[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 165 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7211-H7232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL LANDS JOBS AND ENERGY SECURITY ACT
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1965.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419 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. 1965.
The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1414
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. 1965) to streamline and ensure onshore energy permitting, provide
for onshore leasing certainty, and give certainty to oil shale
development for American energy security, economic development, and job
creation, and for other purposes, with Ms. Foxx 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.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
{time} 1415
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Chair, with millions of Americans still looking for work,
growing debts and deficits, and energy prices that are still far too
high, the United States needs to implement an all-of-the-above energy
plan to responsibly harness our Nation's energy resources on our
Federal lands.
New energy production is one of the best ways to grow the economy and
create new jobs to put people back to work. One needs to look no
further for proof than to States like North Dakota that have
flourishing economies and some of the lowest unemployment rates in the
country, all due to energy production. Because of this energy boom, the
U.S. is now projected to be the world leader in oil production by 2015,
surpassing Saudi Arabia.
The catch is that this increased oil production is happening on
private and State lands--which is good--places that aren't as
restricted by onerous Federal regulations and policies. Federal lands
are being left behind.
However, this lack of production on Federal lands is not for a lack
of resources. We have tremendous potential for new onshore oil and
natural gas production on Federal lands, but the Obama administration
is actively and purposely keeping these resources off limits. Leasing
and permitting delays, regulatory hurdles, and ever-changing rules are
a few of the reasons energy production on Federal lands is in decline.
President Obama has had the four lowest years of Federal acres leased
for energy production going back to 1988. Under his administration, the
average time to get a drilling permit approved on Federal land is 307
days. By contrast, it takes an average of only 10 days in North Dakota
to get a permit; and another example, in Colorado it only takes 27
days.
It is no wonder that State lands are flourishing while Federal lands
are experiencing a decrease in energy production. That is unacceptable,
and this bill today offers real solutions to unlock the shackles that
have been placed on our Federal lands.
H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, is a
package of bills that will help us expand oil, natural gas, and
renewable energy production on public lands. It will streamline
government red tape, break down bureaucratic hurdles, and put in place
a clear plan for developing our own energy resources. Even more
importantly, this bill will spur job creation and help grow and
strengthen our economy.
Madam Chair, I want to take a moment to specifically highlight the
importance of the third title in this bill, the National Petroleum
Reserve Alaska Access Act. The NPR-A was specifically designated in
1923 as a petroleum reserve. Let me repeat that: NPR-A was specifically
designated in 1923--that is 90 years ago--as a petroleum reserve. Its
express purpose was to supply our country with American energy. That
was the foresight of Congress 90 years ago. That is why it is
completely unacceptable that the Obama administration this year
finalized a plan to close half of NPR-A to energy production. Let me
repeat: we set aside NPR-A 90 years ago for energy production, and this
administration unilaterally shut off half of it. So this bill would
nullify that plan and require the Interior Department to produce a new
plan for responsibly developing these resources.
This bill would require annual lease sales in the NPR-A and ensure
that necessary roads, bridges, and pipelines needed to support energy
resources out of the NPR-A can be approved and completed in a timely,
efficient manner. Now, Madam Chairman, this is crucial to the Trans-
Alaskan Pipeline System, TAPS. It is crucial because that pipeline
needs to remain fully operational.
Much focus has been given to the Keystone XL pipeline, and properly
so; but we cannot forget that TAPS is one of the most important pieces
of energy infrastructure in our Nation. Reduced production in Alaska
has left TAPS at less than half of its capacity, threatening a shutdown
that would cost jobs
[[Page H7212]]
and significantly weaken our energy security. We cannot allow that to
happen, and developing our resources in the NPR-A is vital to ensuring
that it doesn't.
I urge my colleagues to support this job-creating legislation and
allow our Federal lands to be part of our Nation's energy equation.
We have seen the jobs that can be created through energy production.
We have seen how it can grow local communities and create thriving
economies. We have seen how lower energy prices are vital to putting
more money in the pockets of American families. We know what is
possible. It is just a matter of realizing that potential by allowing
new energy production to occur on our Federal lands.
The majority of the provisions in this bill passed the House last
Congress with bipartisan support. It is time for this Congress to once
again move forward with this commonsense, job-creating energy plan.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this misguided,
unnecessary, and environmentally harmful piece of legislation and yield
myself such time as I may consume.
We all know that under President Obama the United States is in the
middle of an almost unprecedented oil and gas boom. Last week, the
Energy Information Administration said that for the first time in 20
years U.S. crude oil production surpassed imports. Also last week, the
International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. would become the
number one oil producer by 2015.
The headlines keep coming. On October 4, EIA reported:
U.S. expected to be the largest producer of petroleum and
natural gas hydrocarbons in 2013.
On October 16, a headline read:
U.S. is already world's number one producer, consultants
say.
Even the Republicans have to admit this energy boom is happening, but
they say it has nothing to do with President Obama because they don't
want to give him credit for anything. They say all of the increased
production--all of it--is coming from State and private lands.
President Obama, they believe, is choking off production on Federal
lands, and that is why we need the giveaways to Big Oil. That is why we
need these attempts in this legislation to stifle public comment. That
is why we need drill-at-all-cost measures.
But they are wrong. Flat-out wrong.
What has actually happened to oil production from our public and
Indian lands out West since President Obama took office, you may ask?
It has skyrocketed. Onshore oil production from Federal and Indian
lands, just what we are talking about in this legislation, has gone up
every year since the President has been in office. It is now 35 percent
higher than it was under President Bush. Yet this legislation would not
just reduce environmental productions. It would gut them; it would
remove them.
So here is an even more interesting statistic. The nationwide
increase in oil production since President Obama took office is 30
percent. The increase on Federal and Indian lands is even outpacing the
increase nationwide, including private lands. I believe it is simple
enough that anyone should be able to understand this. Oil production
for the entire country is up 30 percent. Oil production on Federal and
Indian land is up 35 percent.
But the Republicans have this playbook that they just can't get away
from, this shopworn 2008 drill, baby, drill playbook. And so they want
to try to make things easier for Big Oil while trying to ensure that
conservation and hunting and fishing and recreation and renewables, and
everything else that these Federal lands might be used for, has to take
a back seat to drilling.
The entire premise of this bill is that President Obama is shutting
off access to Federal lands and driving oil production down. The
premise is false. We are not here because we need this legislation to
increase our domestic production of oil and gas, and it certainly has
nothing to do with prices at the pump. We are not here because the bill
will have any impact on the world price of oil or gasoline at the pump.
We are not here because anyone thinks this bill has a chance of
becoming law either. We are here because we have a deeply divided
Republican caucus, and one of the few things that unites this caucus is
the belief that Big Oil should enjoy higher profits, and those profits
should come from publicly owned land.
We are here because bills to convert our priceless national treasures
into profits on Big Oil's balance sheets are about the only idea that
our Republican colleagues can agree on among themselves.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), a former chairman of
the Natural Resources Committee.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, it is amazing as I sit on this
floor after 40 years of listening to so much nonsense from the other
side when it comes to energy. This increase of production in the United
States came from private lands and State lands, not the Federal lands,
and those are the facts. And we are still not independent from oil from
the Middle East that caused us disruption in our economy. To hear the
same litany of words over and over again, we have to save, we can't
produce, but we have to have employment. We will have a stimulus
package. And, in fact, we will have more government borrowing for the
economy and forget real jobs.
But I am going to talk about title V in this legislation. The Federal
Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act contains a number of measures to
promote energy development by and for the benefit of Indians and Alaska
Natives.
Specifically, title V contains a range of measures requested by a
number of Indian tribes and Alaska Native corporations to streamline
burdensome Federal regulations and legal procedures that hinder
exploration, development, and production of energy on their lands.
There are 56 million acres of lands held in trust by the Federal
Government for the benefit of Indians, 56 million. In Alaska, there are
44 million acres, a total land mass larger than the State of
California.
Many of these areas are in untapped energy resources. It is estimated
that up to 10 percent or more of our Nation's energy is contained in
Native lands.
The problem is that outdated Federal policies thwart the ability of
tribes to use their lands for their benefit. Leases of Indian trust
lands require Federal review and approval, which arguably brings little
or no value to the tribes involved. If Federal review and approval of
energy leases created any economic value, then private landowners and
State governments would be clamoring to have their projects reviewed
and approved by the Federal Government, too.
There are few better measures of how ineffective Federal supervision
of Indian affairs has been than the fact that since 2010 nearly $5
billion has been paid by the government to Indians to settle Federal
mismanagement of their trust lands.
While many Indian tribes and Alaska Native corporations have made
great strides in building businesses and strengthening their economies,
tribal communities remain at the bottom of nearly every economic and
social indicator. The sad fact is in 21st-century America, severe
poverty wears a Native face.
{time} 1430
Instead of helping tribes make positive strides in energy
development, the Obama administration is erecting new hurdles. The EPA
canceled a valid permit for the largest tribe to operate a large power
plant on its land with its coal. The Department of the Interior has
proposed a hydraulic fracturing rule which makes Indian lands less
competitive and less attractive to industry, again, taking away from
the American Indians.
Fortunately, several tribes are seeking to shed the current Federal
system altogether and to take over management of their lands and energy
resources. It is these tribes which asked for the provisions in title V
of the bill today.
It is with great pleasure that the standalone bill on which title V
is based, H.R. 1548, has been endorsed by the National Congress of
American Indians and several individual tribes.
[[Page H7213]]
It is time to stop treating Indian trust lands as public lands--they
are not public lands; they are private lands--and increase tribes'
powers of self-governance over their energy resources for the good of
their members and for the good of the United States' energy security.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Let's make the principle of tribal self-
governance, which you talk about and never follow--you never give the
Indians a break for anything. You pat them on the head, give them a
blanket and half a beef, and expect them to be quiet. That is that side
over there. You do not support the American Indians. You never have.
You pat them on the head and give them a side of beef.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a lifelong stalwart supporter of
the environment and of energy production.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I rise first to pay respects to the
distinguished gentleman on the majority side handling the legislation
to tell him that I have affection and respect for him, but he is
handling a bad bill. I also want to thank my good friend for yielding
me this time.
I have been to Alaska many times. I have hunted there. I have fished
there. I have been to the NPR-A. I have been to all of the refuges in
the national forests and national parks and the BLM lands up there. I
have seen what a treasure it is. I have also supported, actively, the
idea that this Nation must make it possible for us to easily produce
energy, but not at the price of throwing away things like our basic
fundamental environmental protection laws.
This legislation is not going to significantly increase production of
oil. All it is going to do is throw away the things that are necessary
to protect it against unwise use. This has been a battle that we have
had in this body many times, where the majority will consistently seek
to make it easier to drill for oil that either isn't there or isn't
there in the amounts or that is not going to be produced by the oil
companies, because we are finding that there is a lot of oil where
there is authorization for drilling where they just got the drilling
permits and they sit there and look at the drilling permits. Oil is not
produced.
Having said this, the Secretary in the last year or so has increased
the ability of this Nation to continue producing more and more oil from
the public lands. One of the problems with Alaska is the public lands
are cold, they are intractable, they are harsh, and they are hard to
produce oil from; so it is necessary that it takes longer for us to
produce oil on those lands, and that is properly so. It is easy to
produce it in the warmer, more gentle climates here in the United
States. Given that fact, we can expect that we will see more rapid
increases in production here than we will see up there.
We have a tremendous national treasure in Alaska. It produces fish,
wildlife, open spaces, salmon, all kinds of riches of renewable
resources of all kinds.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I gladly yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. DINGELL. I express my thanks to my dear friend.
Madam Chairwoman, we should not throw away those protections, nor
should we open those lands up to being blasted, drilled, ditched, and
dug without wise protection. After all, good conservation is wise
conservation and wise use of the resources.
We are going to find, as time passes, the predictions of our
Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior, that this oil
is not present in NPR-A and in the arctic game range and is not there
in the amounts that we would like, and there is no real reason for
increasing that oil production, especially by permits that will not
yield any additional production of oil to this Nation.
I urge my colleagues to reject the legislation. Let the
administration continue its production of oil according to wise use and
see to it that we protect the treasures that we have in Alaska against
unwise use.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the
sponsor of this legislation,
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee,
Doc Hastings.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and
Energy Security Act, which incorporates four additional bills into my
bill. This legislation takes significant steps toward moving our
country forward on a path to energy independence by streamlining
government regulations and reducing government red tape that hinders
onshore energy production. It will create new American jobs, promote
energy and economic development, and increase revenues to the State and
Federal governments.
This legislation also sets firm timelines for Applications for Permit
to Drill, or APD, approvals and dedicates funds from APD solar and wind
right-of-way fees to the permitting field offices. It will require the
Bureau of Land Management to lease at least 25 percent of the nominated
acreage not previously made available for lease. It will inject
certainty into the leasing process and terms to give energy developers
the certainty they need to move forward with production.
It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop a 4-year
plan for onshore energy development, similar to the 5-year plan they
are required to develop for offshore development. It opens up the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for energy production and allows
the BLM to conduct leasing through the Internet.
Since taking office, despite the claims to the contrary, President
Obama has waged a war on energy development. Under the administration,
a simple permit, which in my home State of Colorado on average takes 27
days to approve, takes nearly a year on Federal land. And only
minuscule areas of land have been leased for energy development,
despite significant interest in many more acres. In fact, the Obama
administration has had the 4 lowest years of Federal acres leased for
energy production going back to 1988. The Obama administration has even
taken the shocking and questionable step of canceling leases that have
been legally bought and paid for.
Energy companies are practically fleeing from developing energy on
Federal lands in favor of the more reliable and efficient State and
private permitting processes. Further, the Obama administration has
made it harder for oil shale technology to develop so that companies
are showing little interest in developing this promising technology.
While the President tries to take credit for increased energy
production under his administration, the reality is that the vast
majority of any increased production occurs on State and private land
that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over. In fact, since
2009, total Federal oil production is down 7.8 percent, and total
natural gas production on Federal lands is down 21 percent.
My legislation would interject much-needed certainty into nearly
every step of the onshore energy production process. It will ensure
that permits are approved in a timely fashion, would prohibit the
administration from changing lease terms or revoking leases after they
have been legally won, would ensure that onshore leasing moves steadily
forward, and will allow the Secretary to plan for this Nation's future
energy needs.
Energy that is available and affordable creates more jobs for
Americans here at home rather than overseas. It lowers the price of
essential goods that American families buy every day, and it leaves
more of the hard-earned money in the pockets of Americans after they
pay their gas and utility bills. There is no reasonable objection to
this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation to create
new American jobs and establish an efficient process to produce both
renewable and conventional energy on Federal lands. We can do this
while meeting the extensive environmental standards that are already in
place.
[[Page H7214]]
Madam Chairwoman, I urge support for this bill.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, let's summarize what is in this legislation.
H.R. 1965 is a compilation of a number of wishful bills, wishful
legislation from the other side. It would shortcut environmental
reviews, discourage public participation in energy development
decisions, and eliminate thoughtful leasing reforms.
It would require that any public entity or individual that wanted to
challenge a leasing decision post a $5,000 protest fee just to be able
to access the process.
It would require that the Department of the Interior lease at least
25 percent each year of oil and gas nominated areas, whether or not
they are suitable for drilling now.
And, Madam Chair, I get this. It would elevate oil and gas leasing
decisions above all other uses of public lands, such as hunting,
fishing, grazing, conservation, recreation, and other energy uses.
It would also require a plan to crisscross the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska with roads and pipelines, a network that would be a
bonanza for some contractor, I am sure, ignoring the management plan
that was approved this year. Why? Not for a good reason. We don't need
all these relaxations--``relaxation'' is too mild a word--the gutting
of environmental review, the removal of public participation, because
oil production is doing very well, thank you.
Let's deal with facts.
Federal onshore oil production, which is what this bill is about, has
increased 35 percent. It is actually a faster growth rate than oil
production overall in the United States. I am not sure why the other
side refuses to acknowledge that. I would think they would want to take
that as good news. If you look past their talking points at the actual
data, you will see that Federal onshore oil production has increased
every year since 2008. That doesn't include Indian lands, where
production has also increased every year since 2008. So the fundamental
premise of this bill is flawed.
There are, right now, 37 million acres of Federal land under lease
for oil and gas development, but two-thirds of that is not in
production or exploration. Go figure. Let's go ask these companies why
they are bidding on these lands. When you lease land, it is because you
think it will be productive, yet they are sitting on them. We don't
need to streamline. We don't need to remove any environmental controls
in order to stimulate leasing, because 37 million acres of Federal land
are under lease now.
Furthermore, even if the other side was right about their flawed
premise, even if it was a problem in production, onshore Federal oil is
only 5 percent or 6 percent of total production. That is all it will
be. So if there were a production problem, if it were not the case that
we were producing more than we have produced--we are in better shape
than we have been in decades--further drilling on Federal land would
not be the answer.
{time} 1445
So there is no reason for this bill. It sets back the use of these
Federal lands to a free-for-all, unprotected state, and this is bad
legislation.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairwoman, I am very pleased to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a member
of the committee.
Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me time on this
critical matter.
I appreciate that my Planning for American Energy Act was
incorporated as title II of the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security
Act of 2013. This final, commonsense package seeks to put in place
responsible American energy plans that will reduce energy costs for
consumers while also spurring economic growth and job opportunities.
The legislation before us today would unleash the potential for
thousands of new jobs and establish a reliable, affordable, and secure
source of American energy through responsible production. Title II of
this act seeks to establish commonsense steps to create an all-of-the-
above American energy plan for using Federal lands to meet America's
energy needs.
Under title II of this legislation, the nonpartisan Energy
Information Administration provides the projected energy needs of the
United States for the next 30 years to the Secretaries of the Interior
and Agriculture. The Secretaries would use this information to
establish an environmentally responsible, 4-year energy production
plan.
The bill allows for energy development on public lands in order to
promote the energy and national security of the United States in
accordance with multiple-use management standards established by the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Title II requires an all-of-the-above approach to energy development
responsibly in this country. The bill specifically cites wind, solar,
hydropower, geothermal, oil, gas, coal, oil shale, and minerals needed
for energy development to be included in the plan. These goals would be
accomplished responsibly, without repealing a single environmental
regulation or review process.
Earlier this year, an important study entitled ``Energy Cost Impacts
on American Families'' was released. This study, which relies on
government data, had some troubling findings, including that more than
50 percent of U.S. households are expected to spend at least 20 percent
of their family budgets on energy costs in 2013. This figure has nearly
doubled in the last 10 years alone.
Even more troubling is the fact that these energy increases have
disproportionately impacted families on lower incomes and seniors on
fixed incomes. This stands to reason, given the decline in energy
production on Federal lands under this administration.
Since President Obama took office, production on Federal lands has
declined significantly, including a staggering 21 percent decline in
Federal natural gas production.
Colorado, along with our neighboring Western States, is in a unique
position to contribute to our Nation's energy security and ensure that
the United States remains competitive in the world market.
By promoting a commonsense regulatory framework embracing domestic
energy research and development, and applying environmental and safety
standards already on the books rather than adding costly new mandates,
we can help meet America's energy needs right here at home, providing
energy and economic security that will benefit American families.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. TIPTON. An all-of-the-above approach in energy, this responsibly
increases production on federal lands and is needed to ensure that the
prosperity of our Nation is ensured. This is exactly what H.R. 1965
will accomplish. It creates a framework to responsibly meet America's
energy needs, lower energy costs for consumers, and create much-needed
American jobs.
I urge the immediate passage of this bill.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip of the
Democratic Party, someone who understands the economic importance of
protecting the environment.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding.
Madam Chair, this bill, and the other two House bills we will
consider this week, were put forward, in my opinion, to fill time. Yes,
they are unifying issues on the Republican side of the aisle, Madam
Chair, but they are not pressing. Even if they were good policy, they
are not pressing.
We stand here without a budget. We stand here with 10 days left to
go.
Madam Chair, it is now quarter of 3:00, and it was about 2:30, and
our business is through for today. No budget, no unemployment insurance
extension, no farm bill, no conference report even on the budget, no
immigration bill, no ending discrimination, ENDA, bill--a raft of
critically important issues that this House ought to be considering.
So this is somewhat the fiddle on which we are playing while Rome is
burning.
We shut down the government for 16 days, for the first time in 17
years, a
[[Page H7215]]
conscious decision to shut down government, and 147 of my Republican
colleagues, Madam Chair, voted to keep the government shut down and
voted against paying our bills. Yet, we consider this legislation.
Now, I am against this legislation substantively, but even more
egregious is the wasting of 4 of the 12 days we had available to
address the issues I have just discussed. America is rightfully
disgusted with the Congress of the United States. Me too.
Energy security remains an important issue. I agree with my
colleagues on that. But these bills offer partisan solutions to energy
production that are taking our time away from pressing matters, as I
have explained, like the budget conference, unemployment insurance,
comprehensive immigration reform, the farm bill, Medicare physician
payment formula, and tax extenders.
We are all going to be wringing our hands just a few days from now
saying, Of course we want to make sure there is a doc fix so that
people with Medicare can make sure their doctors are paid appropriately
so they will continue to serve them. We will say, Of course we want to
do that.
Well, why did you waste a week?
We won't have an answer to that, unless the answer is, Well, we are
really not going to address them; we would rather address these issues
that bring our party together and make us look like we are doing the
work that our base wants us to do.
Tomorrow's legislation seeks to block a proposed Bureau of Land
Management regulation that is not even yet in effect and overreaches to
cover all Interior Department lands.
The first of these bills sets an arbitrary deadline on leases,
permits, and reviews that stand in the way of regulators doing their
job to protect citizens and affected communities.
I think citizens want to be protected. Yes, they want it done in an
efficient, effective manner, but they want to be protected.
These bills were put forward in the name of achieving energy
security, when, in truth, ironically, America is now more energy secure
than it has been in decades.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. HOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. We are more energy independent than we have been in
decades. As a matter of fact, when I talk about the Make It In America
agenda of making manufacturing jobs and making things here in this
country, one of our assets is, we are the abundant energy supply in the
world today. There are more oil rigs in America today than the rest of
the world combined.
Yet, we are talking about energy security. We have it. Do we need to
enhance it? Of course. Just days ago, the Energy Information
Administration announced that we produced more crude oil last month,
Madam Chair, than we imported for the first time in almost 20 years.
Under President Obama, oil production is up, and we now have more rigs
operating, as I said, than the rest of the world combined.
Domestic natural gas extraction has also grown to an all-time record,
and energy companies already hold more than 20 million acres of public
land onshore on which they have yet to produce oil or gas. That is 56
percent of leased public lands onshore. The gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt) was speaking of that.
These bills distract and delay this body's critical attention to the
issues of critical concern to all America, and, yes, indeed, to the
rest of the world that wants to see and needs a responsible, fiscally
secure America.
No budget, no budget conference, no farm bill, no immigration bill,
no ENDA bill, all which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. They
are worthy of debate. That doesn't mean either side has to agree, but
that is what we ought to be debating, ladies and gentlemen of this
House, because they are the critical issues confronting us before the
end of this year.
Yet, we waste our time, and frankly, we let ourselves off early
because we don't have enough work to do.
I urge opposition to these three bills. I urge the majority party to
bring the important pieces of legislation to the floor that America
needs.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my
colleague from Ohio, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my good
friend, the minority leader. He characterized these bills as being not
pressing.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that probably the biggest issue
facing America that we have heard from our constituents probably on
both sides of the aisle is the need to have a growing economy and jobs.
American energy--we have a chance to capture American energy and jobs
with this legislation. So while it is not pressing, as the gentleman
says, it is certainly very, very important.
Now, I would also point out the gentleman, the minority leader, was
talking about several issues that are important. I would just suggest
that probably number one on Americans' minds right now actually started
on October 1, when the signup for the health care plan passed. Now, if
there is something that is absolutely pressing that needs to pass this
Congress before the end of the year, it is to rectify how people can
keep the health care policies that they wanted.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
I might add, last week, last Friday, in a bipartisan vote, 39 Members
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined us to ensure
that if people like their health care policies they can keep their
health care policies.
Now, that bill is waiting in the Senate. We have a bicameral
legislature. We know they have to act. But if there is one thing that
is absolutely pressing before we get done is to resolve that issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the
Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act. This important legislation
will help streamline onshore energy production and create jobs right
here in America.
I want to thank the chairman for including legislation I have
introduced, the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act, as a title in this
legislation.
As we are all aware, oftentimes the Federal Government is behind the
private sector when it comes to technological innovation. As a former
chief information officer of a publicly traded company, I understand
how much more efficient the Federal Government could become if we were
able to provide some much-needed technological innovation.
{time} 1500
The BLM Live Internet Auctions Act will allow the Federal Government
to come into the 21st century and do what the private sector has
already been doing for over a decade.
This legislation fixes an unintended consequence of a 26-year-old law
that requires that BLM conduct auctions by oral bidding. Back in 1987,
the Internet hadn't even been created by a certain former Vice
President, and this bill simply gives the Bureau of Land Management the
option to conduct auctions for their lease sales over the Internet.
Traditional in-person auctions will still be held, but we can more
effectively speed up sales, reduce fraud, and ensure the best return to
Federal taxpayers for oil and gas leases by conducting them securely
online.
Most importantly, this legislation will ensure efficient and timely
lease sales so that developers can more quickly begin producing
homegrown energy for American consumers and create much-needed jobs for
Americans.
We know that BLM has the capability to do this because back in 2009
BLM conducted a test run of the program, selling 28 land parcels via
live Internet auctions. By all accounts, they were very successful. The
pilot program resulted in 1,500 unique visitors from 46 States,
increasing the number of bidders and the sale price when compared with
traditional in-person auctions. Even the administration supports this
legislation, and I am hopeful that the Senate will act on it quickly so
that we can bring the BLM process into the 21st century.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the underlying legislation.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the
[[Page H7216]]
minority member of highest rank on our committee, the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I was listening with interest to some of the statements
made earlier in the debate about the administration deliberately
restraining the oil and gas industry in this country. Actually, the
facts belie those statements.
The Federal lands oil production is growing faster than that on
private lands--plus 30, plus 35. Obviously, they start with a larger
base, but still it is growing faster. So that hardly shows any
deliberate attempts by the Obama administration to limit this
production.
And, again, Republicans talk about that the President had not leased
an adequate amount of land. But if you look, these little photos are of
former President George Bush, and when the lines start to go up, these
are from the current President, Barack Obama, and onshore oil
production on Federal lands is up 35 percent.
So let's deal with what the real intent here is. The Obama
administration has an all-of-the-above strategy. They are trying to
produce these resources responsibly. The other side of the aisle would
have us believe that environmental laws and other restrictions and an
intentional campaign by the Obama administration are making us
vulnerable to foreign influences. Actually, our imports were at the
lowest level in recent history in the last year. We are producing more
and more of our own oil and are headed toward self-sufficiency. But we
also have to deal with climate change, and we also have to deal with
prices to consumers.
Now, with this legislation, we are actually celebrating Thanksgiving
a week early. I would call the bill a turkey. But it is not just a
turkey; it is leftovers from Turkey Day, because we have actually
passed this legislation previously, and it went nowhere previously, as
will this legislation here today.
But they want to pretend that this will somehow benefit consumers and
that somehow there is a campaign by the Obama administration to
restrain the supply. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will
have an amendment later.
If we want to drive down prices at the pump tomorrow by 70 cents, it
is pretty simple: just stop the speculation on Wall Street. But I will
talk about that more later.
There are a number of provisions in this bill that are egregious. I
don't have time to go into all of them, but there are a few things. As
I mentioned earlier, basically do away with environmental protections,
muzzle the public's voice in terms of them appealing decisions by the
distant Federal Government to develop in their backyard or next door,
you know, to elevate oil and gas drilling to the predominant use on any
Federal public lands--yes, predominant use over and above hunting,
fishing, recreation. Anything else, oil and gas is predominant.
Now, the President also said, You know what? I think that we ought to
go out and look at these parcels before we lease them. That is
something they didn't do in the Bush era. We have 25-year-old land use
plans at many of these agencies. They are understaffed. They are
behind. They haven't revised their land use plans in a long time. A lot
of things have happened in the last 25 years, and it might be that
there is now a ski resort right next to an area that was previously
available or was potentially available for oil and gas leasing.
The Obama administration said we ought to go out and look to see how
it can impact other activities that have come to the floor in the last
25 years. They are being criticized for that. Now, that does take a
little bit of time, but they are saying, hey, some States are allowing
private lands to go forward in 10 days. These aren't private lands.
These are the lands of the people of the United States of America. I
think a little more due diligence is in order. We don't want to mimic a
State that says, Oh, you want to drill there? Okay. Here you go. No one
gets to say anything about it. It is your land. You go right ahead.
Then, this is amazing. This is kind of a fun math issue. They say
that the industry can nominate land, which is the current law, but they
are saying the government must lease 25 percent of whatever the
industry chooses to nominate in a given year. So there are 130 million
acres available for oil and gas leasing in the United States,
predominantly in the West. So in the first year, the industry nominates
130 million acres. That means the Interior Department has to offer 32
million acres to lease. Now, next year, well, we have only got 100
million left, so they would get 25 percent of that. That is 25 million
acres.
As you can figure it out, we are sort of infinitely headed toward
zero here. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is a scientist. He
can probably figure it out better. I don't know if we would ever get to
zero. But it would be in ever and ever smaller increments that we were
leasing here. And yet there are 25 million acres that the industry has
under lease that they haven't yet developed, but they could get this
astonishing increase.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HOLT. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I was thinking of bringing a map of all the leasable
land, but it would be difficult to produce. But you can get it in your
imagination.
So let's deal with the real problems before us. If we are going to
produce energy on Federal lands, make sure there is no real conflict.
Let's keep the multiple use concept. I think most members of the public
support that, not give oil and gas a predominant use. Let's also keep
in mind that we have to look at alternative energy development on
Federal lands so that we can deal with climate change, which some of us
believe in.
This warmed-over leftover turkey proposal will pass the House, of
course, but that will be the last that anyone hears of it. Happy
Thanksgiving.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), another member
of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, I would like to put a couple things straight
that have been said. We are not talking about all Federal lands in this
bill. We are not talking about National Park Service lands. National
parks and national monuments are excluded from this bill. We are not
talking about wilderness. We are not talking about lands that have been
recommended for wilderness status. Those are managed as de facto
wilderness. We are not talking about wildlife refuges. We are not
talking about Department of Defense lands. We are not talking about
Bureau of Reclamation lands. We are only talking about Bureau of Land
Management lands that are managed for multiple use now. We are also
talking about a Nation that desperately needs jobs.
Mr. Chair, I was in a country in the Arab world last weekend. They
have 6.5 percent employment in the private sector. Everyone else is
either unemployed or works for the government. Their neighbors prop up
their economies to keep their problems from spilling over the borders
into their countries. For a country that has been clamoring for jobs to
smack down this bill as being irrelevant indicates to me that Congress
has lost its way, that it doesn't understand that what the American
people want is to work. They want earned success. They want self-
respect. They want jobs.
H.R. 1965 would streamline the leasing and permitting process to put
our public land resources back to work for the people who own them, the
American people, particularly those who live near these resources and
know the importance of a quality environment.
I represent the whole State of Wyoming. I have lived there my entire
life. Nobody cares more about the environment of Wyoming than I do--
nobody. This is also good fiscal policy.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Wyoming's payments to the U.S. Treasury for oil, gas,
and coal royalties nearly pays for the entire BLM budget.
And I would point out that, contrary to what the gentleman said about
the increase in production on Federal land, between the year 2000 and
2007, in Wyoming, the number of new leases issued
[[Page H7217]]
was 873, on average; during the Obama administration, it is 599. In my
book, that is a decline of 31 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Messrs. Hastings and Lamborn for making
this bill possible. I urge the Members to support it.
Mr. HOLT. 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 Texas (Mr. Poe), the gentleman from the
State that certainly knows what oil production is about.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, for the first time in nearly 20 years, the United
States is producing more crude oil than it imports. U.S. oil output is
soaring due to the fracking boom in North Dakota and, yes, in Texas and
some other areas. That is the reason.
The Energy Information Administration said this week that oil
production by barrels is up 11 percent from last year and 63 percent
over the last 5 years. If this trend continues, with the expanded use
of renewables, and, of course, the completion of the Keystone XL
pipeline, it is entirely possible that we could see total energy
independence in this country in the next 10 years. Imagine what our
foreign policy could be if we were energy independent. We could make
Middle Eastern oil, turmoil, and politics irrelevant.
However, all of this progress has been made despite the current
administration. How ironic it is the administration takes credit for
all the oil production boom when it does everything it can to stonewall
this boom.
Oil and natural gas production on Federal lands is down 40 percent
compared to 10 years ago. Most of the new drilling is on private and
State land, not Federal land. Under this administration, 2010 had the
lowest number of offshore leases since 1984. Imagine what we could do
if we could speed up the permitting process on Federal land.
To address this, H.R. 1965 expands onshore oil and natural gas
production on Federal lands and streamlines the leasing and permitting
process, among many other commonsense provisions, to help get the
government out of the way of progress.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to address the talking points that have been parroted
without thinking by speaker after speaker from the other side.
The fact is oil production on onshore public lands, the subject of
this legislation, is up by 35 percent. It is not down. It is not flat.
It is up. It is up even more than oil production in the country
overall. So what is the problem here?
As for employment, it is worth pointing out that oil and natural gas
industry employment has increased.
{time} 1515
Clearly, there was a falloff with the recession--or let's call it a
depression--but in the last half-dozen years, industry employment has
increased by more than 162,000--a 40 percent increase. Oil and gas
industry jobs decreased in 2009 as a result of the recession, but now
the jobs are increasing at a rate even faster than before.
And I have to emphasize that in connection with this because this
legislation says that oil and gas would take precedence over all other
uses of Federal lands. Federal lands don't exist solely for the purpose
of oil and gas extraction.
As I have said before, there is one thing that the Republicans seem
to agree on, that we should give away whatever we can to the oil
companies. That is why we are doing this legislation, because they
don't have any other legislation that they can agree on well enough to
bring to the floor. But multiple uses of our Federal lands, aside from
oil and gas production, are important to Americans.
As for jobs, the government shutdown that the folks who are proposing
this legislation voted for and supported caused the closure of over 400
units of our National Park Service and cost local economies hundreds of
millions of dollars and caused delays in the approval of pending
permits, by the way.
It is also worth pointing out that this week the Interior Department
announced that, because of revenues from oil and gas extraction, the
Department of the Interior was able to disburse $14.2 billion--a 17
percent increase over the previous year--to State, local, and tribal
accounts. This money goes for the land and water conservation fund, the
reclamation fund, historic preservation, and so forth.
So this is a bill to address a problem that doesn't exist--and to do
it in a way that does not address the interests of the people at large.
It is a giveaway to the oil and gas industry. I urge my colleagues to
vote this down.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 5\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, just let me talk about what this bill is about. This
bill is about attempting to open Federal lands to energy production.
All the talk has been on oil and gas. That is very important. But
this is also for renewable by doing what? By saying that in the process
of using Federal lands for energy production, those lands that have the
potential for the most production should be the first leased. What a
remarkable idea: go where the potential energy is. And that is what
this bill does.
But let me respond to my good friend from New Jersey who talked about
how much we are producing in this country and so forth. I would suggest
that he left out a few important points.
First of all, it takes some length of time in order to get an active
lease into production, and the gentleman didn't talk about that. Why?
Because it generally takes 4 to 6 years. And sometimes it is 8 to 10
years.
But in the last administration--the Bush II administration--they were
very active in letting leases. And as a result of that, at the time
that this administration took over, there were a number of active
leases that were ready to produce. That is why the production was high
in the early part of this administration.
And just put it this way: again, we are talking about Federal lands
that are being leased for production. When the President took office,
roughly 1.9 million acres were leased for energy production. That was
in 2009. In 2012, that figure dropped to 1.75 million acres that were
open for production. That is, obviously, a reduction.
But another way to look at it is the application permits to drill,
which is really where I guess it meets the road, so to speak. In 2001,
there were a little over 2,000 permits that were issued; and in 2012,
there were a little over 1,700 permits issued. That is a 15 percent
drop. If you drop the permits, you are obviously going to have less
production.
So I think that needed to be pointed out to kind of set the record
straight.
As to my good friend, Mr. Dingell, who is not on the floor now, I
want to talk about the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska one more
time.
Ninety years ago, that was set aside as a reserve. In all the years
that Democrats controlled Congress, from the mid-fifties all the way to
the nineties, nothing was ever done to change that policy until this
administration decided, without any direction from Congress, to set
aside one-half of that.
Why is that important?
I mentioned in my opening remarks that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is a
very important part of our pipeline system. There is no question that
there is a movement in this country to try to dry up that pipeline by
slow-walking oil exploration in Alaska, whether they are talking about
offshore or onshore.
The NPR was designed to be a petroleum reserve. Why should we not
build an infrastructure to utilize that?
It has been said, well, there's not that much oil there. Well, that
will come out when leases are offered. Those that want to take
advantage of this and think there is some production there will make
the leases. The market will dictate that. But to unilaterally close it
off doesn't make any sense. This bill corrects that. It makes NPR what
it was supposed to be historically since 1923.
So those are just a couple of issues, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to touch
on.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
[[Page H7218]]
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 Natural Resources, printed in the bill, an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 113-26 is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as
the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-
minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1965
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 ``Federal Lands Jobs and
Energy Security Act of 2013''.
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--FEDERAL LANDS JOBS AND ENERGY SECURITY
Sec. 1001. Short title.
Sec. 1002. Policies regarding buying, building, and working for
America.
Subtitle A--Onshore Oil and Gas Permit Streamlining
Sec. 1101. Short title.
Chapter 1--Application for Permits to Drill Process Reform
Sec. 1111. Permit to drill application timeline.
Sec. 1112. Solar and wind right-of-way rental reform.
Chapter 2--Administrative Protest Documentation Reform
Sec. 1121. Administrative protest documentation reform.
Chapter 3--Permit Streamlining
Sec. 1131. Improve Federal energy permit coordination.
Sec. 1132. Administration of current law.
Chapter 4--Judicial Review
Sec. 1141. Definitions.
Sec. 1142. Exclusive venue for certain civil actions relating to
covered energy projects.
Sec. 1143. Timely filing.
Sec. 1144. Expedition in hearing and determining the action.
Sec. 1145. Standard of review.
Sec. 1146. Limitation on injunction and prospective relief.
Sec. 1147. Limitation on attorneys' fees.
Sec. 1148. Legal standing.
Chapter 5--Knowing America's Oil and Gas Resources
Sec. 1151. Funding oil and gas resource assessments.
Subtitle B--Oil and Gas Leasing Certainty
Sec. 1201. Short title.
Sec. 1202. Minimum acreage requirement for onshore lease sales.
Sec. 1203. Leasing certainty.
Sec. 1204. Leasing consistency.
Sec. 1205. Reduce redundant policies.
Sec. 1206. Streamlined congressional notification.
Subtitle C--Oil Shale
Sec. 1301. Short title.
Sec. 1302. Effectiveness of oil shale regulations, amendments to
resource management plans, and record of decision.
Sec. 1303. Oil shale leasing.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 1401. Rule of construction.
TITLE II--PLANNING FOR AMERICAN ENERGY
Sec. 2001. Short title.
Sec. 2002. Onshore domestic energy production strategic plan.
TITLE III--NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA ACCESS
Sec. 3001. Short title.
Sec. 3002. Sense of Congress and reaffirming national policy for the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Sec. 3003. National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: lease sales.
Sec. 3004. National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: planning and
permitting pipeline and road construction.
Sec. 3005. Issuance of a new integrated activity plan and environmental
impact statement.
Sec. 3006. Departmental accountability for development.
Sec. 3007. Deadlines under new proposed integrated activity plan.
Sec. 3008. Updated resource assessment.
TITLE IV--BLM LIVE INTERNET AUCTIONS
Sec. 4001. Short title.
Sec. 4002. Internet-based onshore oil and gas lease sales.
TITLE V--NATIVE AMERICAN ENERGY
Sec. 5001. Short title.
Sec. 5002. Appraisals.
Sec. 5003. Standardization.
Sec. 5004. Environmental reviews of major Federal actions on Indian
lands.
Sec. 5005. Judicial review.
Sec. 5006. Tribal biomass demonstration project.
Sec. 5007. Tribal resource management plans.
Sec. 5008. Leases of restricted lands for the Navajo Nation.
Sec. 5009. Nonapplicability of certain rules.
TITLE I--FEDERAL LANDS JOBS AND ENERGY SECURITY
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Federal Lands Jobs and
Energy Security Act''.
SEC. 1002. POLICIES REGARDING BUYING, BUILDING, AND WORKING
FOR AMERICA.
(a) Congressional Intent.--It is the intent of the 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;
(2) to ensure a robust onshore energy production industry
and ensure that the benefits of development support local
communities, under this title, the Secretary shall make every
effort to promote the development of onshore American energy,
and shall take into consideration the socioeconomic impacts,
infrastructure requirements, and fiscal stability for local
communities located within areas containing onshore energy
resources; and
(3) the Congress will monitor the deployment of personnel
and material onshore to encourage the development of American
manufacturing to enable United 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 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 A--Onshore Oil and Gas Permit Streamlining
SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Streamlining Permitting
of American Energy Act of 2013''.
CHAPTER 1--APPLICATION FOR PERMITS TO DRILL PROCESS REFORM
SEC. 1111. 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 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. 1112. SOLAR AND WIND RIGHT-OF-WAY RENTAL REFORM.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, of fees collected
each fiscal year 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))--
(1) no less than 25 percent shall be available, subject to
appropriation, for use for solar and wind permitting and
management activities by Department of the Interior field
offices responsible for the land where the fees were
collected;
(2) no less than 25 percent shall be available, subject to
appropriation, for Bureau of Land
[[Page H7219]]
Management solar and wind permit approval activities; and
(3) no less than 25 percent shall be available, subject to
appropriation, to the Secretary of the Interior for
department-wide solar and wind permitting activities.
(b) Limitation.--The amount used under subsection (a) each
fiscal year shall not exceed $10,000,000.
CHAPTER 2--ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST DOCUMENTATION REFORM
SEC. 1121. 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.''.
CHAPTER 3--PERMIT STREAMLINING
SEC. 1131. 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 1111, 1112, and 1121.
(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. 1132. 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 (42 U.S.C. 15942).
CHAPTER 4--JUDICIAL REVIEW
SEC. 1141. DEFINITIONS.
In this chapter--
(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. 1142. 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. 1143. 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. 1144. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION.
The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered
civil action as expeditiously as possible.
SEC. 1145. 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. 1146. 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. 1147. 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. 1148. 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.
CHAPTER 5--KNOWING AMERICA'S OIL AND GAS RESOURCES
SEC. 1151. FUNDING OIL AND GAS RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
provide matching funding for joint projects with States to
conduct oil and gas resource assessments on Federal lands
with significant oil and gas potential.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of
activities under this section shall not exceed 50 percent.
(c) Resource Assessment.--Any resource assessment under
this section shall be conducted by a State, in consultation
with the United States Geological Survey.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
a total of $50,000,000 for fiscal years 2014 through 2017.
Subtitle B--Oil and Gas Leasing Certainty
SEC. 1201. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Providing Leasing
Certainty for American Energy Act of 2013''.
SEC. 1202. 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. 15942), 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 are available for
leasing at the time the lease sale occurs.
SEC. 1203. 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
[[Page H7220]]
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. 1204. 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. 1205. REDUCE REDUNDANT POLICIES.
Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum 2010-117
shall have no force or effect.
SEC. 1206. STREAMLINED CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.
Section 31(e) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 188(e))
is amended in the matter following paragraph (4) by striking
``at least thirty days in advance of the reinstatement'' and
inserting ``in an annual report''.
Subtitle C--Oil Shale
SEC. 1301. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Protecting Investment
in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy,
and Resource Security Act'' or the ``PIONEERS Act''.
SEC. 1302. EFFECTIVENESS OF OIL SHALE REGULATIONS, AMENDMENTS
TO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS, AND RECORD OF
DECISION.
(a) Regulations.--Notwithstanding any other law or
regulation to the contrary, the final regulations regarding
oil shale management published by the Bureau of Land
Management on November 18, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 69,414) are
deemed to satisfy all legal and procedural requirements under
any law, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
and the Secretary of the Interior shall implement those
regulations, including the oil shale leasing program
authorized by the regulations, without any other
administrative action necessary.
(b) Amendments to Resource Management Plans and Record of
Decision.--Notwithstanding any other law or regulation to the
contrary, the November 17, 2008 U.S. Bureau of Land
Management Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/
Record of Decision for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources to
Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming
and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement are
deemed to satisfy all legal and procedural requirements under
any law, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
and the Secretary of the Interior shall implement the oil
shale leasing program authorized by the regulations referred
to in subsection (a) in those areas covered by the resource
management plans amended by such amendments, and covered by
such record of decision, without any other administrative
action necessary.
SEC. 1303. OIL SHALE LEASING.
(a) Additional Research and Development Lease Sales.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall hold a lease sale within 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act offering an
additional 10 parcels for lease for research, development,
and demonstration of oil shale resources, under the terms
offered in the solicitation of bids for such leases published
on January 15, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 10).
(b) Commercial Lease Sales.--No later than January 1, 2016,
the Secretary of the Interior shall hold no less than 5
separate commercial lease sales in areas considered to have
the most potential for oil shale development, as determined
by the Secretary, in areas nominated through public comment.
Each lease sale shall be for an area of not less than 25,000
acres, and in multiple lease blocs.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 1401. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the
issuance of a lease under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
181 et seq.) to any person designated for the imposition of
sanctions pursuant to--
(1) the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note),
the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and
Divestiture Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.), the Iran
Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (22
U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), section 1245 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a), or
the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22
U.S.C. 8801 et seq.);
(2) Executive Order 13622 (July 30, 2012), Executive Order
13628 (October 9, 2012), or Executive Order 13645 (June 3,
2013);
(3) Executive Order 13224 (September 23, 2001) or Executive
Order 13338 (May 11, 2004); or
(4) the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 2151 note).
TITLE II--PLANNING FOR AMERICAN ENERGY
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Planning for American
Energy Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2002. 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
and national security of the United States in accordance with
Bureau of Land Management's mission of promoting the multiple
use of Federal lands as set forth in the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
``(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;
``(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; and
``(G) the best estimate, based upon commercial and
scientific data, of the expected increase in production of
helium on Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service.
``(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
[[Page H7221]]
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.
``(h) Strategic and Critical Energy Minerals Defined.--For
purposes of this section, 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.''.
(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).
TITLE III--NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA ACCESS
SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``National Petroleum Reserve
Alaska Access Act''.
SEC. 3002. 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. 3003. 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 2013 through
2023.''.
SEC. 3004. 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
other appropriate Federal agencies, shall facilitate and
ensure permits, in a timely and 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 in the most direct manner
possible 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. 3005. ISSUANCE OF A NEW INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
(a) Issuance of New Integrated Activity Plan.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall, within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, issue--
(1) a new proposed integrated activity plan from among the
non-adopted alternatives in the National Petroleum Reserve
Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision issued by
the Secretary of the Interior and dated February 21, 2013;
and
(2) an environmental impact statement under section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) for issuance of oil and gas leases in
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to promote efficient
and maximum development of oil and natural gas resources of
such reserve.
(b) Nullification of Existing Record of Decision, IAP, and
EIS.--Except as provided in subsection (a), the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of
Decision issued by the Secretary of the Interior and dated
February 21, 2013, including the integrated activity plan and
environmental impact statement referred to in that record of
decision, shall have no force or effect.
SEC. 3006. DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT.
The Secretary of the Interior shall issue regulations not
later than 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-Alaska.
SEC. 3007. DEADLINES UNDER NEW PROPOSED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY
PLAN.
At a minimum, the new proposed integrated activity plan
issued under section 3005(a)(1) shall--
(1) require the Department of the Interior to respond
within 5 business days to a person who submits an application
for a permit for development of oil and natural gas leases in
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska acknowledging receipt
of such application; 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.
SEC. 3008. 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 of 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 IV--BLM LIVE INTERNET AUCTIONS
SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``BLM Live Internet Auctions
Act''.
SEC. 4002. 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 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.
TITLE V--NATIVE AMERICAN ENERGY
SEC. 5001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Native American Energy
Act''.
SEC. 5002. APPRAISALS.
(a) Amendment.--Title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(25 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 2607. APPRAISAL REFORMS.
``(a) Options to Indian Tribes.--With respect to a
transaction involving Indian land or the trust assets of an
Indian tribe that requires the approval of the Secretary, any
appraisal relating to fair market value required to be
conducted under applicable law, regulation, or policy may be
completed by--
``(1) the Secretary;
``(2) the affected Indian tribe; or
``(3) a certified, third-party appraiser pursuant to a
contract with the Indian tribe.
``(b) Time Limit on Secretarial Review and Action.--Not
later than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary
receives an appraisal
[[Page H7222]]
conducted by or for an Indian tribe pursuant to paragraphs
(2) or (3) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
``(1) review the appraisal; and
``(2) provide to the Indian tribe a written notice of
approval or disapproval of the appraisal.
``(c) Failure of Secretary To Approve or Disapprove.--If,
after 60 days, the Secretary has failed to approve or
disapprove any appraisal received, the appraisal shall be
deemed approved.
``(d) Option to Indian Tribes To Waive Appraisal.--
``(1) An Indian tribe wishing to waive the requirements of
subsection (a), may do so after it has satisfied the
requirements of subsections (2) and (3) below.
``(2) An Indian tribe wishing to forego the necessity of a
waiver pursuant to this section must provide to the Secretary
a written resolution, statement, or other unambiguous
indication of tribal intent, duly approved by the governing
body of the Indian tribe.
``(3) The unambiguous indication of intent provided by the
Indian tribe to the Secretary under paragraph (2) must
include an express waiver by the Indian tribe of any claims
for damages it might have against the United States as a
result of the lack of an appraisal undertaken.
``(e) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `appraisal' includes appraisals and other estimates of
value.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall develop regulations
for implementing this section, including standards the
Secretary shall use for approving or disapproving an
appraisal.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13201 note) is amended
by adding at the end of the items relating to title XXVI the
following:
``Sec. 2607. Appraisal reforms.''.
SEC. 5003. STANDARDIZATION.
As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall implement
procedures to ensure that each agency within the Department
of the Interior that is involved in the review, approval, and
oversight of oil and gas activities on Indian lands shall use
a uniform system of reference numbers and tracking systems
for oil and gas wells.
SEC. 5004. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS OF MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS ON
INDIAN LANDS.
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) is amended by inserting ``(a) In
General.--'' before the first sentence, and by adding at the
end the following:
``(b) Review of Major Federal Actions on Indian Lands.--
``(1) In general.--For any major Federal action on Indian
lands of an Indian tribe requiring the preparation of a
statement under subsection (a)(2)(C), the statement shall
only be available for review and comment by the members of
the Indian tribe and by any other individual residing within
the affected area.
``(2) Regulations.--The Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality shall develop regulations to implement
this section, including descriptions of affected areas for
specific major Federal actions, in consultation with Indian
tribes.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, each of the terms
`Indian land' and `Indian tribe' has the meaning given that
term in section 2601 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (25
U.S.C. 3501).
``(4) Clarification of authority.--Nothing in the Native
American Energy Act, except section 5006 of that Act, shall
give the Secretary any additional authority over energy
projects on Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act lands.''.
SEC. 5005. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Time for Filing Complaint.--Any energy related action
must be filed not later than the end of the 60-day period
beginning on the date of the final agency action. Any energy
related action not filed within this time period shall be
barred.
(b) District Court Venue and Deadline.--All energy related
actions--
(1) shall be brought in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia; and
(2) shall be resolved as expeditiously as possible, and in
any event not more than 180 days after such cause of action
is filed.
(c) Appellate Review.--An interlocutory order or final
judgment, decree or order of the district court in an energy
related action may be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals shall resolve such appeal as expeditiously as
possible, and in any event not more than 180 days after such
interlocutory order or final judgment, decree or order of the
district court was issued.
(d) Limitation on Certain Payments.--Notwithstanding
section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, no award may be
made under section 504 of title 5, United States Code, or
under section 2412 of title 28, United States Code, and no
amounts may be obligated or expended from the Claims and
Judgment Fund of the United States Treasury to pay any fees
or other expenses under such sections, to any person or party
in an energy related action.
(e) Legal Fees.--In any energy related action in which the
plaintiff does not ultimately prevail, the court shall award
to the defendant (including any intervenor-defendants), other
than the United States, fees and other expenses incurred by
that party in connection with the energy related action,
unless the court finds that the position of the plaintiff was
substantially justified or that special circumstances make an
award unjust. Whether or not the position of the plaintiff
was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis
of the administrative record, as a whole, which is made in
the energy related action for which fees and other expenses
are sought.
(f) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Agency action.--The term ``agency action'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 551 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Indian land.--The term ``Indian Land'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 203(c)(3) of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58; 25 U.S.C. 3501),
including lands owned by Native Corporations under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203; 43 U.S.C.
1601).
(3) Energy related action.--The term ``energy related
action'' means a cause of action that--
(A) is filed on or after the effective date of this Act;
and
(B) seeks judicial review of a final agency action to issue
a permit, license, or other form of agency permission
allowing:
(i) any person or entity to conduct activities on Indian
Land, which activities involve the exploration, development,
production or transportation of oil, gas, coal, shale gas,
oil shale, geothermal resources, wind or solar resources,
underground coal gasification, biomass, or the generation of
electricity; or
(ii) any Indian Tribe, or any organization of two or more
entities, at least one of which is an Indian tribe, to
conduct activities involving the exploration, development,
production or transportation of oil, gas, coal, shale gas,
oil shale, geothermal resources, wind or solar resources,
underground coal gasification, biomass, or the generation of
electricity, regardless of where such activities are
undertaken.
(4) Ultimately prevail.--The phrase ``ultimately prevail''
means, in a final enforceable judgment, the court rules in
the party's favor on at least one cause of action which is an
underlying rationale for the preliminary injunction,
administrative stay, or other relief requested by the party,
and does not include circumstances where the final agency
action is modified or amended by the issuing agency unless
such modification or amendment is required pursuant to a
final enforceable judgment of the court or a court-ordered
consent decree.
SEC. 5006. TRIBAL BIOMASS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
The Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 is amended by
inserting after section 2 (25 U.S.C. 3115a) the following:
``SEC. 3. TRIBAL BIOMASS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018, the Secretary shall enter into stewardship contracts or
other agreements, other than agreements that are exclusively
direct service contracts, with Indian tribes to carry out
demonstration projects to promote biomass energy production
(including biofuel, heat, and electricity generation) on
Indian forest land and in nearby communities by providing
reliable supplies of woody biomass from Federal land.
``(b) Definitions.--The definitions in section 2 shall
apply to this section.
``(c) Demonstration Projects.--In each fiscal year for
which projects are authorized, the Secretary shall enter into
contracts or other agreements described in subsection (a) to
carry out at least 4 new demonstration projects that meet the
eligibility criteria described in subsection (d).
``(d) Eligibility Criteria.--To be eligible to enter into a
contract or other agreement under this subsection, an Indian
tribe shall submit to the Secretary an application--
``(1) containing such information as the Secretary may
require; and
``(2) that includes a description of--
``(A) the Indian forest land or rangeland under the
jurisdiction of the Indian tribe; and
``(B) the demonstration project proposed to be carried out
by the Indian tribe.
``(e) Selection.--In evaluating the applications submitted
under subsection (c), the Secretary--
``(1) shall take into consideration the factors set forth
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 2(e) of Public Law 108-
278; and whether a proposed demonstration project would--
``(A) increase the availability or reliability of local or
regional energy;
``(B) enhance the economic development of the Indian tribe;
``(C) improve the connection of electric power transmission
facilities serving the Indian tribe with other electric
transmission facilities;
``(D) improve the forest health or watersheds of Federal
land or Indian forest land or rangeland; or
``(E) otherwise promote the use of woody biomass; and
``(2) shall exclude from consideration any merchantable
logs that have been identified by the Secretary for
commercial sale.
``(f) Implementation.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) ensure that the criteria described in subsection (c)
are publicly available by not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of this section; and
``(2) to the maximum extent practicable, consult with
Indian tribes and appropriate intertribal organizations
likely to be affected in developing the application and
otherwise carrying out this section.
``(g) Report.--Not later than September 20, 2015, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that describes,
with respect to the reporting period--
``(1) each individual tribal application received under
this section; and
``(2) each contract and agreement entered into pursuant to
this section.
``(h) Incorporation of Management Plans.--In carrying out a
contract or agreement under this section, on receipt of a
request from an Indian tribe, the Secretary shall incorporate
into the contract or agreement, to the extent practicable,
management plans (including
[[Page H7223]]
forest management and integrated resource management plans)
in effect on the Indian forest land or rangeland of the
respective Indian tribe.
``(i) Term.--A stewardship contract or other agreement
entered into under this section--
``(1) shall be for a term of not more than 20 years; and
``(2) may be renewed in accordance with this section for
not more than an additional 10 years.''.
SEC. 5007. TRIBAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS.
Unless otherwise explicitly exempted by Federal law enacted
after the date of the enactment of this Act, any activity
conducted or resources harvested or produced pursuant to a
tribal resource management plan or an integrated resource
management plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior
under the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (25
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) or the American Indian Agricultural
Resource Management Act (25 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), shall be
considered a sustainable management practice for purposes of
any Federal standard, benefit, or requirement that requires a
demonstration of such sustainability.
SEC. 5008. LEASES OF RESTRICTED LANDS FOR THE NAVAJO NATION.
Subsection (e)(1) of the first section of the Act of August
9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(e)(1); commonly referred to as the
``Long-Term Leasing Act''), is amended--
(1) by striking ``, except a lease for'' and inserting ``,
including leases for'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``25'' the first place
it appears and all that follows and inserting ``99 years;'';
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) in the case of a lease for the exploration,
development, or extraction of mineral resources, including
geothermal resources, 25 years, except that any such lease
may include an option to renew for one additional term not to
exceed 25 years.''.
SEC. 5009. NONAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN RULES.
No rule promulgated by the Department of the Interior
regarding hydraulic fracturing used in the development or
production of oil or gas resources shall have any effect on
any land held in trust or restricted status for the benefit
of Indians except with the express consent of the beneficiary
on whose behalf such land is held in trust or restricted
status.
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 113-271.
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.
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 113-271.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in
order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, line 17, strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert
``$5,000,000''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, 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. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes adjustments in the bill to the
amount of funds authorized to be made available to BLM field offices
for energy permitting. This change is made to ensure the bill meets its
goal of reducing the deficit, not increasing spending.
According to information from the Congressional Budget Office, after
adoption of this amendment the underlying bill would reduce the deficit
by $26 million, while generating more American energy and new jobs for
American workers.
This amendment sets the funding directed to wind and solar energy
permitting in local BLM field offices at $5 million each fiscal year.
Currently, under existing law, no funds get sent to those doing the
work to permit these renewable projects. After the amendment, the
amount to help foster renewable energy on Federal lands is less than
currently in the bill, but is far more than the zero dollars allocated
today.
A vote for this amendment is a vote for an all-of-the-above approach
to American energy. It is a vote for more American-made energy, and it
is a vote to support renewable energy that uses its own funds and not
taxpayers' subsidies; and, Mr. Chairman, it is a vote to reduce the
deficit.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. I wanted to point out a curious, but revealing, point about
this amendment.
In order to get the bill to score properly to fit with the policy of
the Republican Conference, it was necessary to cut $5 million out of
the authorization in the bill.
So where did they go? To cut $5 million out of renewable energy and
let the tens of millions of dollars of authorized funds for the oil and
gas to sit untouched.
But I would really like to address something else that the gentleman
said that has to do with the whole reason we are here today on this
bill instead of doing that important work that Mr. Hoyer spoke of
earlier.
The gentleman talked about how we have to increase the supply of oil
so that we can drive down prices at the pump and talked about how the
policies of President Bush were responsible for the undeniable
increases in onshore oil production.
They say that gas was as much as $4 a gallon in 2008. You know whose
fault that was.
And then, in 2009, it was $2 a gallon.
Did the supply in the United States change that much in 1 year? No.
This shows quite clearly that it is not because of the amount of
drilling on public lands. That has nothing to do with it. It has a
scant effect on the price at the pump.
It is amazing, Mr. Speaker. When confronted with something
uncomfortable, the Republicans always have a convenient excuse.
Gas prices were $4 a gallon in 2008. Oh, that is because Nancy Pelosi
was Speaker of the House.
Gas prices plummet later that year to half that amount. Well, that is
because President Bush said we need to drill more.
Then, gas prices shoot up after John Boehner becomes Speaker of the
House, but that is because President Obama is in office.
And, now, oil production on Federal lands skyrockets under President
Obama, and it is a boom. But that is really because of President Bush.
So if gas prices go down further this year, maybe that is because of,
I don't know, was it Eisenhower or Reagan?
Give me a break.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the
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 amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 113-271.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 9, strike the closing quotation marks and the
following period, and after line 9 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 419, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank Mr. Holt and Mr. Hastings and the Rules
Committee for admitting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we could all engage in discussions about our commitment
to a national energy policy. I would venture to say that we would not
find one Member of this body that was not committed to the idea of
individuals being
[[Page H7224]]
able to have low costs at the pump and to be able to have heat in the
severe winters and air conditioning for those of us in the heat of
summer in places like Texas and elsewhere. We are committed to doing
so.
{time} 1530
I said this earlier this morning on the rule. Let me thank the Rules
Committee for this amendment that has been admitted on my behalf, but
let me also say that we will do better if we come across the aisle and
talk about the issues--again, sustainable environment, sustainable
energy policy, the creation of jobs, and addressing the needs of low-
income families. That is the American way. The American way is also the
ability to petition your government in the system of laws that we have.
My amendment is simple. It indicates that the underlying bill should
not be construed to abridge the right of the people to petition for the
redress of grievances in violation of the first article of the
amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.
It is important to note that there is a $5,000 fee for anyone who
wants to protest the particular structure in this bill, upon aggrieved
parties, to challenge the award by the agency of a lease, of a right-
of-way, of a permit to drill on public lands. This $5,000 fee is
supposed to give comfort because, on the larger entities--the
businesses--it is a $6,500 fee. For many parties, that may adversely
affect the individuals, who would be homeowners, small businesses,
nonprofits, and community organizations. A filing or a documentation
fee of this amount, in many cases, is prohibitive and will discourage
many injured parties from taking the actions necessary to vindicate
their rights.
My amendment seeks to avoid this undesirable result by making it
plain that it is not the intent of Congress to discourage parties from
seeking relief where necessary or to deny access to justice to any
party with a legitimate claim. I ask my colleagues to support this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. The Jackson
Lee Amendment provides that nothing in section 1121 of the bill:
``[S]hall 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.''
Section 1121 amends the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) to
impose a $5,000 ``documentation fee'' upon aggrieved parties to
challenge the award by the agency of a lease, right of way, permit to
drill on public lands.
For many parties that may be adversely affected by these types of
agency actions--individuals, home owners, small businesses, non-profits
and community organizations--a filing or documentation fee of this
amount in many cases is prohibitive and will discourage many injured
parties from taking the action necessary to vindicate their rights.
My amendment seeks to avoid this undesirable result by making plain
that it is not the intent of Congress to discourage parties from
seeking relief where necessary or to deny access to justice to any
party with a legitimate claim.
The Jackson Lee Amendment is intended to provide flexibility to the
agency and the courts in considering a request to waive all or a
portion of the ``documentation fee.''
It does not direct or require the agency to grant such waivers. The
amendment is intended only to permit and encourage such waivers in
appropriate cases.
Mr. Chairman, we should never take for granted the precious and
unique right--even for democracies--of citizens to hold their
government accountable and answerable to the judiciary for redress for
legally cognizable injuries.
As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the
nation, I have always been mindful of the importance and have strongly
advocated for national energy policies that will make our nation more
energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's
economy strong.
I am pro-energy independence, ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-growing economy''
and pro-sustainable environment. As a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee, I am also ``pro-fairness.''
The Jackson Lee Amendment seeks to establish fairness and restore
balance in the application and implementation of this law.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
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.
To be clear, nothing in this act prohibits individuals from asserting
their rights to petition the government. In fact, it would be
ridiculous for us to try to write a statute that would negate the First
Amendment, so nothing in this bill does that at all. Let me talk about
the process here.
The BLM undertakes multiple layers of rulemaking and environmental
review when going through its Federal actions. Nearly every layer of
this process allows for the opportunity for public comments,
involvement, and questions regarding BLM's actions. Nothing, Mr.
Chairman, in this legislation impacts an individual's right to comment,
petition, and object to the actions of BLM under this bill. Nothing, by
the way, in this legislation stops individuals from filing lawsuits.
That is important in this debate on this amendment.
H.R. 1965 simply implements a cost recovery fee for the formal
process of filing protests of oil and gas leasing. These formal
protests require a direct BLM response, using staff time, energy, and
resources to address what is, simply, often a delaying tactic. This
paperwork recovery fee will ensure that BLM has the resources necessary
to address the protests but that it has the necessary resources to
carry out the functions of the Bureau of Land Management, which is for
multipurpose use in this country.
So it is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I oppose this
amendment, because it does not add anything to what people already have
a constitutional right to do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I take issue with my good friend from
Washington State.
This bill has a $5,000 documentation fee on the stage of protest and
petition. Obviously, our good friends on the industry side don't even
pay anything to nominate land, but it is a $5,000 barrier.
My friend refers to the administrative process. I am a lawyer. It is
under the APA code. That is different from being able to go to a higher
level and to be able to comment under the Federal Register and write
that ``I don't like this,'' and then you are ruled against anyhow. Then
your next level of protest is to be able to protest at the level that
requires you to pay $5,000, not even $1,000. We are scoring this, and
we are doing it on the backs of citizens.
My amendment does make sense because what it says is that we are
committed as a Congress not to block people from being able to have an
equal opportunity to protest. They may not prevail, Mr. Chairman, but
they should have an equal opportunity.
I believe it would be senseless for Republicans and Democrats not to
go on record to say that we support the opportunity for protest and
petition. I am pro-energy independence, pro-jobs, pro-growing the
economy, pro-fairness, pro-sustainable environment, and I believe that
there are opportunities for us to come together. We haven't listened to
each other. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) just made some
very important statements. I am making a statement about the idea.
I believe it is egregious to have a $5,000 fee on individuals--
nonprofits, farmers, ranchers, neighbors, et cetera. I will say to you,
if you want to understand what it means, in my town, there is a group
going to court to fight against a high-rise. That high-rise, Mr.
Chairman, went through every process--the planning commission, the city
council--and they were rejected, but they are going into a lawsuit.
They happen to be a little bit more prosperous. Farmers, ranchers, and
others who are having to pay $5,000 and neighbors who are having to pay
$5,000, I simply think that is excessive.
My colleagues, since the amendment that I had was to eliminate the
$5,000, I welcome a compromise of $1,000; but I offer this simple
statement that what we do today 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 the amendment, and it protects the
Fifth Amendment as well, which is due process--the right to protect
your property.
[[Page H7225]]
Frankly, I believe that it is extremely important because there are
entities that are near Federal lands.
So, with a generosity of spirit, I would ask my colleagues to support
the Jackson Lee amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, this bill has nothing to do with high-
rises, so we should set that apart, and I know the gentlelady was using
that as an example.
I have to say this in a larger sense, which is that, in the time that
I have had the privilege to chair this committee, we have seen over and
over and over what I would call ``frivolous action'' by people with
lawsuits who are trying to slow down the process. The gentlelady used
her example of high-rises in Houston. I will use another example that,
I think, this House needs to address, and that is the issue of the
Endangered Species Act and how it affects development in other parts of
the country.
In setting that aside for now, this bill simply says that, in going
through the process, there should be something up front if you are
serious about your issue. It is nothing more than that. This is a
modest way to say, if people are serious about the actions that they
are trying to take, then there ought to be nothing more than some skin
in the game. That is what this bill does. This amendment would take
that out. That is why I oppose the amendment and why I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 113-271.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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 12, beginning at line 20, strike section 1132.
Beginning at page 16, line 24, strike ``, except that'' and
all that follows through page 17, line 2 and insert a period.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The amendment I offer today maintains the Interior Department's
ability to review oil and gas activities for significant impacts on
public health and safety, among other extraordinary circumstances.
While predictable, it is unfortunate that the majority again and
again is willing to throw out basic health and safety protections in
order to speed up oil and gas extractions for industry. Whether it is
in this oil and gas industry bill today, in last week's mining industry
bill, or in tomorrow's natural gas industry bill, the majority's common
theme is that of getting rid of transparency and protections for public
health and safety and of threatening our environment in the name of
increased profits for industry.
This is not okay with me. This is not why I came to Washington.
The oil and gas industry is the most profitable in the world, and the
rates of domestic extraction have increased under the Obama
administration. ExxonMobil reported a net income of over $44 billion in
2012. I know it and Wall Street knows it, and their balance sheets
prove it. These companies are doing fine. So why are we stripping our
oversight agencies and the ability of the public to ensure that
extraction is done responsibly and not at the expense of the welfare of
this and future generations? I think it is shortsighted; I think it is
irresponsible; and I think it is wrong.
H.R. 1965, as it is currently written, would prevent the Interior
Department from reviewing oil and gas activities that would otherwise
qualify for skipping the National Environmental Policy Act for
extraordinary circumstances.
Section 390 of the Energy and Policy Act of 2005 allows certain
qualifying oil and gas activities to potentially skip a full NEPA
process through a categorical exclusion. Title 43 of section 46.205 of
the Code of Federal Regulations requires that the Interior Department
test for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded
action may have a significant environmental effect and require
additional analysis and action. Title 43 of section 46.215 of the Code
of Federal Regulations goes on to list the types of extraordinary
circumstances to be tested before proceeding with a categorical
exclusion for the oil and gas activity.
Thus, before the Interior Department bypasses NEPA, this is what it
currently checks for:
Are there significant impacts upon public health or safety? Are there
violations of Federal, State, local, or tribal law? Are there limits to
access and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites? Is there the
introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or of
nonnative invasive species? It also lists eight other potential
significant problems.
This is what the existing law and regulation does. It helps to
protect the public and the environment during oil and gas activities.
Simply speaking, H.R. 1965 eliminates these protections. My amendment
would simply preserve them, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This amendment would increase regulatory red tape and opportunities
for frivolous lawsuits to stop what we are trying to do here--American
energy production and job creation. It would achieve the exact opposite
of what our Nation needs and what the bill provides.
H.R. 1965 seeks to streamline and expedite the onshore oil and gas
and renewable permitting process, and it does so in a safe and
responsible way. This amendment would simply reinject the same
uncertainty and bureaucracy into the permitting process that this
legislation seeks to do away with.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Mr. Chairman, established in a broad,
bipartisan fashion the use of categorical exclusions for energy
projects in specific and limited circumstances. This provision was
intended to expedite the permit approvals of certain energy projects on
disturbed land, on operations with a small footprint, or in areas that
were previously approved in recent years. Again, the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 was a bipartisan attempt, and this provision which I just
described was part of the 2005 Act.
{time} 1545
These pro-energy reforms are designed to allow minor actions that do
not significantly affect the environment to move forward without the
burdensome and lengthy full costly environmental review.
To the point the gentleman is making and what the gentleman's
amendment addresses, this legislation clarifies the Department's
ability to use the categorical exclusion tool to quickly permit energy
projects. This amendment, unfortunately, would require the Department
of the Interior to unreasonably review what we call ``extraordinary
circumstances'' which require additional NEPA reviews, thereby
essentially negating any value from expediting a project and inserting
more certainty into an already uncertain energy permitting process.
The intent of this legislation is to streamline and simplify projects
that are held up, often for years, in bureaucratic red tape and
regulatory uncertainty. This amendment backtracks
[[Page H7226]]
from the goal by injecting more bureaucracy and regulatory hurdles into
the process.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think this amendment adds anything to what we
are trying to accomplish. In fact, I think it goes the other way. It
goes the other way in such a way that negates what the Energy Act of
2005 in a bipartisan manner said.
I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington is saying that, if we
remove the extraordinary circumstances part of seeing whether, in fact,
we grant a categorical exemption--what my amendment does by saying
``no'' is that the public must have an opportunity, if we are going to
grant an exemption, which we think is fine, but what is wrong with
finding out whether there is going to be a significant impact on health
and safety? What is wrong with finding out if there is going to be a
violation of State, Federal, local, or tribal law? What is wrong with
understanding what are the limits to access to ceremonial use of sacred
sites? He says that by asking these questions before we give an
exemption, that this imposes regulatory red tape that is exactly the
opposite of what the Nation needs, it is more bureaucracy.
It is just the opposite. This protects the Nation. This allows us to
understand, when we are given a categorical exemption, that we are
protecting the public health of the Nation.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Notwithstanding what my good friend from California said, I just want
to make this point, which ironically was not brought out at all in the
gentleman's argument. That is the issue of categorical exclusion.
That has been in place on energy projects now for 8 years. If there
is something wrong with that or there is an example of where it has
been abused, then maybe the gentleman has a case, but the gentleman
didn't speak at all--not at all--to the point that that provision in
the 2005 Energy Act has been abused. That alone should be enough to
reject this amendment.
In any case, I do not believe that his amendment adds to what we are
trying to do to streamline the process of energy creation and creating
American energy jobs.
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 California (Mr. Lowenthal).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 113-271.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 15, beginning at line 4, strike section 1147.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I again thank the managers, Mr. Holt and Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Chairman, I again make the same comment about what I have heard
on this floor from Members on both sides of the aisle: that they are
pro-energy policy, pro-environment, pro-jobs, pro-sustainable
environment. They simply want an opportunity to work on legislation to
activate or to ensure that that occurs.
There is a prohibition contained in section 1147 of this legislation
with respect to the recovery of attorney fees and costs by a prevailing
party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. My amendment removes
the prohibition, a prohibition that has been established law for a very
long time.
This amendment is needed to level the playing field and conform the
bill to current law and practice. I think that if we listen to each
other, it will be a simple answer of ``yes'' if we ask any citizen
should they have a right to sue, and if they prevail under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, that they are able to get attorney fees.
I think the answer, when clear heads would respond, is not whether it
is an energy bill or not, or who the defendant is; they would say, Why
shouldn't this bill be subjected to the law that exists?
The Equal Access to Justice Act allows individuals, small businesses,
and nonprofits to recover attorney fees from the Federal Government.
This act is used to vindicate a variety of Federal rights, including
access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits, as
well as to secure statutory environmental protections.
Therefore, to eliminate that is again to cut into--to cut into--the
very Bill of Rights of your right to petition, to the right to counsel,
all of that, because it indicates that you have a right to prevail in
attorney fees.
It is a simple process that does not undermine, if you will, the
question of the energy policy in the United States.
If we look at the first poster, we will acknowledge the fact that,
interestingly enough, the average amount of money under these cases was
$1.8 million annually over the last 8 years. The EPA only paid out
$280,000 annually over the last 5 years. I venture to say with the
average payment of $100,000 this is not busting the bank. This is
allowing citizens who prevail to be able to have attorney fees. I
clearly believe that the legislation that we have warrants a fix, a
fair fix, to be able to ensure that anyone that has a disagreement post
the administrative process and goes into court can, in fact, utilize.
This is one that shows that, in fact, local environmental groups and
national environmental groups are no more than others. The largest
amount goes to various State governments, individuals, various unions
and workers that got a minimal amount or may not have even prevailed.
So I think it is important to recognize that this is not one that is
going to destroy this bill, it is going to enhance the bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment removes the prohibition contained in
Section 1147 with respect to the recovery of attorney fees and costs by
a prevailing party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (5
U.S.C. Sec. 504 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412).
This amendment is needed to level the playing field and conform the
bill to current law and practice.
For more than three decades, since its enactment in 1980, the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has enhanced parties' ability to hold
government agencies accountable for their actions and inaction.
EAJA allows individuals, small businesses and nonprofits to recover
attorney fees from the federal government.
The EAJA is used to vindicate a variety of federal rights, including
access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits, as
well as to secure statutory environmental protections.
The EAJA promotes public involvement in laws have a significant
impact on the public health and safety such as the National
Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
EAJA also helps deter government inaction or erroneous conduct and
encourages all parties, not just those with resources to hire legal
counsel, to assert their rights.
Mr. Chairman, fee awards under the EAJA are NOT available in any and
every case. Rather, attorneys' fees are only recoverable in cases where
plaintiffs prevail and the government cannot demonstrate that its legal
position was ``substantially justified.''
The amount of attorney fees awarded cannot exceed $125 per hour, a
figure is far below the amount currently charged by big city law firms.
No law firm or public interest group is getting rich off a practice
relying upon EAJA awards for its attorney fees.
[[Page H7227]]
A new report, Shifting the Debate: In Defense of the Equal Access to
Justice Act, concludes that EAJA has been cost-effective, applies only
to meritorious litigation and that existing legal safeguards and the
independent discretion of federal judges will continue to ensure its
prudent application.
Moreover, the claim that large environmental groups are getting rich
on attorney fees simply is not supported by available evidence.
A recent GAO study (requested by House Republicans) of cases brought
against EPA found: most environment lawsuits (48%) were brought by
trade associations and private companies; attorney fees were awarded
only about eight percent of the time; among environmental plaintiffs,
the majority of cases were brought by local groups rather than national
groups; and the average award under the EAJA was only about $100,000.
In reality, EAJA ``reforms'' would have the effect of watering down
the implementation and enforcement of law enacted to protect the public
health and safety.
Much has been made about environmental groups obtaining fees in suits
that are ``merely'' procedural.
Both public-interest and industry litigants agree that ``procedural''
litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act is essential to
checking executive power on a range of issues.
Additionally, it should be pointed out that procedural requirements
and deadlines contained in environmental laws are paramount to ensuring
the protections that Congress has enacted.
Indeed, in the case of the National Environmental Policy Act, the
nation's foundational environmental statute, following sound procedure
is the entire point of the law.
NEPA requires agencies to take a ``hard look'' at the consequences of
their actions and to carefully consider alternatives, but compels no
particular outcomes.
Mr. Chairman, the provision in the bill that prohibits recovery of
attorney fees under the EAJA is not ``reform''; it is a step backwards.
Instead of providing an important tool by which the public can hold
the federal government accountable for its actions, Section 1147 wold
deny the benefit of this proven accountability tool to unwelcome legal
challenges and to prejudice a subset of disfavored plaintiffs.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
JACKSON LEE AMENDMENT #4
1. EAJA attorney fees awards do not cost a lot of money
According to GAO, the EAJA attorney fees paid to successful
plaintiffs on average: by the Treasury Department: $1.8 million
annually over the last 8 years; by EPA: $280,000 annually over the last
5 years; average Payment: $100,000.
2. EAJA attorney fees awards are infrequently awarded
Attorney fees were awarded only about eight percent (8%) of the time
according to a July 2013 report by the Environmental Law Institute,
``The Environmental Relevance of the Equal Access to Justice Act.''
3. Most environmental cases are brought by industry trade
associations and private companies
In August 2011 GAO conducted study of cases brought against EPA and
found: most suits were brought by trade associations and private
companies; and, among environmental plaintiffs, the majority of cases
were brought by local groups rather than national groups.
4. Largest EAJA attorney fees have been awarded in actions brought by
industry trade group plaintiffs, private companies, and state or local
government agencies
$500,000: National Cotton Council;
$150,000: Honeywell International, Inc.;
$95,000: National Pork Producers Council & American Farm Bureau;
$92,000. American Trucking Association;
$22,000: American Corn Growers Association.
$400,000: State of New Jersey;
$100,000: State of North Carolina;
$127,500: Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
$198,000: State of New York;
$240,000: South Coast Air Quality Management District (Calif.).
In August 2011 GAO conducted a study of cases brought against EPA and
found:
1. most suits were brought by trade associations and private
companies; and
2. among environmental plaintiffs, the majority of cases were brought
by local groups rather than national groups.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of environmental cases by lead plaintiff Number of
type: FY 1995-2010 by type of group cases Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trade associations............................... 622 25
Private companies................................ 566 23
Local environmental and citizens' groups......... 388 16
National environmental groups.................... 338 14
States, territories, municipalities, and regional 297 12
government entities.............................
Individuals...................................... 185 7
Unions, workers' groups, universities, and tribes 46 2
Other............................................ 33 1
Unknown.......................................... 7 1
----------------------
Total........................................ 2,482 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On average, EAJA attorney fees paid to successful plaintiffs:
Treasury: $1.8 million annually over the last 8 years;
EPA: $280,000 annually over the last 5 years; average payment:
$100,000.
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, as I say, I rise to oppose this amendment.
The Equal Access to Justice Act, or the EAJA, was created, rightfully
so, to level the playing field between citizens seeking to do the right
thing and a well-funded Federal Government. Unfortunately, wealthy
activist groups have been able to distort the intended purpose of the
EAJA by exploiting the program as a cash register to file thousands of
lawsuits, many based on frivolous technicalities.
Further, Federal payments to lawyers fighting lawsuits come out of
each agency's budgets, which, of course, hinders the agency's ability
to do their job and forces tighter budgets on the agencies working on
behalf of Americans.
Every year, numerous energy projects are held up by burdensome legal
challenges by activist groups whose aim is to hold up or simply stop
energy production in this country.
Under the guise of ``responsible development,'' these groups file
lawsuit after lawsuit that force the government to use Federal
resources and millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to litigate these
lengthy and burdensome lawsuits. These well-funded activist groups have
the resources to hire, in some cases, multiple lawyers to sue the
Federal Government.
These unnecessary delays in energy projects result in a domino effect
of delays in economic development, of delays, obviously, in job
creation, of delays in income generation for local, State, and, indeed,
the Federal Government, and delays in making the United States becoming
energy independent.
Further, many small communities depend on a robust energy sector to
provide jobs for its residents and generate income for their local
schools and for their communities. These well-funded activist
organizations should not be rewarded, Mr. Chairman, with taxpayer
dollars for delaying American job creation and the generation of funds
for our local communities.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear that the awards
under the EAJA are not available for any and every case. Only when the
plaintiff prevails. Is that not fair?
When an individual, a nonprofit, who has sought to even the playing
field, who wants to make sure that we have a strong energy policy but
they are praying that you listen to them as to how it is destroying
their property, their house, their quality of life, they have a right
to petition.
So I want to correct the gentleman's interpretation. I heard on the
floor of the House that he mentioned the word ``frivolous.'' As a
lawyer, and one who adheres to the Constitution, I would like to not
think that if you are concerned about an issue, that you cannot get
into the court of justice and that you cannot make your case. You may
not win, but I want to surprise him with the fact that the large number
of cases that went under this act and sued the EPA were trade
associations--622; private companies--556. There are a variety of
others, not collectively together. State territories and
municipalities--297. Should they not recover if they prevail? Should
environmental groups not recover if they prevail--only at 388? Should
individuals at 185 cases not prevail if they win? Should workers groups
and universities and tribes not prevail if they should win?
I think that we are wrongheaded if we simply do not adhere to the
existing law; not use the terminology ``frivolous'' but applaud
Americans who are willing to stand up for their rights.
[[Page H7228]]
My example was correct. It was an analogy. These homeowners are
fighting Big Business, but what they decided to do is, after they were
ruled against by every administrative local body, they have gone into
the courthouse. They happen to be more prosperous than someone else,
but why would you fault an individual who is using their meager pennies
with an attorney to try and prevail on something that they believe will
harm them?
My amendment is very simple. It just indicates, if you prevail, you
should not be denied the attorney fees that anyone else would get and,
if you will, debunks and rebuts the proposition that only those groups
that we might not enjoy their position--trade associations, private big
companies--I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment for
fairness and justice in America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
I would just simply say that what this bill and the bill tomorrow,
for that matter--this bill is designed to create an atmosphere for more
American energy production, which I think is badly needed in our
economy, because we know that a growing economy by any measure has to
have a predictable energy source. That has been lacking on our Federal
lands. That is what the underlying bill does.
What we have seen, and what we have observed in our committee, is the
fact that the courtroom is used to slow down so many projects on
Federal land. This provision in the current bill simply, I think,
clarifies and rectifies that we can have some certainty in the law.
That, I think, is the important part of creating American energy. I
don't think that this amendment adds anything to that.
I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
{time} 1600
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 113-271.
Ms. HANABUSA. 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 25, on line 15, strike ``and'', on line 20, strike the
period and insert ``; and'', and after line 20 insert the
following:
``(H) the best estimate, based upon commercial and
scientific data, of the expected increase in domestic
production of geothermal, solar, wind, or other renewable
energy sources from `available lands' (as such term is
defined in section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act,
1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.), and including any other lands
deemed by the Territory or State of Hawaii, as the case may
be, to be included within that definition) that the agency or
department of the government of the State of Hawaii that is
responsible for the administration of such lands selects to
be used for such energy production.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is nearly identical to one I proposed
last Congress to a similar Natural Resources bill numbered H.R. 4480,
which was agreed to by a voice vote.
This amendment simply adds to title II, the Planning for America
Energy Act of 2013, a subsection (h), which essentially mirrors the
language found in a prior subsection addressing Native American tribal
lands. This particular amendment requires the inclusion of Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act lands.
As you know, Hawaii is in a unique situation in that, in 1920, this
Congress created the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act; and there is a
special body of approximately 203,000 acres of land which is under the
control of Congress. Congress approves whether or not things can be
amended in the act. Even upon statehood, that right was retained.
This amendment seeks to have those Hawaiian Home lands that the State
agency or department responsible for the administration of these lands
has selected to be used for the very development of geothermal, solar,
wind, and other renewable energy sources included in the Quadrennial
Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy. It has no implications
other than the fact that these lands could be used for renewable energy
development and that these lands have somehow become forgotten, but do
necessarily fall under Federal jurisdiction.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. HANABUSA. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have no problem with your amendment. As
you rightfully said, in the last Congress this was accepted by a voice
vote. I think it adds more lands for energy production; and as the
gentlelady knows, we are in favor of that. So we accept the
gentlelady's amendment.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Marino
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 113-271.
Mr. MARINO. 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 26, after line 4, insert the following:
``(6) The Secretary shall include in the Strategy a plan
for addressing new demands for transmission lines and
pipelines for distribution of oil and gas across Federal
lands to ensure that energy produced can be distributed to
areas of need.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Study after study proves that pipelines are the safest, most
environmentally friendly, and most efficient method for transporting
oil and natural gas. A company in my district tried to expand a current
pipeline or build a new pipeline through a recreation area, but was
unable to do so because of bureaucratic red tape and mess.
Instead of expanding a pipeline that was in the ground before the
recreation area was created, the company had to loop the pipeline
around the recreation area in order to provide natural gas to residents
in New Jersey. This forced the company to add seven additional miles of
pipeline, even though it would be more environmentally friendly to
build a pipeline through the park. Yet the level of bureaucratic red
tape in trying to construct oil and gas pipelines through Federal lands
is nothing short of ludicrous.
My amendment wouldn't solve the problem we experienced in my
district; however, this amendment takes a small step in addressing the
difficulties in constructing pipelines by requiring the Secretary of
the Interior to include a plan for addressing new demands for
transmission lines and pipelines for distribution of oil and gas across
Federal lands to ensure that energy produced can be distributed to
areas of need.
Common sense tells us that without the necessary pipeline
infrastructure to transport the energy, it will be much more difficult
to meet America's future oil and gas demands.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARINO. I yield to the gentleman.
[[Page H7229]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank the gentleman for
bringing this amendment to the floor. I think it adds a great deal to
what we are trying to do with energy development in this country, and I
am prepared to accept the amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding
to me.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Polis
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 113-271.
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:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. _01. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF FLOODING ON OIL AND GAS
FACILITIES.
The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under which
the Academy shall study and report to the Congress on the
effect of flooding on oil and gas facilities, and the
resulting instances of leaking and spills from tanks, wells,
and pipelines.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, 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 such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment along with Representative Huffman
from California. It is a very simple amendment. It would require the
National Academy of Sciences to study and report to Congress about the
impact of flooding on oil and gas facilities and the resulting
instances of leaking and spills from tanks, wells, and pipelines.
Sadly, this is an issue that hits very close to home. In my district
in Colorado, we recently suffered from the great flood of 2013. Many
counties in my district were declared Federal disaster areas. Many of
those counties are also home to significant extraction operations.
Floods can happen anywhere, and this one occurred well outside of a
floodplain; but it is important to understand how to minimize damage to
oil and gas infrastructure in the event of a flood. Constituents in my
district in Colorado are rebuilding. We are working hard, and we wish
we had the kind of information that this study would produce years
before the flood so we could have better prepared with regard to our
oil and gas infrastructure and the safeguards around it.
We do know a few things about the impact of the floods so far with
regard to oil and gas facilities in northern and northeastern Colorado.
Over 43,000 gallons of oil and 26,000 gallons of produced water have
spilled from the tanks, wells, and pipelines in the floodwater.
If we learn a lot from this experience, I hope that future areas
impacted by flooding, as well as ours, because we never know whether
the next flood is decades or years or centuries away, will be able to
avoid these kinds of spills in our communities.
On September 25, I did join Representative DeFazio in sending a
letter to Chairman Hastings requesting a hearing to understand the
consequences resulting from the flood. I continue to hope that the
gentleman will be open to scheduling that hearing with regard to the
impact of flooding, or perhaps more generally disasters, and how we can
better safeguard our oil and gas infrastructure in this country.
The floods in Colorado did shed a light on the need to better
understand how we can safeguard our oil and gas infrastructure from
disasters generally and, in our case, a terrible flood that had seven
confirmed fatalities and hundreds of millions of dollars of property
damage.
We would all benefit from learning more about how disasters like the
Colorado flood can impact communities, States, and, indeed, the Federal
Government. Local elected officials, first responders, experts in oil
and gas technology innovation, and the Academy of Sciences can help
enhance our understanding of how to prevent damage to oil and gas
infrastructure and avert spills and leaks in other communities. We
don't want our communities to have to learn the hard way, as ours has
done. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
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, in light of the recent flooding in the gentleman's home
State of Colorado, I can appreciate his concern about this issue.
However, this amendment contains no restrictions on the scope and
breadth of this study, and it seems to be endless. In fact, the study
is not focused on the tragic flooding in Colorado, and it is so
expansive it can include all flooding anywhere, and the term ``oil and
gas'' facilities is undefined. That is what the amendment says.
``Oil and gas'' facilities could be interpreted to mean many things,
much of which is outside of the jurisdiction of this committee. This
could include corner gasoline stations or private gas meters. And
``leaking and spills from tanks, wells, and pipelines'' does not have
to be associated with natural gas. It can be anything, such as a septic
or water or sewer tanks and pipelines.
Further, this amendment does not specify that the study be conducted
in conjunction with production on Federal land, which of course is what
this legislation specifically deals with. The result is a nationwide
study that can touch a variety of sources, right down to private homes,
the results of which will have nothing to do with the energy production
process that this legislation seeks to streamline.
This study, undoubtedly at the expense of taxpayer dollars, will have
no impact on energy production; and, frankly, it has no clear goal.
Finally, the proper place to examine the effects of flooding in
Colorado is in Colorado. In testing done by the Colorado State
Department of Public Health and the Environment, they found pollutants
from oil and gas in the aftermath of the spills at 29 specific sites,
but no pollutants in Colorado's waterways. However, the incidence of E.
coli and raw sewage was measurable and did have an impact on public
health, which is not limited to one industry and is not even covered by
this study.
Mr. Chairman, for a variety of reasons, and I think I have tried to
touch on the major ones that I just enunciated, I urge rejection of
this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, again, regarding the language of the
amendment, of course it is not designed to apply narrowly to Colorado.
That would be considered an earmark, prohibited under the rules of the
House. In addition, it is not designed just to serve the needs of my
district.
This amendment is designed to learn from this so other areas of the
country don't go through the same damage from flooding to our oil and
gas infrastructure that occurred in my district.
The language is very limiting with regard to the report to Congress,
very boilerplate language that we have used for other studies which
have been successfully accomplished by the Academy of Sciences,
reporting to Congress ``on the effect of flooding on oil and gas
facilities, and the resulting instances of leaking and spills from
tanks, wells, and pipelines,'' precisely what has occurred as a result
of the flooding in Colorado and could, of course, occur as a result of
flooding in other areas of the country that have a significant presence
of the extraction industry.
I hope that my colleagues will support this measure that Mr. Huffman
and I have brought forward. I think it would be a commonsense report
that would be of great value to this Congress in protecting our
infrastructure and our environment from the impact of flooding.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the author
of this legislation.
[[Page H7230]]
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the full committee chairman for
yielding me this time.
I want to applaud and commend my colleague from Colorado for his
concern and thoughtfulness to the people impacted in Colorado, many of
which were in his and Representative Cory Gardner's district, some even
further south in my district where there was, unfortunately, some loss
of life also. So we all share that same concern.
{time} 1615
To put things in perspective, though, when we look at the oil and gas
impact of the flooding, there was no hydraulic fracturing going on
during the flooding, and the spillage that was later determined to have
taken place was relatively minor. There were about 1,000 barrels of oil
and gas spilled, with about 400 barrels of production water. That is
about 1,500 barrels, which is about 62,000 gallons. To put that in
perspective, this was considered a 1 trillion-gallon rainfall in a
period of 7 days or so. That would amount to more than that every
second. Every single second would have 67,000 barrels of river flow. So
1 second's worth of oil and gas in the entire horrific rainfall, I
think, puts things in perspective.
So I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It is a lot broader
than just the Federal lands that this legislation talks about, and so
it goes beyond the scope of the legislation and I don't think it is
really called for.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. LAMBORN. Just to conclude, when you put things in perspective, I
think that there were a lot more serious issues with the flooding, some
of which continue to today and will continue far into the future. Those
are the issues we should really concentrate on.
For that reason, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I do want to again elaborate a little bit.
The gentleman from Washington brought up germaneness and jurisdictional
issues.
This amendment has been advanced to the floor by the Rules Committee
with the necessary waivers granted, so it does not need to go through
any other committee. It is here for the full House to consider. I
appreciate it being included in the rule. I encourage Members to make
the decision on the merits. It has been granted the necessary waivers
to be considered on the House floor. Again, I do think this study would
be of value to Congress, if, in fact, the 43,000 gallons of oil don't
represent any kind of danger or risk that will be included in the
report.
The National Academy of Sciences will have access to the information
that we as policymakers will need and my State will need for future
planning and other States that have an extraction industry will benefit
from in the event of a flood. This can save the health of people, it
can save lives, and it can save costly infrastructure in the oil and
gas industry. It is a commonsense measure, a useful study.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
As I mentioned in my initial remarks, this amendment really is very
broadly written. And when we had other amendments talking about
potential lawsuits, boy, adopting this amendment here would really be a
litigant's dream if it were to be part of the legislation.
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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 113-271.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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 the bill, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 6001. CERTAIN REVENUES GENERATED BY THIS ACT TO BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION TO LIMIT EXCESSIVE SPECULATION IN
ENERGY MARKETS.
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. REVENUES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMODITY
FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION.
``(a) Establishment of Treasury Account.--The Secretary of
the Treasury (in this section referred to as the `Secretary')
shall establish an account in the Treasury of the United
States.
``(b) Deposit Into Account of Certain Revenues Generated by
This Act.--The Secretary shall deposit into the account
established under subsection (a) the first $10,000,000 of the
total of the amounts received by the United States under
leases issued under this Act or any plan, strategy, or
program under this Act.
``(c) Availability and Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amounts in
the account established under subsection (a) shall be made
available to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use
its existing authorities to limit excessive speculation in
energy markets.
``(2) Subject to appropriations.--The authority provided in
paragraph (1) may be exercised only to such extent, and with
respect to such amounts, as are provided in advance in
appropriations Acts.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, much of the majority's argument here is
based on providing relief to the American consumer, and this amendment
would provide a real and potentially immediate relief to American
consumers.
Two years ago in the Senate, in the spring when we were having a big
run-up in oil prices, they had the head of Exxon Mobil testify. He
said, Hey, don't blame us for those high prices. He said, Blame Wall
Street. He basically said that 60 cents to 70 cents per gallon at the
pump is going to Wall Street speculators. So if we want to provide real
relief to the American people, we need to rein in speculation.
But the Republicans only have one watchdog out there--the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission. They are supposed to set up position limits
for nonparticipants, people just speculating on price, not people
actually utilizing these commodities. That hasn't been done, and they
are otherwise under relenting attack, including a $10 million cut in
their budget by the Republicans.
So if we really wanted to do something to help consumers, we would
pass this amendment, get a few more watchdogs downtown, put in place
those position limits on speculators, and next May you wouldn't see
prices run up $1, $1.25, $1.50 a gallon like we see every May. That has
to do with two things: refinery manipulation by the industry and
speculation by Wall Street. We are not addressing either of those
things.
Today, we are talking about putting more land up for leasing. And
today, we have a total of 35,397,010 acres of active leases, and the
nonproducing leases are 30,019,256, i.e., that is about 85 percent of
the leases that are nonproducing leases.
They have got plenty of places to go now. It is in their interest to
constrain supply somewhere along the way. It hasn't been on the side of
production because we are exporting crude oil. We are still exporting
gasoline, even. It has been on the refinery side and has been
speculation by Wall Street that has driven up the price.
I urge adoption of this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
[[Page H7231]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear that I
do oppose this amendment.
This amendment is costly and wasteful. The amendment would redirect
$10 billion away from Federal permitting streamlining, which we know
would help lower costs and produce more energy, and instead funnel the
money to another fruitless study of the unfounded position of somehow
market speculation is impacting energy prices.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, researchers Christopher Knittel and
Robert S. Pindyck from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan
School of Management, MIT, found that speculation wasn't driving up
energy prices. I will quote them, Mr. Chairman.
Back to those pesky speculators for a moment: surely, their
bets on oil have had at least some effect on prices?
According to our latest research, the answer is: not
really. In our recent paper, we explore the link between
speculation and inventory changes. We calculate a series of
speculation-free prices by creating a stable inventory of
oil, providing us with a picture of what the market might
look like in the absence of speculation. We focus on
inventory for a simple reason: if oil prices are changing
because of speculators, then there would have to be
commensurate changes to inventories--a buildup when prices
are increasing and a drawdown when prices are falling.
But when the economy was strong and oil prices were
increasing, we didn't see large increases in inventories. In
fact, they fell somewhat. This means that peak prices would
have actually been higher if you take away any effects of
speculation.
And let me repeat that final part:
But when the economy was strong and oil prices were
increasing, we didn't see large increases in inventories. In
fact, they fell somewhat. This means that peak prices would
have actually been higher if you take away any effects of
speculation.
Time and time again, we have heard from those opposed to oil and gas
drilling that it is the shady Wall Street speculator, the man behind
the curtain who is driving up energy prices. The truth is that the best
way to fight speculators, or foreign cartels, is simply to outproduce
them, and that should be our solution here today.
We should be working to figure out how to use more than just 2
percent of our Federal lands for energy development. We should find a
way to have Federal lands keep pace with private lands in the
revolution of energy production as currently taking place in the United
States. Yet the Congressional Research Service tells us:
All of the increase from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year
2012 took place on non-Federal lands, and the Federal share
of total U.S. crude oil production fell by about 7 percentage
points.
Yet, instead of reversing this trend, streamlining permitting, the
author of this amendment wants to siphon off money for studies.
The legislation before us today is designed to streamline and produce
more onshore energy production. This will create jobs and reduce our
dependence on foreign imports. It demands an all-of-the-above energy
agenda, and I would like to think that the folks on the other side
could at least embrace that part of it.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support the
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment today, which helps ensure that our derivatives regulator can
protect our financial markets and economy. This amendment improves the
funding situation of the CFTC by giving back $10 million that my
Republican colleagues proposed to cut earlier this year.
Many Americans are unaware that the CFTC is charged with enforcing
laws designed to thwart Wall Street from manipulating the cost of
commodities, which affects the price at the pump and the cost of food
on our plates. Just as importantly, the CFTC has been tasked with
writing and enforcing rules reforming the financial markets and
participants like AIG that contributed to the worst financial crisis
since the Great Depression.
For these reforms to have teeth, we need a cop with the resources and
staff to hold the financial industry accountable. And yet, despite the
overwhelming need, House Republicans want to cut the CFTC's budget,
deciding this year to provide the CFTC a funding level that is 40
percent below the President's request. This funding level is in
addition to sequester cuts, which have caused temporary staff layoffs
as well as the agency-wide closure for 2 weeks during the Republican
shutdown.
Mr. Chairman, we are witnessing a multifaceted effort by the
Republican majority to undercut laws and regulations with which
Republicans and certain special interests disagree, halting Dodd-Frank
rulemaking through litigation and legislation, while simultaneously
depriving our market cops of resources.
The DeFazio amendment is a first step towards countering this
offensive, by funding Wall Street's cop, at a minimum, with the same
resources as last year.
I thank my thoughtful friend from Oregon and urge adoption of this
amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if
the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, according to MIT, then, the head of Exxon
Mobil perjured himself under oath at the Senate and the Federal Reserve
Bank in St. Louis is wrong because they have an in-depth study not paid
for by the industry that says, indeed, speculation is a major factor.
Here is over 1 month where you see the price vary by up to $11 per
day.Now, you tell me that the supply changed by $11 worth in a day and
then, whoops, the next day it is back down? Then, Ben Bernanke said he
saw a further decline coming and the industry tanked oil futures by $6.
This is pure speculation. Don't defend it. Support the amendment and
give the American people real relief from high gas prices that are
unnecessary.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I know there is no truism specifically in economic
theory, but one thing we do know about crude oil is that it is subject
to international pricing.
{time} 1630
We do know that a big part of the international pricing and
production is conducted by a cartel, namely, OPEC. The last figure I
saw was about 45 percent of the international market. Well, when you
have 45 percent controlled by one entity, you are going to have some
price pressures that are coming. Indeed, you probably have some
speculation.
Mr. Chairman, this is the important part of what this underlying bill
and the bill that we will have on the floor tomorrow does.
The only way that you are going to beat cartels is to outproduce
them. I don't care if you are talking about crude oils or if you are
talking about apples or you are talking about potatoes or you are
talking about timber. The whole idea, if you have somebody that
controls a big part of the marketplace, the way you beat them is to
outproduce them.
This bill allows America to outproduce our foreign competitors. This
amendment adds nothing to that. I urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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 Oregon will
be postponed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
[[Page H7232]]
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Lamborn) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, 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. 1965) to
streamline and ensure onshore energy permitting, provide for onshore
leasing certainty, and give certainty to oil shale development for
American energy security, economic development, and job creation, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________