for the parcel.
       ``(F) Not later than 60 days after a lease sale held under 
     this Act, the Secretary shall adjudicate any lease protests 
     filed following a lease sale. If after 60 days any protest is 
     left unsettled, said protest is automatically denied and 
     appeal rights of the protestor begin.
       ``(G) No additional lease stipulations may be added after 
     the parcel is sold without consultation and agreement of the 
     lessee, unless the Secretary deems such stipulations as 
     emergency actions to conserve the resources of the United 
     States.''.

     SEC. 404. LEASING CONSISTENCY.

       Federal land managers must follow existing resource 
     management plans and continue to actively lease in areas 
     designated as open when resource management plans are being 
     amended or revised, until such time as a new record of 
     decision is signed.

     SEC. 405. REDUCE REDUNDANT POLICIES.

       Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum 2010 117 
     shall have no force or effect.

                 TITLE V--STREAMLINED ENERGY PERMITTING

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Streamlining Permitting of 
     American Energy Act of 2012''.

      Subtitle A--Application for Permits to Drill Process Reform

     SEC. 511. PERMIT TO DRILL APPLICATION TIMELINE.

       Section 17(p)(2) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 
     226(p)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Applications for permits to drill reform and 
     process.--
       ``(A) Timeline.--The Secretary shall decide whether to 
     issue a permit to drill within 30 days after receiving an 
     application for the permit. The Secretary may extend such 
     period for up to 2 periods of 15 days each, if the Secretary 
     has given written notice of the delay to the applicant. The 
     notice shall be in the form of a letter from the Secretary or 
     a designee of the Secretary, and shall include the names and 
     titles of the persons processing the application, the 
     specific reasons for the delay, and a specific date a final 
     decision on the application is expected.
       ``(B) Notice of reasons for denial.--If the application is 
     denied, the Secretary shall provide the applicant--
       ``(i) in writing, clear and comprehensive reasons why the 
     application was not accepted and detailed information 
     concerning any deficiencies; and
       ``(ii) an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies.
       ``(C) Application deemed approved.--If the Secretary has 
     not made a decision on the application by the end of the 60-
     day period beginning on the date the application is received 
     by the Secretary, the application is deemed approved, except 
     in cases in which existing reviews under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 are incomplete.
       ``(D) Denial of permit.--If the Secretary decides not to 
     issue a permit to drill in accordance with subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) provide to the applicant a description of the reasons 
     for the denial of the permit;
       ``(ii) allow the applicant to resubmit an application for a 
     permit to drill during the 10-day period beginning on the 
     date the applicant receives the description of the denial 
     from the Secretary; and
       ``(iii) issue or deny any resubmitted application not later 
     than 10 days after the date the application is submitted to 
     the Secretary.
       ``(E) Fee.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Secretary shall collect a single $6,500 permit processing fee 
     per application from each applicant at the time the final 
     decision is made whether to issue a permit under subparagraph 
     (A). This fee shall not apply to any resubmitted application.
       ``(ii) Treatment of permit processing fee.--Of all fees 
     collected under this paragraph, 50 percent shall be 
     transferred to the field office where they are collected and 
     used to process protests, leases, and permits under this Act 
     subject to appropriation.''.

     SEC. 512. SOLAR AND WIND RIGHT-OF-WAY RENTAL REFORM.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each fiscal 
     year, of fees collected as annual wind energy and solar 
     energy right-of-way authorization fees required under section 
     504(g) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
     (43 U.S.C. 1764(g)), 50 percent shall be retained by the 
     Secretary of the Interior to be used, subject to 
     appropriation, by the Bureau of Land Management to process 
     permits, right-of-way applications, and other activities 
     necessary for renewable development, and, at the discretion 
     of the Secretary, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 
     other Federal agencies involved in wind and solar permitting 
     reviews to facilitate the processing of wind energy and solar 
     energy permit applications on Bureau of Land Management 
     lands.

        Subtitle B--Administrative Protest Documentation Reform

     SEC. 521. ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST DOCUMENTATION REFORM.

       Section 17(p) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Protest fee.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall collect a $5,000 
     documentation fee to accompany each protest for a lease, 
     right of way, or application for permit to drill.
       ``(B) Treatment of fees.--Of all fees collected under this 
     paragraph, 50 percent shall remain in the field office where 
     they are collected and used to process protests subject to 
     appropriation.''.

                    Subtitle C--Permit Streamlining

     SEC. 531. IMPROVE FEDERAL ENERGY PERMIT COORDINATION.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred 
     to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall establish a 
     Federal Permit Streamlining Project (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Project'') in every Bureau of Land 
     Management field office with responsibility for permitting 
     energy projects on Federal land.
       (b) Memorandum of Understanding.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding for purposes of this section 
     with--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (B) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; and
       (C) the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers.
       (2) State participation.--The Secretary may request that 
     the Governor of any State with energy projects on Federal 
     lands to be a signatory to the memorandum of understanding.
       (c) Designation of Qualified Staff.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the signing of the memorandum of understanding under 
     subsection (b), all Federal signatory parties shall, if 
     appropriate, assign to each of the Bureau of Land Management 
     field offices an employee who has expertise in the regulatory 
     issues relating to the office in which the employee is 
     employed, including, as applicable, particular expertise in--
       (A) the consultations and the preparation of biological 
     opinions under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536);
       (B) permits under section 404 of Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344);
       (C) regulatory matters under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7401 et seq.);
       (D) planning under the National Forest Management Act of 
     1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a et seq.); and
       (E) the preparation of analyses under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (2) Duties.--Each employee assigned under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) not later than 90 days after the date of assignment, 
     report to the Bureau of Land Management Field Managers in the 
     office to which the employee is assigned;
       (B) be responsible for all issues relating to the energy 
     projects that arise under the authorities of the employee's 
     home agency; and
       (C) participate as part of the team of personnel working on 
     proposed energy projects, planning, and environmental 
     analyses on Federal lands.
       (d) Additional Personnel.--The Secretary shall assign to 
     each Bureau of Land Management field office identified in 
     subsection (a) any additional personnel that are necessary to 
     ensure the effective approval and implementation of energy 
     projects administered by the Bureau of Land Management field 
     offices, including inspection and enforcement relating to 
     energy development on Federal land, in accordance with the 
     multiple use mandate of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (e) Funding.--Funding for the additional personnel shall 
     come from the Department of the Interior reforms identified 
     in sections 511, 512, and 521.
       (f) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section affects--
       (1) the operation of any Federal or State law; or
       (2) any delegation of authority made by the head of a 
     Federal agency whose employees are participating in the 
     Project.
       (g) Definition.--For purposes of this section the term 
     ``energy projects'' includes oil, natural gas, coal, and 
     other energy projects as defined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 532. ADMINISTRATION OF CURRENT LAW.

       Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall not require a finding of extraordinary 
     circumstances in administering section 390 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005.

     SEC. 533. POLICIES REGARDING BUYING, BUILDING, AND WORKING 
                   FOR AMERICA.

       (a) Congressional Intent.--It is the intent of Congress 
     that--
       (1) this title will support a healthy and growing United 
     States domestic energy sector that, in turn, helps to 
     reinvigorate American manufacturing, transportation, and 
     service sectors by employing the vast talents of United 
     States workers to assist in the development of energy from 
     domestic sources; and
       (2) Congress will monitor the deployment of personnel and 
     material onshore under this title to encourage the 
     development of American technology and manufacturing to 
     enable United

[[Page H3894]]

     States workers to benefit from this title through good jobs 
     and careers, as well as the establishment of important 
     industrial facilities to support expanded access to American 
     energy resources.
       (b) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall, when 
     possible and practicable, encourage the use of United States 
     workers and equipment manufactured in the United States in 
     all construction related to mineral resource development 
     under this title.

                      Subtitle D--Judicial Review

     SEC. 541. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title--
       (1) the term ``covered civil action'' means a civil action 
     containing a claim under section 702 of title 5, United 
     States Code, regarding agency action (as defined for the 
     purposes of that section) affecting a covered energy project 
     on Federal lands of the United States; and
       (2) the term ``covered energy project'' means the leasing 
     of Federal lands of the United States for the exploration, 
     development, production, processing, or transmission of oil, 
     natural gas, wind, or any other source of energy, and any 
     action under such a lease, except that the term does not 
     include any disputes between the parties to a lease regarding 
     the obligations under such lease, including regarding any 
     alleged breach of the lease.

     SEC. 542. EXCLUSIVE VENUE FOR CERTAIN CIVIL ACTIONS RELATING 
                   TO COVERED ENERGY PROJECTS.

       Venue for any covered civil action shall lie in the 
     district court where the project or leases exist or are 
     proposed.

     SEC. 543. TIMELY FILING.

       To ensure timely redress by the courts, a covered civil 
     action must be filed no later than the end of the 90-day 
     period beginning on the date of the final Federal agency 
     action to which it relates.

     SEC. 544. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION.

       The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered 
     civil action as expeditiously as possible.

     SEC. 545. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

       In any judicial review of a covered civil action, 
     administrative findings and conclusions relating to the 
     challenged Federal action or decision shall be presumed to be 
     correct, and the presumption may be rebutted only by the 
     preponderance of the evidence contained in the administrative 
     record.

     SEC. 546. LIMITATION ON INJUNCTION AND PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.

       In a covered civil action, the court shall not grant or 
     approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that 
     such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than 
     necessary to correct the violation of a legal requirement, 
     and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct that 
     violation. In addition, courts shall limit the duration of 
     preliminary injunctions to halt covered energy projects to no 
     more than 60 days, unless the court finds clear reasons to 
     extend the injunction. In such cases of extensions, such 
     extensions shall only be in 30-day increments and shall 
     require action by the court to renew the injunction.

     SEC. 547. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES.

       Sections 504 of title 5, United States Code, and 2412 of 
     title 28, United States Code, (together commonly called the 
     Equal Access to Justice Act) do not apply to a covered civil 
     action, nor shall any party in such a covered civil action 
     receive payment from the Federal Government for their 
     attorneys' fees, expenses, and other court costs.

     SEC. 548. LEGAL STANDING.

       Challengers filing appeals with the Department of the 
     Interior Board of Land Appeals shall meet the same standing 
     requirements as challengers before a United States district 
     court.

 TITLE VI--EXPEDITIOUS PROGRAM OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE NATIONAL 
                      PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Petroleum Reserve 
     Alaska Access Act''.

     SEC. 602. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REAFFIRMING NATIONAL POLICY 
                   FOR THE NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska remains 
     explicitly designated, both in name and legal status, for 
     purposes of providing oil and natural gas resources to the 
     United States; and
       (2) accordingly, the national policy is to actively advance 
     oil and gas development within the Reserve by facilitating 
     the expeditious exploration, production, and transportation 
     of oil and natural gas from and through the Reserve.

     SEC. 603. NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA: LEASE SALES.

       Section 107(a) of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production 
     Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6506a(a)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct an 
     expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in 
     the reserve in accordance with this Act. Such program shall 
     include at least one lease sale annually in those areas of 
     the reserve most likely to produce commercial quantities of 
     oil and natural gas each year in the period 2011 through 
     2021.''.

     SEC. 604. NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA: PLANNING AND 
                   PERMITTING PIPELINE AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Transportation, shall facilitate and ensure 
     permits, in an environmentally responsible manner, for all 
     surface development activities, including for the 
     construction of pipelines and roads, necessary to--
       (1) develop and bring into production any areas within the 
     National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska that are subject to oil 
     and gas leases; and
       (2) transport oil and gas from and through the National 
     Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to existing transportation or 
     processing infrastructure on the North Slope of Alaska.
       (b) Timeline.--The Secretary shall ensure that any Federal 
     permitting agency shall issue permits in accordance with the 
     following timeline:
       (1) Permits for such construction for transportation of oil 
     and natural gas produced under existing Federal oil and gas 
     leases with respect to which the Secretary has issued a 
     permit to drill shall be approved within 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Permits for such construction for transportation of oil 
     and natural gas produced under Federal oil and gas leases 
     shall be approved within 6 months after the submission to the 
     Secretary of a request for a permit to drill.
       (c) Plan.--To ensure timely future development of the 
     Reserve, within 270 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to 
     Congress a plan for approved rights-of-way for a plan for 
     pipeline, road, and any other surface infrastructure that may 
     be necessary infrastructure that will ensure that all 
     leasable tracts in the Reserve are within 25 miles of an 
     approved road and pipeline right-of-way that can serve future 
     development of the Reserve.

     SEC. 605. DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall issue 
     regulations within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act that establish clear requirements to ensure that the 
     Department of the Interior is supporting development of oil 
     and gas leases in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
       (b) Deadlines.--At a minimum, the regulations shall--
       (1) require the Department to respond within 5 business 
     days acknowledging receipt of any permit application for such 
     development; and
       (2) establish a timeline for the processing of each such 
     application, that--
       (A) specifies deadlines for decisions and actions on permit 
     applications; and
       (B) provide that the period for issuing each permit after 
     submission of such an application shall not exceed 60 days 
     without the concurrence of the applicant.
       (c) Actions Required for Failure To Comply With 
     Deadlines.--If the Department fails to comply with any 
     deadline under subsection (b) with respect to a permit 
     application, the Secretary shall notify the applicant every 5 
     days with specific information regarding the reasons for the 
     permit delay, the name of the specific Department office or 
     offices responsible for issuing the permit and for monitoring 
     the permit delay, and an estimate of the time that the permit 
     will be issued.

     SEC. 606. UPDATED RESOURCE ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     complete a comprehensive assessment of all technically 
     recoverable fossil fuel resources within the National 
     Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, including all conventional and 
     unconventional oil and natural gas.
       (b) Cooperation and Consultation.--The resource assessment 
     required by subsection (a) shall be carried out by the United 
     States Geological Survey in cooperation and consultation with 
     the State of Alaska and the American Association of Petroleum 
     Geologists.
       (c) Timing.--The resource assessment required by subsection 
     (a) shall be completed within 24 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Funding.--The United States Geological Survey may, in 
     carrying out the duties under this section, cooperatively use 
     resources and funds provided by the State of Alaska.

       TITLE VII--INTERNET-BASED ONSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``BLM Live Internet Auctions 
     Act''.

     SEC. 702. INTERNET-BASED ONSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES.

       (a) Authorization.--Section 17(b)(1) of the Mineral Leasing 
     Act (30 U.S.C. 226(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), in the third sentence, by 
     inserting ``, except as provided in subparagraph (C)'' after 
     ``by oral bidding''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) In order to diversify and expand the Nation's onshore 
     leasing program to ensure the best return to the Federal 
     taxpayer, reduce fraud, and secure the leasing process, the 
     Secretary may conduct onshore lease sales through Internet-
     based bidding methods. Each individual Internet-based lease 
     sale shall conclude within 7 days.''.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the tenth 
     Internet-based lease sale conducted under the amendment made 
     by subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     analyze the first 10 such lease sales and report to Congress 
     the findings of the analysis. The report shall include--
       (1) estimates on increases or decreases in such lease 
     sales, compared to sales conducted by oral bidding, in--
       (A) the number of bidders;
       (B) the average amount of bid;
       (C) the highest amount bid; and
       (D) the lowest bid;
       (2) an estimate on the total cost or savings to the 
     Department of the Interior as a result of such sales, 
     compared to sales conducted by oral bidding; and
       (3) an evaluation of the demonstrated or expected 
     effectiveness of different structures for lease sales which 
     may provide an opportunity to

[[Page H3895]]

     better maximize bidder participation, ensure the highest 
     return to the Federal taxpayers, minimize opportunities for 
     fraud or collusion, and ensure the security and integrity of 
     the leasing process.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112 
540. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
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.


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 1, insert ``OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION, 
     DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION'' after ``DOMESTIC''.
       Page 5, after line 19, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent quoted paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(4) Concurrence.--The plan required by paragraph (1) 
     shall not take effect without the concurrence of each of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and 
     the Secretary of Defense with respect to elements of the plan 
     within the jurisdiction, respectively, of the Department of 
     Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and the 
     Department of Defense.
       Page 31, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the following:
       (g) Definition.--For purposes of this section the term 
     ``energy projects'' means oil, natural gas and renewable 
     energy projects.
       At the end of section 605 (page 39, after line 4) add the 
     following:
       (d) Additional Infrastructure.--Within 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall approve, after consultation with the State of Alaska 
     and public comment, right-of-way corridors for the 
     construction of 2 separate additional bridges and pipeline 
     rights-of-way to help facilitate timely oil and gas 
     development of the Reserve.
       At the end of title VI (page 39, after line 22), insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. COLVILLE RIVER DESIGNATION.

       The designation by the Environmental Protection Agency of 
     the Colville River Delta as an Aquatic Resource of National 
     Importance shall have no force or effect.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Natural Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR A, was 
specifically designated as a petroleum reserve back in 1923. It's a 
place that we can develop our resources for energy and national 
security. Title VI of this bill will ensure that production can occur 
on NPR A by requiring at least one annual lease sale, streamline the 
permitting process to ensure lease sales lead to energy production, and 
ensure a right-of-away plan to allow for the transportation of the 
product out of NPR A.
  In addition to making technical corrections, this amendment aims to 
accomplish two vital goals that are imperative for facilitating 
development at NPR A. First, it would require, at the request of the 
State of Alaska, up to two additional rights-of-way planned in and out 
of NPR A. This would prepare for future development by providing 
approved rights-of-way in and out of this area.
  Secondly, it would repeal the designation of the Colville River as an 
Aquatic Resource of National Importance. This designation was blatantly 
used by the anti-energy EPA as nothing more than a tool to stop energy 
development on this area.
  While the President touts his energy record and speaks of his support 
for leasing and energy development in the NPR A, he fails to mention 
that due to red tape from his administration, Alaskans have waited for 
years and years for approval to build a simple bridge across the 
Colville River to begin production in NPR A. What you do not hear is 
that the EPA has paid no attention to the Colville River until after 
ConocoPhillips filed its application for a bridge. It was shortly after 
that application that EPA declared it was an Aquatic Resource of 
Natural Importance. And it was that action that stopped the development 
and production for nearly a decade before approval of this simple 
bridge and pipeline.
  What the Obama administration says and what the administration does 
to promote energy development in Alaska are entirely two different 
things.
  So those two things that I mention in this amendment would give 
Alaskans the assurance they need to create jobs and encourage 
development of the NPR A.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, when manager's amendments making technical 
changes to legislation are presented, such amendments are accepted and 
we move on to amendments making substantive changes to the bill. In 
this instance, however, among the technical changes made by this 
manager's amendment is a controversial provision flatly overturning an 
EPA ruling in Alaska. This change should not be made at all, but it 
certainly should not be made as part of a manager's amendment.
  As part of the review process for beginning energy production in the 
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the EPA designated the Colville 
River, the largest Arctic river in Alaska, as an Aquatic Resource of 
National Importance. To be clear, this designation did not stop the 
proposed project. ConocoPhillips has already received approval to build 
a gravel road, including a bridge over the Colville to access their oil 
field. The National Importance designation simply required a heightened 
level of review before the project moved forward. For Congress to 
overturn this EPA finding through a provision buried in what is 
supposed to be a technical manager's amendment is not appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I doubt a single Member of this House has an informed 
opinion regarding whether the Colville River is an Aquatic Resource of 
National Importance. But I will tell you who does have an informed 
position on that question, and that is the scientists in Alaska working 
for the Environmental Protection Agency.

                              {time}  1900

  This provision is an ill-informed sneak attack on an agency decision, 
and for the purposes of this debate, it has no place in a manager's 
amendment. It should be a stand-alone amendment that we're debating. 
Because of the inappropriateness of it being inside of the manager's 
amendment, I would have to oppose this provision.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I advise my friend that I 
have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to close if the 
gentleman is prepared to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the balance of my time just to say that I 
don't have a problem in debating this issue, but I just think it should 
be done in an appropriate way. It is an important issue. It overturns 
an EPA decision of some significance and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, just briefly, there are technical amendments in here 
which I acknowledge and the gentleman did acknowledge, and there are 
two substantive changes, and I acknowledge both of those.
  Now, I just want to repeat, he talked about the issue that the 
Colville River was an aquatic resource of national importance. He's 
basing that as the reason why we should not adopt this amendment.
  I want to point out again, and I made this observation in my remarks, 
the Colville River was not designated this until after--and I want to 
say this again very slowly; sometimes you don't hear things in this 
echo chamber--after Conoco wanted to develop the NPR A. When they 
developed the NPR-A, they

[[Page H3896]]

had to have access across the Colville River. But the EPA said all of a 
sudden: Wait a second, this might be a good time to make that change. 
That's pure politics, Mr. Chairman.
  And I will say this. I was up in Alaska last year, and I stood right 
at the spot where they want to build a bridge across the Colville 
River. The Colville River there is not very large, and to suggest it 
falls into that category and we should not adopt this amendment flies 
right in the face of common sense.
  So with that, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I (page 6, after line 6) insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. LIMITATION ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.

       No lease or other authorization may be issued under a plan 
     required by subsection (k) of section 161 of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by section 102 of 
     this Act, for the conduct of any activity related to 
     hydraulic fracturing within 1,000 feet of a primary or 
     secondary school.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would better protect the health of 
children by providing for a 1,000-foot buffer between schools and oil 
or gas drilling using the technique commonly known as fracking.
  Hydraulic fracturing is a national issue, and natural gas is an 
important part of our national energy policy. According to the 
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, currently oil or gas 
production occurs in 33 States. Fracking occurs on more than 90 percent 
of oil and natural gas wells in the U.S.
  Advances in unconventional oil and natural gas extraction have led to 
an increase in fracking near where people live, work, and play in my 
district, across Colorado, and across the United States. That means 
increased exposure to toxic chemicals for kids in school and the air 
that researchers have found near wells, as well as noise and the 
nuisance of heavy truck traffic.
  A recent report by the Colorado School of Public Health indicated 
that residents living less than half of a mile from wells were at a 
greater risk of acute and chronic health problems than those who live 
more than half of a mile from drilling sites; including exposure to air 
pollutants like benzene, a known carcinogen, at a level five times 
higher than the Federal hazard standard.
  Given this risk and the need for more information, we should 
obviously err on the side of caution, particularly when it comes to 
children. We need additional studies to better understand the health 
impacts; but, given what we know, frankly, it's time to act.
  Now, we've already set some basic standards when we know pollutants 
may put children at risk. As an example, in my district in Colorado, 
commercial diesel vehicles are prohibited from idling for more than 5 
minutes within 1,000 feet of a school. In New York, fracking operations 
may be placed 100 feet from a home and 150 feet from a public building.
  A review of active and prospective wells in four northern Colorado 
counties found 26 schools that have drilling wells operational emitting 
toxic gases within 1,000 feet of schools.
  In Erie, Colorado, I met with homeowners and parents who are 
increasingly concerned about the impacts of fracking on their health 
and their children's health. We should be listening to their voices and 
not just the demands of energy companies. We need to find a reasonable 
compromise to address the concerns of families in Erie and across 
America.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment, which would prohibit hydraulic fracturing on 
public lands from taking place within 1,000 feet of our schools. This 
major industrial activity has significant public health risks and has 
no business being near our kids.
  Hydraulically fractured wells emit huge quantities of smog-forming 
chemicals, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants like 
benzene, as well as methane. These pollutants cause serious health 
problems.
  This past March, the Colorado School of Public Health released a 
report based on 3 years of monitoring that found higher cancer, 
respiratory, and neurological health risks among people living closest 
to drilling sites. The analysis found volatile organic chemicals to be 
five times the level at which the emissions are considered potentially 
harmful to public health, according to EPA's hazard index.
  The Medical Society of New York has recently urged caution with 
expanded drilling because of concerns about health impacts. And data 
collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has 
shown increased ground level ozone and other pollution as a result of 
fracking.
  But the risks go beyond just air quality. In April 2010, there was a 
major blowout in Pennsylvania at a hydraulic fracturing well site. Gas 
and tainted brine spewed 75 feet in the air for 16 hours. These kinds 
of blowouts happen far too often.
  Even the best regulated activities have accidents; but fracking, as 
we all know, is far from the best regulated activities. We need to keep 
it away from our kids. It shouldn't be done near our schools, and I 
urge support for the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I would ask my colleagues to ask themselves, would they want their 
kids to be 300 feet, 500 feet, every day from a fracking site? Three 
hundred feet is the size of one football field. Fracking is 
scientifically documented as producing air pollution. We know the level 
of air pollution that is promoted, and it is measured.
  Advances in technology make reasonable accommodations possible. 
Directional drilling means we can actually locate wells miles from 
schools and still extract the oil and natural gas resources we need and 
make sure that our children remain healthy.
  I'm hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support 
this commonsense amendment that will protect public health, ensure the 
safe development of natural gas and promote domestic energy production.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, I urge my colleagues to join 
me in keeping our children safe, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would really restrict the ability to 
produce energy on Federal lands, and I think, quite frankly, it is 
purely a political amendment.
  Rather than allow existing environmental protections and reviews to 
ensure that we have safe drilling operations, this amendment seeks to 
use an arbitrary standard that, frankly, is more of a scare tactic than 
good science; and it would actually harm school districts, principally 
those in the Intermountain West, that take advantage of their large 
landholder status to lease their lands for energy development.

                              {time}  1910

  In addition, it would infringe upon the ability of Native American 
tribes

[[Page H3897]]

to manage their lands and their resources. It's bad policy, 
particularly for the consequences of tribal lands that are trying to 
develop their energy resources. This would restrict their ability to do 
that.
  Now, we've heard the other side talk about why we need to do this, 
and the implication is that we need to do this to protect drinking 
water at our children's schools that may become contaminated from 
hydraulic fracturing. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this very 
emphatically. This information of contamination is based on absolutely 
no science or factual evidence. As a matter of fact, to put an 
exclamation point on that, earlier this week, the gentleman who is 
offering this amendment, his governor, Governor Hickenlooper of 
Colorado--who, I might add, is a Democrat--was quoted as saying--and 
I'll say the whole quote here, and I'll say it as slowly as I can so 
everybody can understand what Governor Hickenlooper said:

       There have been tens of thousands of wells in Colorado, and 
     we can't find anywhere in Colorado a single example of the 
     process of fracking that has polluted groundwater.

  Now, I didn't say this. I am quoting the governor of the gentleman 
who offered the amendment, his State.
  Mr. Chairman, I just have to say, I believe this is a politically 
motivated amendment, and it, frankly, does not even deserve debate on 
that. So I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 3 will not 
be offered.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title I (page 6, after line 11) add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTIVE APPROACH TO OIL AND GAS LEASING, 
                   EXPLORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE OUTER 
                   CONTINENTAL SHELF.

       The Secretary of the Interior--
       (1) shall not conduct or authorize any leasing, 
     exploration, or development of oil and gas resources of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf under a plan required by subsection 
     (k) of section 161 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 
     as amended by section 102 of this Act, unless--
       (A) sound science shows that such activities can proceed 
     with minimal risk to the health of the marine environment and 
     coastal environment.
       (B) the Secretary has a thorough understanding of the 
     marine environment and coastal environment impacted by the 
     activity and an environmental baseline, the risks of 
     exploration or development, and the potential consequences of 
     accidents and other emergencies; and
       (C) the Secretary determines, on the basis of sound 
     science, that risks are minimal, rigorous safety measures are 
     in place and will be enforced, and there is a demonstrated 
     ability to mount an effective response to accidents in real-
     world conditions;
       (2) shall not make available for oil and gas leasing under 
     such a plan any area of the outer Continental Shelf that, by 
     itself or in a network, has distinguishing ecological 
     characteristics, is important for maintaining habitat 
     heterogeneity or the viability of a species, or contributes 
     disproportionately to the health of an ecosystem, including 
     its biodiversity, function, structure, or resilience; and
       (3) in determining whether an area is described in 
     paragraph (2), should give particular consideration to--
       (A) areas of high productivity or diversity;
       (B) areas that are important for feeding, migration, or the 
     lifecycle of species; and
       (C) areas of biogenic habitat, structure forming habitat, 
     or habitat for endangered or threatened species.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, the largest accidental marine 
oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry ravaged the gulf 
coast. We passed legislation, we convened commissions, and we swore 
that we would learn. Have we? I fear the answer is no, and I'm not the 
only one.
  In April of this year, the Presidential panel that investigated the 
explosion gave the Obama administration a B, the oil industry a C-plus, 
and Congress a D for refusing to act on any of the recommendations of 
the commission.
  The bill that stands before us today seeks to increase domestic oil 
and gas production and reduce regulation of the energy industry. I've 
said it before and I'll say it again, sometimes this place feels like 
Groundhog Day, and I am Bill Murray. So, in the spirit of deja vu, I am 
offering an amendment today that mirrors legislation I introduced in 
the 111th Congress as a response to the BP oil catastrophe.
  The amendment would reconfigure the existing presumption that 
extraction comes first and conservation comes second. The measure would 
change our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf policy and mandate 
precaution from a derivative that may imply that protection of the 
environment is secondary to expeditious development; declares that 
protection and maintenance--and where appropriate, restoration--of 
ocean ecosystems and coastal environment is of primary importance; 
makes clear that OCS leasing, exploration, and development will be 
authorized in limited areas of the ocean only when science shows that 
those initiatives can proceed with minimal risk to the health of ocean 
ecosystems; protects Important Ecological Areas, or IEAs, by requiring 
the Secretary to consider geographical, geological, and ecological 
characteristics of the OCS areas. And finally, it amends the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act to require specific precautions for areas 
with particular physical or environmental characterizations from OCS 
leasing.
  In the Commission's review, one of the chairmen stated:
  Across the board, we are disappointed with Congress' lack of action. 
Two years have passed since the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon 
killed 11 workers, and Congress has yet to enact one piece of 
legislation to make drilling safer.
  Let us do one thing to make our public safe, to keep them healthy, 
and to spur economic development through conservation and the creation 
of green jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, developing our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf is all 
about achieving a balance. The Federal agencies involved have to 
balance the needs of the coastal community and the environment while 
also providing for safe energy production. This is how you preserve the 
multiple-use aspect that we have for Federal land management, and I 
endorse that concept.
  Fortunately for the gentleman, the author of this amendment, the 
purpose of his amendment is already the law of the land. No leasing 
occurs in the Outer Continental Shelf without extensive environmental 
assessment. Now, I'll give you an example.
  The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management conducts an environmental 
impact statement, or an EIS, before leasing any area, then another EIS 
for the specific lease sale area, and then another environmental 
assessment must be conducted before a company can even begin 
development. So, with that process that you have to go through, I can 
only conclude that this amendment is offered not about protecting the 
environment, but it's really about stopping offshore energy production. 
Of course, if we do that, obviously what does that do to American 
energy jobs?
  Like I said earlier, fortunately, all these protections exist if 
indeed we're going to have energy production. So I don't think we need 
this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to reject it.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Having respectfully heard the argument, I would stand on 
the statements we have made and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, we had a discussion on this very issue in 
the Energy and Commerce Committee,

[[Page H3898]]

and we made very clear that the language dealing with the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve did not affect existing land management policies or 
management policies, or those policies in place to protect our 
resources.
  So, again, we actually adopted an amendment by Chairman Dingell, the 
gentleman from Michigan, the chairman emeritus, to make sure that we 
restated that this does not change or affect our Federal land 
management policies and those intended to protect our Federal 
resources. So we made that clear in the Energy and Commerce provisions 
in this bill as well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, then, Mr. Chairman, the 
arguments have been made. I urge rejection of this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 8, line 6, redesignate subsection (d) as subsection 
     (e).
       Page 8, after line 5, insert the following:
       (d) Consultation by Committee.--In carrying out this title, 
     the Committee shall consult with the National Energy 
     Technology Laboratory.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, Congress creates 
a Transportation Fuels Regulatory Committee with the Secretary of 
Energy chairing the committee.

                              {time}  1920

  My amendment is simple. It will require the Secretary and the 
committee, during their deliberation, to consult and receive input from 
the National Energy Technology Laboratory.
  If we're going to analyze and report on the impacts of the rules and 
actions of the EPA on our Nation's fossil fuels, then we should make 
sure that the committee established under this legislation consults 
with our Nation's fossil energy laboratory. NETL is our only 
governmental research, design, and developmental laboratory dedicated 
to domestic energy sources. It's only fitting we make that they are 
included in this process.
  NETL works with academia on over 275 projects across this country, as 
well as private entities, having provided over 450 projects in 2011, 
nearly 400 private sector projects, and over 100 not-for-profit 
laboratories. NETL's work in 2011 alone provided over 2,000 projects, 
89,000 jobs, and over $18 billion in total funding in every State in 
every congressional district.
  NETL's research and development into our transportation fuel sector 
began back in 1918 in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, with petroleum research. 
In fact, synthetic gas research began at NETL in 1946.
  To note some other successes, NETL worked in conjunction with 
academia and private industry to develop horizontal drilling in our 
Nation's natural gas fields.
  Now, some say that Secretary Chu, being the chairman of this 
committee, will consult with his own fossil energy team. Maybe that's 
true, Mr. Chairman, but this is the same Secretary of Energy who has 
worked with President Obama to slash our fossil energy research budget 
by 40 percent over each of the last 2 years. This is the same Secretary 
of Energy who should be promoting coal, oil and gas, but, instead, 
makes derogatory comments, such as ``coal is my worst nightmare.''
  What we can do here today is ensure that the Transportation Fuels 
Committee and the Secretary consult with our government's fossil energy 
experts. If you support having input from government, private sector, 
and academia experts, then support of this amendment would be 
appreciated.
  Mr. Chairman, I also wish to thank Chairman Upton for his support of 
this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment highlights, Mr. Chairman, the absurdity of 
title II of the Republican bill. The bill will create a new government 
bureaucracy to conduct an unrealistic and burdensome study of several 
clean air rules, none of which have even been proposed. This is a 
fundamentally flawed approach. The scope and timing of the new 
government committee's analysis simply are not feasible.
  The bill requires a new interagency committee to estimate a host of 
cumulative impacts of multiple unrelated potential rules. The committee 
is supposed to estimate impacts on gasoline prices, capital 
investments, projected maintenance and operation of new equipment, 
refinery capacity, employment at the national, State and regional 
levels, other cumulative costs and benefits, and even the overall 
global economic competitiveness of the United States.
  Since none of the rules that are supposed to be analyzed have even 
been proposed, this complex analysis required by the bill would be full 
of guesswork and assumptions. It's unclear how this new government 
bureaucracy could estimate the level of pollution control that may be 
required, predict compliance options, or assess the specified effects.
  Given all of the uncertainties and guess work inherent in such an 
analysis, it's unclear how the committee could produce an economic 
analysis of the rules with any measure of credibility.
  EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy testified:

       It is unclear how the new committee would analyze rules 
     that have not yet been proposed, or how the public could 
     comment on that analysis in an informed way.

  She also noted that such analysis would be redundant and a waste of 
government resources, given the extensive analysis EPA already 
completes as part of the rulemaking process and the interagency review 
conducted by OMB.
  The bill provides an unrealistic deadline, as well, for completing 
this report, doesn't create an additional job in the private sector. 
All it will do is devote taxpayers' money to create another government 
committee in order to provide it with the hopeless task of conducting a 
host of complex analyses that probably could not be completed with any 
credibility, even if the necessary data did exist and the committee had 
years to work.
  So the whole thing is a pointless waste of taxpayers' money required 
by the bill.
  Now, Mr. McKinley's amendment adds some additional consultation to 
that already absurd requirement. The Department of Energy is already 
represented on this new government committee the Republicans want to 
establish. In fact, the Secretary of Energy chairs the committee.
  Mr. McKinley's amendment adds a requirement that the committee 
consult with part of the Department of Energy. This adds another layer 
of unnecessary, superfluous consultation on an already unwieldy 
process.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and ``no'' on 
the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, line 6, strike ``and''.
       Page 9, line 10, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 9, after line 10, insert the following:
       (F) any other matters affecting the growth, stability, and 
     sustainability of the Nation's oil and gas industries, 
     particularly relative to that of other nations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman

[[Page H3899]]

from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. By the way, I'm just a little happy right now. I just 
got a text that my grandson won his baseball game tonight, 15 14. It's 
a tournament he's playing in. So be nice over there now.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to reference the Transportation 
Fuels Regulatory Committee created by H.R. 4480. My amendment will look 
at the analysis that the committee will develop.
  One of the problems our oil and gas industry faces is the vast, 
ideologically motivated regulations they must endure. However, other 
nations do not seem to impose such overburdensome policies and 
regulations upon them. Instead, countries in the Middle East and Asia 
promote their oil and gas industries and work to make it easier for 
these countries to get their gas products to market.
  This amendment would require the committee to conduct an analysis of 
other nations' regulations, policies and enforcements, or lack thereof, 
of their oil and gas industries. Saudi Arabia, China, and India do not 
overwhelm their oil and gas industries with excessive regulations. They 
help them to thrive.
  This committee needs to look at what these other nations are doing to 
grow, stabilize and sustain their oil and gas industries, and 
ultimately compare it to what we're doing here in the United States. We 
ought to help our industry, and this amendment helps to show how we can 
improve and stop hindering development of our natural resources.
  Ultimately, I offered this amendment because we are supposed to be a 
Nation leading by example over the rest of the world. With this economy 
and millions of people unemployed or underemployed we really ought to 
be saying to our regulators, just because you can doesn't mean you 
should. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I wish to thank Chairman Upton for his support 
of this amendment and the opportunity to offer it here.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. In the previous amendment, we discussed title II, the 
Gasoline Regulations Act, which creates a new government committee to 
do the impossible: conduct an analysis of EPA air quality rules that 
have not yet even been proposed, using data that does not exist.
  The interagency committee cannot possibly provide a credible 
assessment of the potential impact of these potential rules on energy 
prices. It would simply require too much guesswork. Moreover, the 
Energy Information Administration told our committee staff that it does 
not have the capability to conduct much of the analysis required by 
this title. The agency would have to devote significant new staff and 
contractor time to complete the analysis.
  The CBO estimates that the Gasoline Regulations Act would cost $3 
million to implement. That's $3 million to produce a report that will 
not be reliable, credible, or valuable to anyone. Mr. McKinley's 
amendment would make this report even less credible by significantly 
expanding its scope. His amendment would require that this new 
interagency committee examine ``any other matters affecting the growth, 
stability, and sustainability of the Nation's oil and gas industries, 
particularly relative to that of other nations.'' This language 
suggests that the new committee will have to take into account events 
and regulations in other countries as well as our own. Now, that's 
certainly going to send the price tag well above $3 million.
  For example, will the new interagency committee have to examine 
Nigerian labor law? What about oil company business practices in the 
Amazon or the concerns of indigenous communities in Canada's tar sands? 
Will the committee have to take into account the health of Hugo Chavez 
and the potential impact on Venezuelan oil prices? Political upheaval 
in the Middle East has a profound impact on the oil market. Will the 
new committee have to delve into that?
  If the interagency committee were serious about examining ``any other 
matters'' affecting the stability and sustainability, then it would 
have to look at a whole Pandora's box of issues here in the United 
States.
  For example, shouldn't the committee have to examine what Congress is 
doing to give coal a competitive advantage over natural gas by 
weakening air pollution laws and blocking action on climate change?
  The CEO of Chesapeake Energy has been in the news lately for some 
questionable business decisions that have helped put the country's 
second-largest natural gas company on the brink of bankruptcy. 
Certainly, the new interagency committee would have to examine that 
issue as part of this inquiry into matters relevant to the 
sustainability of the oil and gas industry.
  All of this is to say that Mr. McKinley's amendment is extremely 
broad and that it would make a deeply flawed report even less reliable 
and credible, if that's even possible. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, after line 9, at the end of title II, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 207. PROTECTION AGAINST ASTHMA AND OTHER HEALTH EFFECTS 
                   OF AIR POLLUTION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     not delay finalization of any of the rules described in 
     section 205(a) to establish standards for clean air and to 
     reduce air pollution, if the pollution that would be 
     controlled by the finalized rule is contributing to asthma 
     attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, heart attacks, cancer, 
     birth defects, neurological damage, premature death, or other 
     serious harms to human health.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, title II of this bill blocks the EPA from 
finalizing several important air quality rules until after a new 
government bureaucracy produces a new analysis of these and other EPA 
actions. But it's a fool's errand because a new government bureaucracy 
is required to conduct an impossible analysis of rules that haven't 
even been proposed using data that doesn't exist.
  The bill would block the EPA from issuing new tier 3 standards for 
motor vehicles and fuels to reduce harmful tailpipe emissions that 
cause smog and deadly particle pollution. Smog and soot pollution can 
trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks, and even premature death.
  The bill would block the EPA from issuing long overdue rules to 
require refineries to use modern technology to reduce their emissions 
of toxic air pollutants. The pollutants cause cancer, birth defects, 
neurological damage, and other serious health problems.
  The bill would also block the EPA from issuing rules necessary for 
States and localities to implement the 2008 ozone standard. This would 
leave the outdated 1997 ozone standard in place. Even the Bush 
administration thought this standard was too weak. In addition, the 
bill would block the EPA from updating the ozone standard to reflect 
the best available science on the health effects of breathing dirty 
air.
  During the legislative hearing on this bill, Chairman Whitfield 
stated, ``It is not the intent of this legislation to roll back any 
existing health protections.''
  That claim is laughable for a bill that radically changes the Clean 
Air Act by barring the EPA from setting

[[Page H3900]]

air quality goals based on what the science tells us is safe to 
breathe. But if Republicans want to claim that this bill is not an 
attack on the Clean Air Act and public health, there should be no 
objection to my amendment.
  My amendment simply states that, notwithstanding the bill's 
provisions and notwithstanding all that's in this bill, the EPA 
administrator cannot delay implementing any of the rules targeted by 
the bill if the air pollution that would be controlled by those rules 
causes serious harm to human health, including asthma attacks and other 
respiratory disease, heart attacks, cancer, birth defects, brain 
damage, or premature death.
  This is a simple choice between oil industry profits and Americans' 
health. The top five oil companies earned $137 billion in profits last 
year. They can afford to clean up their pollution.
  Instead, this bill would make Americans pick up the tab for the oil 
companies, and it would make Americans pay that tab with their health 
and even their lives. The air quality protections blocked by this bill 
are especially important for the most vulnerable among us--our babies, 
kids, old people.
  Oil refineries are among the largest emitters of toxic air pollution, 
and they are often located near where people live, but this bill would 
indefinitely delay the EPA's ability to require oil refineries to clean 
up pollution such as benzene, which causes cancer and contributes to 
birth defects and developmental harm in babies.
  Republicans argue these rules would only be delayed for a while, but 
many of these rules have already been delayed for far too long. The 
Republicans' claim assumes that the interagency committee can actually 
complete the impossible study required by this bill. Even if that were 
possible, there would still be no deadlines for these new rules as the 
bill eliminates existing deadlines and sets no new ones.
  Americans rely on the Environmental Protection Agency to hold 
polluters responsible for cleaning up their pollution. It's just common 
sense. If you stop the EPA from doing its job, public health will 
suffer.
  So it's time to come clean. If you want to pass a bill to stop the 
EPA from doing its job and allow polluters to pollute with impunity, be 
honest with the American people. Tell them you think that we have done 
enough to reduce air pollution and that you want to stop any further 
efforts to clean up air pollution, but don't pretend that this get-out-
of-jail-free card for oil industry polluters won't hurt the health of 
Americans, especially our children and the elderly.
  If, on the other hand, you don't want to block efforts to clean up 
air pollution that is contributing to asthma attacks, heart attacks, 
lung disease, cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and premature 
death, then support my amendment. My amendment will make it perfectly 
clear that the EPA can continue to clean up air pollution that causes 
serious health effects.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, we heard a lot of powerful words there: 
ban, bar, block. The fact is that this bill does not ban, bar, or block 
these regulations. In fact, nothing prevents and nothing bars, bans, or 
blocks the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule. And 
nothing bars, bans, or blocks the EPA from protecting the public health 
and the environment as the law requires them to do so. In fact, it's 
quite commonly known that the EPA is unlikely to even finalize these 
rules prior to the completion of the study.
  We've already got tremendous protections in current law, stringent 
regulations, some of which were just issued in the past few months. But 
I think we ought to take a look to understand what impact regulations 
are going to have on the cost of people's energy.
  Our colleague mentioned picking up the tab. I'll tell you who else is 
picking up the tab: people in poverty are picking up the tab of 
increasing energy costs, which is making it more and more difficult for 
them to make ends meet. They are picking up the tab of rising gas 
prices, costing $50, $60, $70 a tank to fill up with gas to drive to 
work. That's who is picking up the tab, our constituents who are trying 
to lift themselves up and out of poverty and are having difficulty 
trying to make ends meet because of rising energy prices, because this 
Congress refuses to enact legislation that says, Hey, let's look before 
we leap and understand the impact these regulations are going to have 
on the price of gasoline.
  Again, the purpose of the bill is to require a study. Nothing in this 
bill relieves the administrator of the EPA from the responsibility to 
issue rules required by the Clean Air Act or any other legal 
obligation. Nothing in this bill changes the EPA's obligation to 
protect the public health. Nothing in this bill prevents the EPA from 
developing and proposing new regulations, taking public comments, or 
from preparing a final rule, a process that typically requires at least 
a year. In fact, it would be highly unlikely, as I said before, that 
they could even both propose and finalize this rule before the study 
was finished.
  Our colleague also mentioned that we don't know enough information 
about proposed regulations to study them. EPA's own action development 
process--the internal ways that the EPA works, their own internal 
action development process--requires that the analysis of a regulation 
start early in the rule development. So they're already talking about 
what impact these have, including the President's own executive orders 
that require agencies to perform analysis and consider the cumulative 
effects of regulations. So this is an unnecessary amendment.
  Our colleague mentioned some of the most toxic emitters of air 
pollution. There's a lot of people around the country that believe the 
most toxic emitter of air pollution is Congress. In this case, some of 
those arguments have been used in the bill on this amendment.
  I would just urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARDNER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. There is a regulation for Tier 3 standards for 
automobiles that will reduce sulfur and other emissions that are very 
harmful. EPA's analysis says that will contribute a penny per gallon 
for gasoline. That is the kind of rule that would be stopped under the 
existing bill, and there is an enormous health impact.
  When you talk about people in poverty, they can afford a penny a 
gallon on gasoline and the oil companies can afford to absorb a penny a 
gallon, especially with all of the health and lives that can be 
enhanced by removing some of these very dangerous chemicals.
  Mr. GARDNER. Reclaiming my time, again, I'm not in a position to tell 
constituents who may find it tough to make ends meet that it's okay if 
we increase your price of gasoline by a penny here and a penny there, a 
couple of pennies, maybe even a nickel.
  Mr. WAXMAN. But you claim that it's going to increase it by many 
dollars, and I think you're incorrect.
  Mr. GARDNER. Reclaiming my time, we know that a penny increase in a 
gallon of gasoline, the Federal Trade Commission has said, can be a 
significant burden, meaning as much as $4 million to individuals and 
businesses around the country for every single penny in the increase of 
the price of gasoline.
  Again, this does not prevent the EPA from developing rules on the 
current schedule. It says, Look before you leap. That's why I object to 
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.

[[Page H3901]]

          amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       On page 14, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 207. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

       Section 302 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7602) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(aa) Public health.--The term `public health'--
       ``(A) refers to the health of members of the species homo 
     sapiens; and
       ``(B) does not refer to the health of corporations or any 
     other non-living entities.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, throughout the 112th 
Congress, the Republican leadership has invested a staggering amount of 
time and effort into gutting our Nation's clean water and air 
protections. As of this month, this House has voted 247 times in 
support of anti-environmental bills, amendments, and riders, including 
77 votes devoted to dismantling the Clean Air Act alone.
  As we debate yet another bill that seeks to gut the public health and 
welfare protections provided by that act and as we witness Democratic 
attempts to protect public health get defeated time and again on party-
line votes, one is tempted to cynically dismiss H.R. 4480 as the 
Republican leadership's latest offering to their good friends in Big 
Oil. However, this bill contains an interesting provision that gave me 
pause, frankly, since it seems to hint that disagreements over 
protecting public health, when setting national ambient air quality 
standards, may actually stem from fundamental philosophical differences 
between the two parties.
  One provision in particular begs for clarification since it's not 
every day that Republicans starkly disagree with Justice Antonin Scalia 
in regard to statutory interpretation as they do in section 206 of this 
bill. As written, that section would amend section 109(b) of the Clean 
Air Act to require the administrator of the EPA to take feasibility and 
costs into consideration when prescribing air quality standards that 
are requisite to protect public health.
  Now, I'm aware that the author of this provision believes that this 
language merely clarifies supposed ambiguity in the act, going so far 
as to assert during the May 17 markup:

       The only reason costs are not being considered in setting 
     standards there today is because the Supreme Court said the 
     language was ambiguous.

  Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully disagree with that interpretation 
since Justice Scalia's statutory interpretation of section 109(b) was 
anything but ambiguous.
  To quote Justice Scalia's unanimous opinion in Whitman v. American 
Trucking Associations, Inc., in regard to potentially considering cost 
when setting ambient air quality standards to protect public health, he 
said:

       The cost factor is both so indirectly related to public 
     health and so full of potential for canceling the conclusions 
     drawn from direct health effects, that it would have been 
     expressly mentioned in sections 108 and 109 had Congress 
     meant it to be considered.

  Even more to the point, the very first sentence of Justice Scalia's 
opinion says:

       Section 109(b) does not permit the administrator to 
     consider implementation costs in setting national ambient air 
     quality standards.

  This would seem to put aside any ambiguity.
  That brings us to my simple amendment. Since Justice Scalia's opinion 
was crystal clear that the costs cannot be considered when setting 
those standards to protect public health, I couldn't figure out why my 
Republican colleagues were so committed to forcing the administrator to 
take those very factors into account. But then it dawned on me that 
since the Clean Air Act actually never defines the term ``public 
health,'' perhaps there is some confusion concerning who or what 
comprises the public. After all, if one believes that corporations are 
people, then the term ``public health'' would obviously have a 
different meaning to that individual compared to my own or Justice 
Scalia's.
  Thus, my simple amendment would clarify the term ``public health'' in 
the Clean Air Act only as it pertains to the health of people and not 
corporations or other nonliving entities, and it's a simple fix to 
clear any confusion and restate congressional intent. By adopting this 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, Congress can reaffirm the principle that 
corporations are not people and ensure the lack of definition for the 
term ``public health'' in the Clean Air Act does not cause any 
confusion, particularly for certain individuals who may be under the 
misguided impression that corporations are, indeed, people.

                              {time}  1950

  I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Again, I believe this amendment is unnecessary, talking 
about ambiguities and the silence in the law when it comes to the Clean 
Air Act in the determination of cost. Here the issue of cost was 
silent, and we are simply saying we ought to have the issue of cost 
brought into this.
  When the term ``public health'' appeared in the first Federal Clean 
Air legislation in 1955, its ordinary meaning was ``the health of the 
community.'' In the American Trucking decision, as you pointed out, the 
Supreme Court affirmed that the definition of public health is ``the 
health of the public'' and does not refer to the health of nonliving 
entities.
  The Clean Air Act requires that ambient air quality standards be 
established to protect the public health with an adequate margin of 
safety. Nothing--nothing--in H.R. 4480 changes the definition of 
``public health.'' Again, let me say that: Nothing in H.R. 4480 changes 
the definition of ``public health'' in the Clean Air Act or any 
obligations. It doesn't change any obligations to set such human 
health-based standards.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and with that, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Gene Green of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, lines 1 through 9, strike section 206 (relating to 
     consideration of feasibility and cost in revising or 
     supplementing national ambient air quality standards for 
     ozone).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my 
amendment.
  I would like to vote for this bill, but it goes way too far.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent five large refineries and 20-plus chemical 
plants, so I'm very sensitive to what regulatory compliance can mean to 
a company's economic success. But for over 40 years, the Clean Air Act 
has required the Environmental Protection Agency to set the level of 
each ambient air quality standard based on what is necessary to protect 
public health. They do this because EPA's job is health, not economic 
impacts.

[[Page H3902]]

  Again, for over 40 years, Republicans and Democrats have agreed to 
this principle, which was passed on a bipartisan basis in the 1970s and 
signed into law by a Republican President and unanimously upheld by the 
U.S. Supreme Court in 2001.
  This amendment would strike section 206 of the bill, which would 
require the EPA to consider industry costs when determining what level 
of air pollution is ``safe.'' But economic and compliance costs are 
already considered several times throughout the regulatory process, 
which is why section 206 is not necessary.
  The EPA conducts a regulatory impact analysis for a range of emission 
standards when they propose the standard. Then they do a second 
regulatory impact analysis when they choose the final standard before 
it is sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
  The regulatory process works. Last September, the Office of 
Management and Budget did not allow EPA to move forward with a revised 
ozone NAAQS standard because they felt that the costs of compliance 
would be too high for the regulated industries at this point in our 
economic recovery. To use a Texas saying, let's not throw out the baby 
with the bathwater.
  Section 206 is a policy rider that undermines 40 years of bipartisan 
agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment that 
would strike it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my colleague from 
Texas. We've worked on a couple of pieces of legislation together over 
the year and a half that I have been on the committee. I have the honor 
of serving with him on the Energy and Commerce Committee. But I also 
must rise again to oppose the amendment from our colleague from Texas.
  Once again, under this bill, nothing in the gasoline regulations act 
stops the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule. Nothing 
in this prevents the EPA from protecting the public health and the 
environment, as the law requires them to do.
  But as we talked in the previous amendment, consideration of the cost 
and the feasibility of these major rules is elsewhere throughout the 
law. And it is warranted because, in this case, a failure to consider 
those costs could hurt jobs and the economy. We need to know.
  In fact, costs are required in other parts of the Clean Air Act. And 
EPA must consider costs in the context of setting New Source 
Performance Standards, automobile emission standards, aircraft emission 
standards, fuel additives, and reformulated gasoline standards. And 
it's also a matter that you have to consider costs when setting future 
drinking water standards in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  And if you hearken back to last year when President Obama decided 
that he was going to withdraw his last ozone rule, one of the comments 
that he made when he was withdrawing that ozone rule, which we argued 
would have greatly imperiled our economy--here's a quote from President 
Obama:

       I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing 
     regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly 
     as our economy continues to recover.

  So when the President was talking about the Clean Air Act, he 
recognized ozone; he recognized the importance of taking a look at our 
economic uncertainty and the economic uncertainty of his last ozone 
rule.
  So I appreciate our colleague's amendment, but I certainly have to 
oppose it at this time. I urge the rest of my colleagues to oppose it 
as well.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague 
from Colorado because the system does work. Even the President used 
economics. But that's the President's job, not the EPA.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The Clean Air Act was adopted in 1970, signed by President Nixon. 
Changes were made in 1990, signed by President George H.W. Bush. The 
heart of the Clean Air Act has been that EPA relies on the best science 
possible to determine what level of pollution is harmful for people to 
breathe. They decide what is safe. And based on the science, EPA sets a 
quality standard. This is the standard to protect public health. Then 
they take into consideration, at the State and local level, the costs 
of how to achieve that. They may give more time; they may do it in 
different ways.
  But section 206 of the bill would end this commonsense approach, the 
main part of the Clean Air Act, because it would make cost a factor in 
what is supposed to be a scientific decision about how much pollution 
is safe for a child to breathe. In setting a public health standard, it 
would give as much weight to a polluter's accountant as to a scientist. 
This is like going to your doctor, asking for a diagnosis, and he wants 
to tell you what your diagnosis is based on the cost of treatment. You 
want to know what's most important for your health. That's what's 
required of the EPA.
  You will hear over and over again Republicans saying, We've done well 
in reducing pollution. And we have because of a Clean Air Act that's 
based on setting a standard to protect health and then allowing costs 
to determine how to achieve that standard, but not setting the goal 
based on costs that could be wildly out of sync with the reality of 
what it would take and how much to spend to achieve that health-based 
standard.
  This is a very, very radical provision in the bill. I want to commend 
my colleague Mr. Green for seeking to strike it. It would be consistent 
with the law as we have always known it, not to go back and change it 
as this bill would do.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, again, to repeat, to reiterate, to restate 
this point: Nothing in this bill--nothing in this bill--changes the 
EPA's obligation to protect the public health with an adequate safety 
margin. Nothing changes the obligation to protect the public health.
  And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I appreciate my colleague and your work on 
the committee, but that's why we need to remove 206. That provision 
actually takes away health and safety as EPA's primary responsibility. 
That's what it was created for in 1970. We already have a system that 
will work to deal with the economic problems. We go to OMB. But even 
more so, we can go to the States. Because once EPA and OMB approves 
that rule, then they go to the States to work out the compliance. And 
in our district, where I have a huge industrial capacity, we actually 
work with our State agency and EPA to make sure we can economically do 
that within a timeframe.
  That's why this amendment should be acceptable, Mr. Chairman, and I 
would encourage Members to vote for this amendment when it comes up for 
a vote tomorrow.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Terry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. TERRY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       On page 14, after line 9, insert the following new section:


[[Page H3903]]



     SEC. 207. FUEL REQUIREMENTS WAIVER AND STUDY.

       (a) Waiver of Fuel Requirements.--Section 211(c)(4)(C) of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii)(II), by inserting ``a problem with 
     distribution or delivery equipment necessary for the 
     transportation or delivery of fuel or fuel additives,'' after 
     ``equipment failure,'';
       (2) in clause (iii)(II), by inserting before the semicolon 
     at the end the following: ``(except that the Administrator 
     may extend the effectiveness of a waiver for more than 20 
     days if the Administrator determines that the conditions 
     under clause (ii) supporting a waiver determination will 
     exist for more than 20 days)'';
       (3) by redesignating the second clause (v) (relating to the 
     authority of the Administrator to approve certain State 
     implementation plans) as clause (vi); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vii) Presumptive Approval.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this subparagraph, if the Administrator does not 
     approve or deny a request for a waiver under this 
     subparagraph within 3 days after receipt of the request, the 
     request shall be deemed to be approved as received by the 
     Administrator and the applicable fuel standards shall be 
     deemed to be waived for the period of time requested.''.
       (b) Fuel System Requirements Harmonization Study.--Section 
     1509 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109 58; 119 
     Stat. 1083) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``biofuels,'' after 
     ``oxygenated fuel,'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii);
       (II) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (III) by inserting after clause (i) the following:

       ``(i) the renewable fuel standard; and''; and

       (IV) in subparagraph (G), by inserting ``or Tier III'' 
     after ``Tier II''; and

       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``2008'' and 
     inserting ``2014''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment is a rather simple one and I hope all of my colleagues 
can support it.
  Many of us remember the devastation brought on by Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita. But even more folks outside of the gulf region remember the 
meteoric rise in gas prices and the threat of having no gas at all. 
When supplies are interrupted, it's critical to restore fuel for 
consumers as soon as possible. We continue to operate in an environment 
in which the fuel required in one market may not satisfy the 
requirement set by the EPA in another market, i.e., the fuel in Chicago 
may be different from the fuel in St. Louis, especially in the 
summertime.
  If supplies of fuel are disrupted, whether from a national emergency 
or from a simple equipment failure, the consumers can be affected in a 
very significant and adverse way. When gas stations run out of gas, our 
constituents suffer. When suppliers run short of fuel and the market 
drives up prices, the constituents suffer. Not every supply disruption 
is covered in the existing statute. But every supply disruption can 
hurt our consumers. That is what this amendment is doing: Ensuring that 
the Administrator has the authority to serve the best interests of our 
constituents--our consumers--when fuel prices are affected.
  Further, asking these consumers to wait a prolonged period of time 
before issuing a ruling that could restore supplies to their market is 
unacceptable. Time is of the essence when we are trying to avert these 
fuel shortages and price spikes. It's important that the decisions 
regarding the economic welfare of our constituents are made in a timely 
manner.
  The underlying bill that we have here before us is about doing what 
we can to keep the prices as low as we can. This amendment would 
broaden the times where EPA can grant a waiver to an area to use 
whatever fuel they have on hand when there is a disruption. Right now, 
the authority only exists for natural disasters and other larger 
emergencies. Not all disruptions are covered. This amendment expands 
upon the waiver to include any disruption. Because we have refineries 
closing in the Northeast and we have a limited ability to move product 
due to Jones Act requirements, we need to ensure that any region is 
never in a position of doing without fuel.
  The second part of my amendment calls for the EPA and DOE to conduct 
the Fuel Harmonization Study that EPACT 05 directed them to complete by 
June, 2008. And here we are in 2012 and we don't have the study. It 
simply tells them to get on it. We want the Harmonization Study 
completed.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Crawford). The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment would change the law--the Clean Air Act--
that authorizes EPA to waive pollution control requirements for motor 
vehicle fuels where there's an extremely unusual fuel supply 
circumstance. Well, we want that ability to waive that law. And EPA is 
already allowed to do that.
  But the Terry amendment provides that if EPA doesn't act in 3 days, 
it's automatically granted. And that's not enough time for EPA to act. 
Often, a request for a waiver is incomplete. We don't know exactly why 
they're asking for the waiver. They haven't come up with all the 
information. It may not specify the area that could be covered. It may 
not be clear on exactly which fuel parameters are waived.
  So under this amendment the EPA would have to choose between two bad 
options. They could reject the waiver and then perhaps approve a 
revised version a few days later when EPA gets the necessary 
information. Well, that doesn't make any sense. Fuel suppliers are 
going to be confused. They may be concerned that EPA won't address a 
situation where they need some rule. Or, EPA can allow an ambiguous and 
confusing waiver request to become effective. Again, this would just 
leave fuel suppliers confused and uncertain about what they have to do. 
Since the waiver would become effective automatically, how would fuel 
suppliers even find out it had gone into effect? It's also unclear what 
constitutes a waiver of request.
  I think there's a lot of confusion in this proposal. I don't know why 
existing law should be changed. If there's been a problem, we haven't 
heard any testimony on this. We haven't had any hearings on this in our 
committee.
  Requiring laws and regulations to be waived hastily, based on 
incomplete information, and for potentially long periods of time, is 
simply bad policy. Regulations are adopted through a public process 
which allows all parties to participate and all relevant information to 
be considered. But without limits, waivers could effectively rewrite 
regulations without public input. That's why the Clean Air Act waiver 
provisions, which were adopted in 2005, are narrowly crafted.
  So I have a lot of misgivings about this policy. I don't know why we 
need it. We haven't had any testimony on it. It can lead to some very 
bad results.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, but it's really not 
as draconian a measure as it may appear from his comments. When a 
waiver is requested, it's usually by a government entity for a region, 
usually with Governors, and there still has to be a disruption. If 
there's a disruption to the point where a government entity has to 
request a waiver from the oxygen requirements for the summer fuel for 
that particular region, that disruption is going to be well known and 
well documented. It won't take them more than 3 days to do it, unless 
they're intentionally dragging their feet.
  Three days is sufficient. And if they refuse to act on that within 
that certain period of time, I think it's completely appropriate that 
they're able to keep the blend with the supply that they would have.
  So this is really a simple request, a simple amendment to make sure 
that price spikes don't occur, that time is of the necessity.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, a waiver request does not have to come from 
a public entity. It can come from elsewhere as well.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey).

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. This is just another example

[[Page H3904]]

that Congress knows best. It is a Republican solution to everything. 
Let's not let the agency professionals do their jobs on a case-by-case 
basis. Let's have a one-size-fits-all, 3-day shot clock that we put on 
a request that could have significant impacts environmentally in areas.
  And by the way, if the agency is not ready, they might just reject it 
on day two because there's not enough information, rather than having 
an orderly process that makes it possible for the agency to be able to 
determine in a conversation with perhaps a government entity, but 
perhaps not, all of the details of what the implications are, what the 
ramifications of this request would be.
  But it's not different than the shot clock that you want to put on 
the Department of the Interior in 60 days having to approval drilling 
in sensitive offshore or onshore lands in our country. All of these 
things are basically part of a Republican agenda to ensure that the 
hands of the government are actually tied in protecting the health and 
environment of our country.
  What the gentleman from Nebraska is doing, which is part and parcel 
of a systematic approach to undermine the ability of those agencies 
that are tasked with the job of protecting the health, of protecting 
the environment, of protecting the safety of individual citizens, is to 
have handcuffs put on them so they cannot discharge their 
responsibility.
  I urge in the strongest possible terms a ``no'' vote on the Terry 
amendment.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. TERRY. I would just state that I think the rhetoric far exceeds 
the facts here. This is a simple amendment just to say when there's a 
disruption, instead of waiting around, when we know there's a problem, 
let's take care of the problem, allow the available fuel to be used so 
there aren't price spikes that hurt people.
  And so I ask that my colleagues support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, after line 9, at the end of title II, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 207. IMPACT ON GASOLINE PRICES AND JOBS IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) Determination of Impact.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Energy Information Administration shall make a determination 
     as to whether implementation of this title is projected to 
     lower gasoline prices or create jobs in the United States 
     within 10 years.
       (b) Sunset if Implementation Not Projected To Lower 
     Gasoline Prices or Create Jobs.--Sections 205 and 206 shall 
     cease to be effective if the Administrator of the Energy 
     Information Administration, pursuant to subsection (a), 
     determines that implementation of this title is not projected 
     to lower gasoline prices and create jobs in the United States 
     within 10 years.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, while gas prices have subsided over the past 
few months, Americans are still very concerned about the issue of jobs 
and high unemployment. In my district and in the African American 
community in general, joblessness is far higher than the national 
average with some communities experiencing unemployment rates of up to 
60 percent. Yet even with these staggering figures, we are here today 
debating a bill that will do absolutely nothing to address this 
critical issue that the American people are facing. Nada, zip, zero 
will it do.
  Mr. Chairman, the House will only be in session a little over 20 more 
days before we recess in August; and after that, this House will barely 
be in session until after the November elections. During this limited 
time, we should be focusing our attention on legislation that will 
create jobs and move America forward towards a smarter energy future 
that is less vulnerable to the whims of the world's oil market.
  However, there is nothing in this bill, H.R. 4480, that will do 
anything to address the issues most important to the American people. 
Neither jobs nor gas prices are dealt with in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment, the amendment that I'm offering today, 
gets right to the heart of the matter and simply states that:

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the administrator of the Energy Information 
     Administration shall make a determination as to whether 
     implementation of this Act is projected to lower gasoline 
     prices or create jobs within the United States within 10 
     years.

  That's what my amendment says--clearly, simply, concisely.
  However, if the administrator of the EIA determines that 
implementation of this act is not projected to lower prices or create 
jobs in 10 years, then the most egregious provisions of this bill, 
sections 205 and 206, which attack existing Clean Air Act protections, 
will sunset and cease to be in effect.
  Mr. Chairman, provisions in this bill, such as title II, the Gasoline 
Regulations Act, use the backdrop of high unemployment and fluctuating 
gas prices as a ruse to once again attack the EPA and the Clean Air 
Act, without doing a single thing to actually reduce the cost that 
Americans are paying at the pump or to deliver more jobs to the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress should not remove long-standing Clean Air Act 
requirements for EPA to set ambient air quality standards at the level 
necessary to protect human health.
  Nor should the majority attempt to block and delay several EPA air 
quality and public health provisions under the guise of falsely 
claiming that these attacks on EPA will actually create jobs or reduce 
gas prices. Time and time again over the past year and a half, this 
Congress, under the majority party's leadership, has voted to roll back 
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Rush 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell a little bit of a story. I 
grew up and live in a very small town in the eastern plains of 
Colorado. There are about 3,000 people who live in this small town. And 
when I was growing up, there was a mother and her daughter who lived 
across the street from where I was growing up in a little home. They 
had an older car. And in this small town, the grocery stores, gosh, 
can't be more than four blocks away. But when they went to the grocery 
store, they walked.
  As the years went by and the mother got older, they still walked to 
the grocery store. In the winter, a lot of times they walked. And in 
the summer, they walked. I remember asking them one time, they have a 
car, how come they're not driving? It's just four blocks away. And as 
she got older and it was more difficult to walk, her response was 
because we can't afford the gas. That's four blocks of driving. It 
can't use much gasoline. But the fact is, the price of gas mattered to 
that family. It made the difference of getting groceries, putting food 
on the table.
  We talk about people's ability to afford health care. If you're left 
with the option of getting to work or buying health care insurance, 
what are you going to do? What choice are you going to make?
  By making sure that we have abundant, affordable energy, we are 
making sure that families can make ends meet easier, that they can make 
those choices to go see the doctor when they need to, because high 
prices of energy certainly impact the ability of families to lift 
themselves out of poverty to make sure that they're improving their own 
lives.

                              {time}  2020

  Your amendment would stop the look that we're asking to take at what 
regulations do when it comes to the price of

[[Page H3905]]

gasoline, when it comes to the price of energy. Nothing in this bill 
prevents the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule, but 
it does say we need to understand the impact that they are going to 
have on the price of gasoline, because I bet those neighbors of mine 
are very interested in what government is doing to increase the cost of 
them getting to the grocery store or not, and maybe they could drive 
when it's cold outside.
  Mr. RUSH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. I am so glad you used the story and told the story of your 
neighbor, because your neighbor is not unlike my neighbors. They're 
suffering from unemployment; they're suffering from high gas prices. 
But what confuses me and what's gotten me astounded is the fact that in 
this bill, your neighbor, her problems, my neighbor's problems, the 
problems of all the Members of this body, all of our neighbors' 
problems, our problems aren't addressed.
  All I'm asking for is that if the EIA--a fairly knowledgeable agency, 
an agency that is respected--if they determine after looking at the 
provisions of this bill and say that this bill will not create one job, 
this bill doesn't address rising gasoline prices----
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time so that I can 
have the ability to close on my amendment, and I appreciate my 
colleague's debate on this.
  But again, this issue is not about stopping or blocking the EPA from 
doing it, because they're fully able to develop rules on their current 
schedule. Nothing prevents them from protecting the public health and 
the environment as the law requires them to do--nothing. So your 
amendment, though, when you talk about rules affecting gas prices 
should be delayed until the report is completed because those rules 
could increase gas prices; that's all we're trying to do. Allowing a 
single member of this committee, which your amendment would do, to 
circumvent the analysis would defeat the purpose of the act.
  Gas prices impact, as we know, all parts of our economy, and we need 
to have multiple experts. But the EIA, of which your amendment deals 
with, doesn't have the expertise in national competitiveness. They 
don't have the expertise in job impacts or agriculture or health 
benefits analysis.
  Again, I think we have just got to be at the point where we let the 
American people know what's happening to the price of gasoline because 
of these regulations.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 17, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(6) The Strategy under this subsection should seek to 
     ensure that that the percentage of onshore Federal oil and 
     gas leases under which production is not occurring is reduced 
     during the next 4-year period.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us tonight would elevate 
energy production above all other uses of public lands in, really, 
contradiction of the principles of multiple use under the Federal Land 
Management and Policy Act. This would be to the detriment of grazing, 
hunting, fishing, and other recreation activities. Yet the plan 
envisioned by the majority's bill does not even require that the 
Interior Department consider the tens of millions of acres of public 
lands that oil companies are just sitting on and not using.
  Right now, oil companies have roughly 25 million acres of public land 
onshore on which they are not producing oil. Even worse, oil companies 
are not even beginning drilling activities on the vast majority of 
these nonproducing areas. In fact, last month the Interior Department 
released a new report which found that oil companies have nearly 21 
million acres onshore under lease on which they have not even begun 
conducting exploration activities.
  Well over half of the public lands that oil companies have under 
lease onshore are idle. They are warehousing these leases. They are 
sitting on these leases. My amendment would require that the Secretary 
reduce the number of nonproducing leases as part of the plan for energy 
development on public lands that would be established under the 
underlying bill.
  Before we risk disrupting additional public lands, let's begin by 
getting the oil and gas industry to use the leases they have. It's 
simple: No seconds while your plate is still full. It's the height of 
cynicism that the industry would be squatting on these leases at the 
same time it is asking us to give them more land that belongs to the 
Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we've heard this argument and this debate and this 
issue before. This is nothing but a recycled version of the old use-it-
or-lose-it argument that we've heard so many times, but this time it's 
disguised as an effort to reduce nonproducing leases.
  This amendment is based on a completely unsubstantiated premise, 
which is that oil companies are sitting on oil and gas leases, 
therefore rendering them inactive--at least that's how the claim goes--
if they are not diligently drilling for and producing oil.
  This is important, Mr. Chairman. Use it or lose it is already the law 
of the land. Why? Because every lease on Federal land currently 
includes development language requiring moving forward by the energy 
companies, and if a company does not produce within those lease terms, 
then the lease reverts back to the government.
  Now, keep in mind, picture this: A company is paying money for a 
lease and there are certain conditions in this lease for them to 
produce in a time period. If they don't produce in that time period, it 
reverts back to the government. Is that not use it or lose it? That's 
the law of the land as it is a part of the lease sales.
  So, just because a lease sale is not actively producing, that doesn't 
mean that there's not work on that lease sale. Leases can be held for 
up to 7 or 10 years because studies or permitting or even lawsuits slow 
that process down.
  In addition, it isn't possible to drill every lease at the same time. 
Think of leases like homebuilding. A homebuilder doesn't start building 
every home at the same time. You have roofers, you have framers, you 
have plumbers, you have drywalls, you have electricians all working at 
different times on different parts of the house. Oil and natural gas is 
the same way. You have geologists, drillers, production, permitting, 
and environmental studies. All those things happen in different steps.
  So the argument that use it or lose it--which is already in place--is 
something that we should even be debating here is nonsensical. It 
ignores the realities of oil and gas, the years of exploring, the 
drilling and permitting that it takes to bring something to the floor.
  Not only has a use-it-or-lose-it argument failed many times when it's 
been brought to the floor of this House, but in the House Natural 
Resources Committee on legislation dealing with this, it lost on a 
bipartisan vote. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I suspect if there's a vote 
called on this, it, too, will lose on a bipartisan vote. So to 
encourage that, I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

[[Page H3906]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining on this 
amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. I would be pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the coauthor 
of this amendment, the ranking member, Mr. Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  I have a suggestion to succinctly tell the whole story about the tens 
of millions of acres that oil companies are allowing to sit idle. Fox 
should create a new TV show for the oil companies holding all these 
idle wells, and it could be called ``American Idle,'' with Exxon and 
Chevron and BP and all those companies as the contestants. Every week, 
the oil companies can come and sing their sad tune about needing more 
taxpayer-owned land to drill even as their lease blocks are left lonely 
for years at a time and they don't drill at all.

                              {time}  2030

  ExxonMobil and BP could sing songs like ``Not Taking Care of 
Business'' or ``Sitting on a Block in the Bay,'' where the refrain sung 
by the oil company executives would, of course, be ``wastin' time.''
  And Simon Cowell could come back to the show he created so we can all 
watch as he mocks these companies for their subpar drilling 
performance. And of course, in typical fashion for the oil industry, 
they'll still demand to be advanced to the next round of leasing, even 
though they're doing nothing.
  And by the way, in this bill, the Republicans actually have a 
provision that if the President, because Iran attacked us, deployed 10 
percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that we, the American 
people, would then have to lease 200 million acres, an area the size of 
Texas to the oil companies to drill because the President deployed the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even though the oil companies already have 
an area the size of Kentucky in public lands that they are not drilling 
on.
  So this whole American Idle thing really plays perfectly into the 
Republican plan because right now the oil companies pay $1.50 per year 
per acre not to drill while at the same time bleating that they are 
being discriminated against, even as the President now has us at the 
highest rate of oil production in the United States in 18 years, which 
is a very hard thing for the Republicans to finally come here to the 
floor and admit.
  Vote for the Holt amendment. That is the solution to this problem. 
Then we'll get America and the oil companies back to work and away from 
their idle ways, which is hurting the national security of this 
country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Could I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 2 minutes. The 
gentleman from New Jersey has 30 seconds.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, let me just repeat. Right now, the oil 
companies have 25 million acres of public land onshore on which they 
are not producing. They have 21 million acres of public land onshore 
under lease on which they are not even conducting exploration 
activities.
  I rest my case.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, to repeat, the nature of the lease sales 
that companies enter into is ``use it or lose it'' because if they 
don't, within the time period of that lease, utilize that for 
production, they give it back. That's ``use it or lose it.'' That's the 
law right now.
  But let me respond here in the short time I have about comments that 
have been made earlier about increased American production. That's 
true, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad for that. But the implication of that 
statement being made by my friends on the other side of the aisle is 
that it's because of the policies of this administration.
  Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. It takes a 
while to get land or offshore up to speed and in production, sometimes 
many years. But the reason production is increasing in some areas and 
has been increasing--it's now going down on Federal lands--is because 
of actions of prior administrations. That is never said. It's because 
of prior administrations' actions, because the last 2 years of this 
administration, oil and natural gas, the production on Federal lands, 
has gone down.
  And finally, the main reason why oil production has increased in this 
country is because it's happening principally in North Dakota and in 
west Texas, and it's on private land and/or State land. The Federal 
Government and this administration had absolutely nothing to do with 
the increase of that production. As a matter of fact, I think there 
were probably some efforts to try to slow that down.
  But, at any rate, I had to make that point, Mr. Chairman. This 
amendment, again, has been around a few times. I suspect that if a vote 
is called on it that it will fail on a bipartisan basis again. I urge 
rejection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and Mr. 
Lewis, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 27, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the following period, and after line 17 insert the following:
       ``(C) Right to petition preserved.--This paragraph shall 
     not be construed to abridge the right of the people to 
     petition for the redress of grievances, in violation of the 
     first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this 
amendment on behalf of my colleague, Congressman John Lewis.
  Before I begin, I'd like to invite my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to refer to their pocket Constitutions, specifically page 21. 
There they'll find the First Amendment, which reads, and I quote:

       Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of 
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or 
     abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the 
     right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the 
     government for a redress of grievances.

  I may be mistaken, Mr. Chairman, but when we read the Constitution, 
read it aloud here on the floor at the start of this Congress, a 
bipartisan exercise in which I was privileged to participate, I don't 
recall there being an asterisk at the end of the First Amendment 
saying, except, of course, if your petition stands in the way of Big 
Oil. Yet, the language in this bill creates a brand new, $5,000 protest 
fee for any American citizen to challenge the granting of a drilling 
lease, right of way or permit.
  I don't know about my colleagues, but that seems like we're abridging 
the freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for 
redress of a grievance. Once again, the Republicans in the House are 
happy to rush by the rights of the public to benefit their big friends 
in Big Oil. This is a capricious tax, at best, on the peaceable right 
to protest an act of the government that someone believes might harm 
the environment.
  Not surprisingly, the bill does not apply a similar protest fee on 
someone who might want to protest the denial of a drilling lease or 
permit. One wonders why? Could it be that would be a tax on industry?

[[Page H3907]]

  Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Land Management objected to this fee in 
its testimony to the committee on this legislation, citing it as an 
inappropriate economic barrier to the public to seek judicial review or 
redress of an agency decision.
  I agree with that statement, but I don't think it goes far enough. It 
doesn't fully capture the full ramifications of it. It would trample on 
the First Amendment rights of the public. So much for the other side's 
commitment to being strict constructionists when it comes to the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
reject this assault on the Constitution and the First Amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify something. Absolutely nothing in 
this legislation, or this entire legislation, takes away the right of 
people to protest or petition for the redress of grievances. That is 
something that is held sacred, I think by all Americans, certainly all 
Members of this House.
  During the oil and natural gas leasing exploration and development 
process, there are over a dozen opportunities for citizens to protest, 
to appeal, to comment, or to even completely halt energy development on 
public land.
  Since the 1990s, however, the use of protests on Federal lands has 
increased by 700 percent through a considered effort by special 
interest groups to halt oil and natural gas development on our Federal 
lands. This explosion of protests has crippled the Bureau of Land 
Management, or BLM, offices while they are working to handle the wave 
of new protests.
  A formal protest of leasing is a legitimate step in oil and natural 
gas leasing process. However, and this is something that I think most 
people recognize, the abuse of protest to halt that development is 
something I think needs to be addressed.

                              {time}  2040

  So the $5,000 protest documentation fee in this legislation goes 
directly then towards helping the BLM process the onslaught of protests 
that are currently being paid by taxpayer dollars. It does not take 
away anyone's right to protest, nor does it interfere with the other 
nearly 15 ways someone can participate in government's decision 
regarding Federal energy leasing or development.
  This provision, as a matter of fact, will ensure that taxpayers' 
dollars that are going through the normal process are spent protecting 
the environment and in the planning and the leasing, not tied up in 
processing paperwork related to endless protests filed by special 
interests with an agenda, which one has to conclude, of stopping oil 
and natural gas leasing.
  I do want to mention, too, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment was also 
offered in legislation in the Natural Resources Committee, and it, too, 
was defeated on a bipartisan basis. I suspect that if this is brought 
to the floor it will probably be beaten on a bipartisan basis again, so 
I urge the rejection of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to how 
much time remains on this side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I would yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision reminds me of something that French 
author Anatole France once said. He said that the law, in its majestic 
equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, 
to beg in the streets and to steal bread.
  So, yes, under the bill's petroleum protest poll tax, the rich as 
well as the poor are charged $5,000 as a fee to protest an oil company 
drilling plant that could undermine the environment or the safety or 
the view of a particular individual; but the law is clearly targeted 
against the poor.
  So if you are one of the super-rich like, say, Mitt Romney, having to 
pay a $5,000 fee to protest is nothing. It's less than half of what you 
offer up when you make a friendly little bet with a friend. If you're 
the Koch brothers and you want to stop the Cape Wind project from 
blocking your view out on the ocean, that's a small price to pay to be 
able to undermine a project that you're not happy with. For everyone 
else, this is basic economic discrimination. This $5,000 fee isn't just 
a tollbooth on the highway of justice. It is a brick wall.
  Just by contrast, the United States Supreme Court--the highest court 
in the land--charges $300 to appeal a case. For an American citizen who 
is earning minimum wage, it would take 4 months of working full time 
and forgoing food and shelter in order to pay this protest fee which 
the Republicans want to put on the books. So, ordinary people, they're 
going to have to pay up now if they want to protest, and the 
environmental justice that has been denied poor people in our country 
over the last several generations just continues under this. This is 
what it's all about--environmental justice.
  What you're doing is you're imposing a poll tax--an environmental 
poll tax, a polluter's poll tax, a petroleum poll tax--on ordinary 
families. It is just wrong, unnecessary, but oh so obvious in what the 
agenda is. It's not to block the Koch brothers from trying to block 
Cape Wind but, rather, just ordinary citizens from having their days in 
court so they can make their protests in a way that doesn't bankrupt 
the families.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out this poster behind me. I know one 
can't read all of the details here, but this is the process by which 
somebody goes through a lease process to try to develop some activity 
on Federal lands. This is the process that one goes through, which, of 
course, is pretty long.
  Now, I mentioned in my opening remarks that there are 15 different 
ways there can be a protest made or a voice heard, or whatever, in that 
whole lease process. At the back of me on this chart, it is denoted by 
the red dots. You can see all the way along, starting way over to my 
right, where right at the start there are places you can have input and 
that continues throughout, all the way to virtually the end.
  When you have a process like this--and I will say it--in many cases, 
some of these red dots are used for frivolous purposes. Well, if 
they're used for frivolous purposes, there has to be a way, it would 
seem, to mitigate that in some way so that the government can do its 
job and do its work under the law as to those who are trying to lease 
public lands. That's simply what the fee does because the fee goes to 
the agency that processes this.
  That means you can ensure, from my point of view at least, that 
you'll have a process that's fair and open. Nothing is taken away. 
There are no red dots taken away whatsoever. We're just simply saying 
there has to be a means by which we finance this process. I think this 
is a way to do it, so I would urge the rejection of this amendment. As 
I mentioned, it has been rejected several times before. It was rejected 
in committee, and I hope it will be rejected on the House floor.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Amodei

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H3908]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                   TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. __. LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS UNDER THE MINING 
                   LAW PROGRAM OR THE SOLID MINERALS LEASING 
                   PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of the Interior may not transfer to the 
     Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement any 
     responsibility or authority to perform any function performed 
     immediately before the enactment of this Act under the Solid 
     Minerals Program of the Department of the Interior, 
     including--
       (1) any such function under--
       (A) the laws popularly known as the Mining Law of 1872 (30 
     U.S.C. 22 note);
       (B) the Act of July 31, 1947 (chapter 406; 30 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.), popularly known as the Materials Act of 1947;
       (C) the Minerals Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.); or
       (D) the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (30 U.S.C. 
     351 et seq.); and
       (2) any such function relating to management of mineral 
     development on Federal lands and acquired lands under section 
     302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1732); and
       (3) any function performed under the Mining Law Program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, in 
addition to developing our abundant oil and natural gas reserves, is 
also important for the purposes of recognizing another part of the 
energy sector, which are our mineral resources. An often-forgotten 
component of America's economic engine and comparative advantage over 
other nations is our mineral and, yes, coal production. Minerals and 
mine materials are the raw ingredients needed by every sector of our 
economy.
  This amendment is simple. It would prohibit the Secretary of the 
Interior from moving any aspect of the Solid Minerals program 
administered by the Bureau of Land Management and merging it with the 
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the OSM. This 
amendment is necessary because, currently, the administration continues 
to proceed with plans to combine these two entities despite the fact 
that it has met with heavy bipartisan resistance and also resistance 
from stakeholders, including, yes, even environmental groups.
  Last year, Secretary Salazar announced his intent to combine the OSM 
and a portion of BLM's Solid Minerals program through a secretarial 
order. It appears to be in vogue these days--executive orders, 
secretarial orders. The problem missing here is: resort to Congress. 
Previous administrations have looked at this and have concluded in the 
record that congressional action is needed to do this. So here we are, 
trying to forestall yet another secretarial or executive order that 
flies in the face of congressional authority.
  In March of this year, the Department of the Interior indicated a 
desire to continue to evaluate this. This will result in unnecessary 
costs to taxpayers as it is duplicative and flies in the face of 
previous administrations.
  More importantly, OSM should not have the responsibility for leasing 
Federal coal. Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 
which was passed by this House, States are responsible for the 
permitting and the regulation of coal mining and abandoned-mine land 
cleanup. Additionally, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
expressly prohibits the commingling of employees of any Federal agency 
that promotes the development or use of coal--responsibilities of the 
Solid Minerals division of the BLM. It is a clear conflict of interest.
  Finally, the OSM does not have offices in all Federal Western States, 
and hard-rock mining does not fall under their jurisdiction, nor does 
it have any experience in the broad range of mineral commodities 
regulated by the BLM.
  I ask for the Chamber's support of this amendment that would stop the 
Department of the Interior from merging the operations of the BLM and 
OSM.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. AMODEI. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think you have a very good amendment, and I support that amendment. 
I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we know that the Republican majority thinks 
current law governing hard rock mining in this country is about as 
close to perfect as they can get, and we know that international mining 
giants like Barrick Gold and Rio Tinto agree with our Republican 
colleagues. The status quo is really ideal from their perspective. That 
is because the status quo allows these multinational companies to mine 
billions of dollars worth of gold, silver, and other minerals on 
Federal lands without paying a dime in royalties. What's not to like if 
you're a multinational offshore company coming into our country?
  The law allowing this disgraceful windfall was signed by Ulysses S. 
Grant in 1872, and there it sits immune from change, immune from 
improvement or update for 140 years. What we did not realize was just 
how far this majority will go to make sure even the smallest corner of 
the current setup is never, ever changed.
  The administration has announced plans to consider whether merging 
some of the functions of the Office of Surface Mining and the Bureau of 
Land Management might lead to efficiencies and save the American 
taxpayers some money. The jury is still out on that idea, but we must 
ensure that we can continue to exercise proper oversight of mining 
activities on public lands and ensure that American taxpayers and 
States can continue to receive a proper return on these minerals.
  A February report to Secretary Salazar recommended that the two 
agencies stay largely independent of each other. The merger plans have 
yet to be developed or announced and would likely be limited to money-
saving ideas like combining human resource divisions, employee training 
programs, and fleet management operations. This streamlining could 
reportedly save as much as $5 million annually of taxpayers' money, 
something that the GSA, perhaps, could take as a lesson as to how they 
should operate.
  At the very least, the administration deserves the time to fully 
develop and present a plan that can be debated on its merits. But this 
amendment says ``no.'' This amendment would specifically prohibit the 
administration from even considering whether aspects of this idea have 
merit and would save the taxpayers money, which is the goal of the plan 
that the Department of the Interior is considering.
  Not only do our Republican colleagues reject any and all efforts to 
bring the Federal mining law into the 21st century--I would even take 
the 20th century, for that matter--but they bristle at the very idea of 
thinking about ways to better organize the agencies overseeing mining 
on Federal lands.
  We should let the administration do its job. We should also get 
serious about ending royalty-free mining on public lands. This 
amendment really misses the point entirely. We need to be more 
efficient. We have to save the taxpayers money, and we also have to 
make sure that these multinationals pay more to mine the minerals of 
the American people.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. AMODEI. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the Buckeye 
State.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the 
Amodei amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of the Interior 
does not combine the two agencies with competing missions into the same 
agency.
  Late last year, the Secretary of the Interior tried to merge the 
Office of

[[Page H3909]]

Surface Mining into the Bureau of Land Management. After spending 
months of time and valuable taxpayer dollars to look at the issue and 
holding multiple public meetings, the Secretary of the Interior 
realized two things: First, he realized that he didn't have the power 
to merge the two agencies; and secondly, he realized it was simply a 
bad idea. Now there are reports that the Secretary is looking at taking 
portions of Bureau of Land Management and moving them under the purview 
of the Office of Surface Mining.
  The two facts that I just mentioned still hold true today. The 
Secretary doesn't have the power without it first being authorized by 
Congress, and the two agencies have competing missions. It simply 
doesn't make sense to combine the two agencies.
  During a markup at Natural Resources earlier this year, I offered an 
amendment similar to this that stopped the Secretary of the Interior 
from combining the two agencies, and it passed on a voice vote. I would 
hope that this amendment passes in a similar fashion.
  I am all for streamlining overlapping government functions and 
cutting wasteful government spending. However, in this case there are 
no overlapping functions or wasteful spending. For that reason, I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Nevada has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the goal of the 
amendment is to keep from picking up the newspaper in the morning and 
reading about a secretarial or executive order that has combined two 
agencies that the record is replete with evidence that the executive 
branch and the Secretary does not have the authority to.
  So when we talk about oversight and the proper thing to do in these 
instances and when we talk about debate it on its merits, as my 
colleague from the Bay State has indicated, I would love to do that. 
That requires that Congress act, not the Secretary of the Interior and 
not the President of the United States.
  Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                    TITLE--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. __1. REQUIREMENT TO OFFER FOR SALE ONLY IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall require that all oil 
     and gas produced under a lease issued under this Act, the 
     amendments made by this Act, or any plan, strategy, or 
     program under this Act shall be offered for sale only in the 
     United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite simple. It prohibits the export 
of oil and natural gas produced from leases on the public lands of the 
United States that are going to be authorized under this bill.
  America's number one export last year was American fuel--number one. 
No other product did we export more of last year than the fuel that is 
produced here in the United States. More than $100 billion in American-
made fuels was sent overseas to China, to Morocco, to Singapore, and 
other countries.
  This infuriates Americans pulling up to the pump and paying more than 
$3.50 a gallon to fill up. Not only do oil companies want to continue 
exporting American fuel, but they're now talking about lifting 
restrictions on exporting America's crude oil as domestic production 
continues to increase.
  Just this week, the President of the American Petroleum Institute 
announced that exporting America's crude oil should be a serious 
consideration. Let me say that again: Big Oil is now stating publicly, 
in no uncertain terms, that they want to be able to export crude oil 
produced in the United States.
  Earlier, the majority whip said that this bill will make us energy 
independent. Well, without the Markey amendment, there is no way that 
an oil company just won't export the fuel and the natural gas, and now 
the head of the American Petroleum Institute says Big Oil also wants to 
start exporting America's crude oil, as well.
  As American men and women are on the ground in the Middle East 
fighting and dying to protect oil supply lines coming from the Middle 
East into the United States, Big Oil wants to export oil produced here 
in America to China, to other countries around the world. That is truly 
frightening, and it's wrong, ladies and gentlemen. It is wrong in terms 
of our relationship with the young men and women who fight for us, who 
defend us around the world.

                              {time}  2100

  Big Oil is beholden to shareholder interests only. They do not care 
about American national security, and they certainly don't like 
Americans to enjoy low energy prices, which is what's happening right 
now with natural gas. They want a bigger cut. They want to create a 
global national gas market and a global price, just like they have for 
oil. That's the plan.
  And the companies are lining up at the Department of Energy right now 
to get permits to export American natural gas. There are 15 
applications seeking to export 28 percent of our current natural gas, 
American natural gas, natural gas here in the United States all around 
the world.
  And why do they want to do that? Well, they want to do that--even 
though the Energy Department says it could lead to a 54 percent 
increase in the price of natural gas for Americans--they want to do it 
for a very simple reason. The price of natural gas in Japan right now 
is seven times higher than the price of natural gas here in America. 
American companies want to sell the natural gas to the Japanese rather 
than to Americans because they can make seven times as much money. In 
Europe, it's four times as high. They want to sell the natural gas of 
America overseas rather than keep the prices low for people to keep 
their homes heated, to keep our industries growing. The petrochemical 
industry, the fertilizer industry, the plastics industry, all those 
industries are dependent upon these fuels.
  No, that's good for the oil industry. It's very bad for the American 
manufacturing sector because low-priced natural gas is what's fueling 
the increase in manufacturing all across this country.
  So I just totally reject the premise of the majority in allowing for 
the sale of our oil and gas out of our land across the country.
  At this point, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid from at least my reading of the amendment 
that this displays a lack of understanding regarding existing Federal 
laws and the realities of the oil and natural gas markets because oil 
produced on Federal lands is already subject to the Export 
Administration Act. In order to export crude oil, a producer would have 
to apply for authorization from the President. That's the law right 
now. Currently, no crude oil produced in the United States is exported, 
with the exception of a small quantity that goes to a Canadian 
refinery.
  So I just think that what this is, more than anything else, is an 
effort to

[[Page H3910]]

make production on Federal lands more challenging and, thus, less 
valuable. And as a matter of fact, that would hurt the economy and 
American jobs.
  But there is another aspect to it. And again, it's the way the 
amendment is reading. What about products that are made from oil? We 
know there is a vast array of products that are made from oil and 
natural gas, for that matter.
  I think of a product that's made in my State. One of the biggest 
manufacturers in my home State of Washington is Boeing. There was a big 
fanfare. And in fact, I think a couple of weeks ago, they had their 
latest product on display down at Reagan National. It's called the 787 
Dreamliner, which, of course, is made of composites, composites made of 
natural resources, i.e., oil and natural gases and others.
  Now the way this amendment is written, because there are no 
restrictions, that means that Boeing probably could not export 787s. 
And frankly, their biggest market is the international market.
  But let's not just confine it to Boeing. What about other byproducts 
that we manufacture? One comes to mind because my wife and I were using 
it to do some home repairs this weekend, WD 40, a petroleum-based 
product. I understand that that company exports a lot of that product 
overseas. The way this amendment is written, one could assume that that 
too would be restricted. What would that, then, do to the job market 
and our economy if we restrict what is a result of oil and natural gas 
being exported overseas?
  I just want to repeat: There are restrictions for crude oil on 
Federal lands. That's existing law. This amendment adds nothing to it. 
But what I am concerned about, I guess, would be the unintended 
consequences. Let's not get ourselves into a situation where we have to 
pass a bill before we know what's in it. We've painfully gone through 
that in this country.
  So I don't think this amendment is a good amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  I am prepared to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I will, then, yield myself the remainder of the time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
30 seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. In summary, Price Waterhouse estimates that U.S. 
manufacturing companies could employ 1 million more workers if they 
continued to have low-priced natural gas. Exporting natural gas, 
exporting crude oil is only going to hurt our domestic economy, except 
for one industry: the oil industry.
  American oil production right now is at its highest level since Bill 
Clinton. Natural gas production is at its all-time high ever. And what 
the American petroleum industry is now saying is that we want to start 
exporting this crude oil, start exporting this natural gas around the 
planet.
  Keep American oil and natural gas here in America. Do not export it 
to other countries. It should be for Americans, and it should be for 
American companies. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, I will urge people to reject the Markey amendment.
  Now I made an observation. And maybe somebody is saying, Boy, you are 
really stretching it if you are going to byproducts. And I referenced 
the way the amendment was written. And the amendment is written where 
it says very specifically, ``all oil and gas.''
  Well, let's see. If a product is made from oil and gas, wouldn't that 
qualify? So I think this is a very, very serious concern. And once 
again, it is the unintentional consequences of this amendment. So I 
urge rejection of the Markey amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Landry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. LANDRY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                    TITLE--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. __1. AMOUNT OF DISTRIBUTED QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL 
                   SHELF REVENUES.

       Section 105(f)(1) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act 
     of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 109-432; (43 
     U.S.C. 1331 note)) is amended by striking ``2055'' and 
     inserting ``2022, and shall not exceed $750,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2023 through 2055''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Landry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It seeks to 
improve the environment by ensuring that those States that allow 
offshore drilling are allowed to keep more of the revenue generated off 
of their shores.
  In 2007, Congress passed a historic Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 
Act, or GOMESA. This historic legislation for the first time allows 
States to share in the royalties generated from offshore drilling. 
However, GOMESA only provided 37.5 percent of the revenue to the States 
and then capped the States at no more than a collective $500 million 
per year. Conversely, the Mineral Leasing Act required the Federal 
Government to give 50 percent of the energy revenue generated on 
Federal lands to States in which it is generated.

                              {time}  2110

  In Louisiana, we wholly support offshore drilling. We are proud to 
supply 80 percent of our Nation's offshore energy. But why should we 
not share in the funding generated by this drilling?
  My amendment simply moves offshore royalty sharing more in line with 
the benefit experienced from onshore States by moving the GOMESA cap 
from $500 million to $750 million per year. My amendment does not 
impact onshore-producing States. If your State is receiving revenue 
from onshore energy production now, my amendment does nothing to change 
that. All the amendment does is move Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and 
Alabama a little closer to what those onshore States currently enjoy.
  This amendment is nearly identical to the amendment that both myself 
and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) offered during 
consideration of H.R. 3408, the PIONEERS Act, of which that amendment 
passed by bipartisan support of 266 159.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LANDRY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think the gentleman has a good amendment. As he pointed out, it 
already has passed on a bipartisan basis on the floor, and I think it's 
worthy to be passed in this instance. I support the amendment.
  Mr. LANDRY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, every day will be Mardi Gras down in 
Louisiana if the gentleman's amendment is adopted. We--that is all the 
rest of us in the country--are already going to be sending $150 billion 
to these four States over the next 60 years. I don't blame the 
gentleman for coming back to try to get another bite at the apple, or, 
in this case, another bite at the king cake.
  But I would say to the gentleman from Louisiana that his State 
already won the baby in the king cake when the GOMESA giveaway was 
enacted back in 2006, and you're already entitled to $150 billion worth 
of revenue coming out of the Federal Government and heading your way. 
And so I just think it's time for your region to give

[[Page H3911]]

a little back to the other 46 States in the Union that didn't benefit 
from that 2006 giveaway to you. We're not begrudging that. What's done 
is done and you get the $150 billion. But I just think it's time for us 
to start thinking about starting to reduce the Federal deficit and 
starting to spend some of this money that comes in from the revenues 
from the drilling, and that it helps out the whole country. And so I 
would just make that case to everyone else.
  By the way, if you come from one of those four States, vote for the 
gentleman from Louisiana's amendment. It's a good amendment for you if 
come from one of those four States. But if you come from one of the 
other 46 States, you've got rocks in your head if you're voting for 
that amendment because it's just another $6 billion going from your 
pockets into the pockets of those four States down there. And it just 
makes no sense at all after the $150 billion we gave them just 6 years 
ago.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANDRY. I would only remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that 
this is, if you are an environmentalist and you want to help protect 
the environment like I know the gentleman from Massachusetts so 
desperately wants to do--I have served with him in committee and 
enjoyed his passion for taking care of the environment--this is an 
environmental amendment.
  The citizens of Louisiana have passed a constitutional amendment that 
dedicates all of the proceeds from offshore royalty to go to wetlands 
restoration, coastal restoration, and hurricane protection. This is 
buying us an insurance policy that the other 46 States, who I know have 
been so generous to help us when hurricanes ravage our coast, this 
helps to protect us. And I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
would love to protect the environment in Louisiana.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I'd be willing to have a conversation with the gentleman from 
Louisiana about what the proper way is of dealing with the funding for 
the preservation of the wetlands and the other environmentally 
sensitive areas down in the Gulf of Mexico, but this isn't the way to 
do it. This is just another permanent entitlement that we're building 
into the law here unattached to the hearings and the evidence that we 
need in order to make sure that whatever expenditures are made by the 
Federal Government are actually going for the intended purpose. And 
that's not what this discussion is here tonight with a 5-minute 
amendment that we're debating.
  Six billion dollars should come under closer scrutiny than the debate 
we're having at quarter past 9 at night on the House floor where the 
only people who are watching the debate really need to get a life, 
because that's about the level of public scrutiny this is getting right 
now. I just think the $6 billion that the gentleman is seeking to 
request from the public has to be dispensed in a way that actually has 
a better process.
  Again, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I understand its 
intention. But for the other 46 States, I just don't think it's a good 
idea at this time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Rigell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in House Report 112 540.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                   TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. _01. LEASE SALE 220 AND OTHER LEASE SALES OFF THE COAST 
                   OF VIRGINIA.

       (a) Inclusion in Leasing Programs.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall--
       (1) upon enactment of this Act, revise the proposed Outer 
     Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program for the 2012 
     2017 period to include in such program Lease Sale 220 off the 
     coast of Virginia; and
       (2) include the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of 
     Virginia in the leasing program for each 5-year period after 
     the 2012 2017 period.
       (b) Conduct of Lease Sale.--As soon as practicable, but not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall carry out under section 8 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
     Lease Sale 220.
       (c) Balancing Military and Energy Production Goals.--
       (1) Joint goals.--In recognition that the Outer Continental 
     Shelf oil and gas leasing program and the domestic energy 
     resources produced therefrom are integral to national 
     security, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Defense shall work jointly in implementing this section in 
     order to ensure achievement of the following common goals:
       (A) Preserving the ability of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States to maintain an optimum state of readiness 
     through their continued use of the Outer Continental Shelf.
       (B) Allowing effective exploration, development, and 
     production of our Nation's oil, gas, and renewable energy 
     resources.
       (2) Prohibition on conflicts with military operations.--No 
     person may engage in any exploration, development, or 
     production of oil or natural gas off the coast of Virginia 
     that would conflict with any military operation, as 
     determined in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement 
     between the Department of Defense and the Department of the 
     Interior on Mutual Concerns on the Outer Continental Shelf 
     signed July 20, 1983, and any revision or replacement for 
     that agreement that is agreed to by the Secretary of Defense 
     and the Secretary of the Interior after that date but before 
     the date of issuance of the lease under which such 
     exploration, development, or production is conducted.
       (3) National defense areas.--The United States reserves the 
     right to designate by and through the Secretary of Defense, 
     with the approval of the President, national defense areas on 
     the Outer Continental Shelf pursuant to section 12(d) of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(d)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a job-creating amendment. It 
reflects the wisdom and truly the will of the good folks of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, and specifically within the great district 
that I have the privilege of serving and representing, the Second 
Congressional District of Virginia.
  The House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia have made it 
clear that they really believe we need to move forward with coastal 
Virginia energy. The same is true of the Virginia Senate. And just 
today, we received a letter of strong support from Governor McDonnell, 
of which I'm very grateful for his support of this amendment. It has 
tremendous opportunity to put folks to work.
  In this very Chamber, Mr. Chairman, I recall vividly our President, 
President Obama, saying that he was an all-of-the-above President, and 
I truly think I was one of the first to leap to my feet in full 
support. We have really failed the American people over the last many 
decades in moving this country toward energy independence. So I leapt 
to my feet. I was clapping. Yet I'm unable to reconcile what he's 
saying with the painful reality--and Virginia, too.
  There's a full moratorium on the responsible exploration and 
harvesting of Virginia's coastal Virginia energy. In my view, Mr. 
Chairman, this is a full moratorium on job creation, and that means 
there's a full moratorium on the tax revenues that we need for 
healthier schools and better roads. So this amendment is directed right 
at that to break through and create action where, at present, there's a 
full moratorium.
  The way the amendment works is very simple. It requires the Secretary 
of the Interior to include Virginia in the 5-year oil and leasing plan. 
My amendment requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct Lease 
Sale 220 within 1 year of enactment.
  Again, the word that comes to my mind is ``action''--``definitive 
action.'' This is what the American people want. This is what the good 
folks of Virginia's Second Congressional District want. It helps, in 
part, to move us

[[Page H3912]]

away from the dependence on countries for our oil, many of which their 
values are diametrically opposed to ours, and we can do this in an 
environmentally responsible way.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGELL. I will yield to the chairman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I think the gentleman has a very good 
lease. And I've been talking about where Virginia has been 
shortchanged, from my point of view. I think this amendment goes a long 
way to advance that debate, and, actually, what we all want is the 
action.
  I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. RIGELL. I thank the chairman for his support. I urge my 
colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. These are life-changing 
jobs. There's tremendous potential, and we can do this in a very 
environmentally responsible way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2120

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. This amendment would order the Secretary of the Interior 
to conduct oil and gas leasing offshore in Virginia. In the wake of the 
Deepwater Horizon disaster, which was a lesson to all of us about the 
risks inherent in deepwater drilling, the Obama administration wisely 
canceled the proposed lease sale.
  The overwhelming majority of the Virginia lease sale area infringes 
on critical training areas for the United States Navy. The Department 
of Defense itself has concluded that over 78 percent of the lease sale 
area would occur in areas where military operations would be impeded by 
drilling structures and related activities.
  This area is already home to a number of critical military actions, 
including live ordnance tests, aircraft carrier qualifications, 
sensitive undersea and surface operations, and shipboard qualification 
tests. The military's continued activities in this area would torpedo 
drilling in most of this land.
  Of the remaining 22 percent of the lease area, the majority of the 
unrestricted waters available for leasing would occur in the main 
shipping channel for Norfolk and the Chesapeake Bay, as well as the 
main channel used by submarines. So in the end, drilling could only 
even conceivably occur in about 10 percent of the area that the 
majority is talking about off the Virginia coast. When this Congress 
still has not passed a single legislative reform to improve the safety 
of offshore drilling, this just doesn't seem like it's worth of risk.
  While some States may support offshore drilling, New Jersey and 
Maryland both oppose it, along with many other States along the Eastern 
Seaboard. These States' economies depend on the tourism that comes to 
see pristine, oil-free beaches and fishing that happens in their 
waters. And we are talking about their waters. As we saw during the BP 
disaster, drilling off the coast of Virginia could affect Maryland, New 
Jersey, and many other States up and down the East Coast because of oil 
spills which do not respect State boundaries.
  This Congress has yet to enact a single safety reform following the 
Deepwater Horizon disaster. The independent, blue ribbon BP Spill 
Commission recently gave Congress a grade of ``D'' on its legislative 
response to the worst environmental disaster offshore in American 
history, and only refrained from handing out an ``F'' because, and 
these are the words of the BP Spill Commission, it did not want ``to 
insult the whole institution.''
  The gentleman's amendment would place the entire East Coast at risk 
of a spill in order to open up an area where drilling may only be able 
to occur in about 10 percent of the area. That doesn't make any sense 
for our coastal States and their economies. The risks that we run are 
much higher than the very small benefits that can be derived.
  I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. RIGELL. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gardner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Crawford, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________