[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6948-6952]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              PUTTING THE GULF OF MEXICO BACK TO WORK ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 245 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1229.

                              {time}  1915


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1229) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
facilitate the safe and timely production of American energy resources 
from the Gulf of Mexico, with Mrs. Adams (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 3 printed in part A of House Report 112-73 offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) had been disposed of.


           Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, 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 5, line 9, before the closing quotation marks insert 
     the following:
       ``(4) Estimations required in permit applications.--The 
     Secretary shall require that each application for a permit to 
     drill a well include detailed estimations of--
       ``(A) the amount of oil and gas that is expected--
       ``(i) to be found in the area where the well is drilled, in 
     the case of an exploration well; or
       ``(ii) to be produced by the well, in the case of a 
     production well; and
       ``(B) the amount by which crude oil prices and consumer 
     prices would be reduced as a result of oil and gas found or 
     produced by the well, and by when the reductions would occur.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, speeding up the permitting 
process and thereby making it easier to drill off our country's shores 
in the manner that this bill does will do little to help Americans at 
the gas pump.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, even tripling our 
current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower 
gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we continued at 
the current levels.
  At maximum output, the United States holds less than 2 percent of the 
world's oil reserves, not nearly enough to significantly impact the 
price per barrel, which is set on a global level primarily by the 
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries that we reference as 
OPEC.
  In reality, the United States is already producing more oil per day 
than it ever has, yet gas prices are still around $4 per gallon. Though 
production in our country has actually increased every year since 2005, 
crude oil hit a record $147 per barrel over the same time period, 
demonstrating that there is little correlation between drilling levels 
in the United States and the price of oil.
  More drilling will put our businesses, as well as our environment and 
health, at an increased risk with little return to the average 
American. By itself, the United States consumes one quarter of the 
world's oil. What drives the price of oil more than any other factor is 
the large scale and high demand for it worldwide.
  The only way we can reduce gasoline prices is to decrease our 
country's demand for fossil fuels by increasing our energy efficiency, 
improving the fuel mileage of our cars, and developing real renewable 
energy resources. Federal policies should focus on making these 
changes, not on dangerously restricting Federal oversight of the 
industry.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, the intent of H.R. 1229 is to put Americans in the 
gulf back to work and to ensure a steady domestic supply of oil for our 
citizens and our consumers, thereby lessening our dependence on foreign 
sources of oil.
  I must oppose this amendment. The effect of the amendment is that we 
are going to hold ourselves hostage to foreign energy unless we can 
prove that domestic energy meets some abstract

[[Page 6949]]

standard and satisfies some bureaucrat.
  Where I disagree with this amendment the most is the assumption that 
domestic energy production might not be good for America and might not 
be allowed. More supply cannot help but to lower prices, reduce 
dependence, generate revenue and create jobs. I see all these results 
of domestic energy production as good: good for America, good for 
consumers and good for our balance of trade. This is true whether the 
impact from a single well is sufficient in and of itself to move the 
price of oil prices overseas or not. The real result of this amendment 
would be that we don't create jobs, revenue and more energy.
  For these reasons, Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I 
encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Let me respond to my colleagues first by 
saying that I hope no one in the gulf is sitting out there holding 
their breath waiting for this named bill here, H.R. 1229, ``Putting the 
Gulf of Mexico Back to Work.''
  Let me talk real here about what is getting ready to happen. The 
Republicans will pass this particular measure. It will go to that black 
hole over in the Senate and never become the law of the United States. 
And the administration has made it very clear that if this measure were 
to pass, it is not going to in fact be permitted under the aegis of the 
President's veto, which they cannot overturn.
  So while people in Mississippi and people in Louisiana are suffering 
floods right now, compounding all of the circumstances that they have 
had to put up with with the BP oil spill, here we are dillydallying, 
making like we are going to do something to create work in the gulf. We 
are not going to do one single, solitary thing, and if we could do 
nothing more, we ought to tell the people the truth.
  If we drilled everywhere you say drill in America, we still would 
only have 1.97 percent of all of the oil in the world. Canada has more 
oil than we do, and we get plenty of it from them. Mexico almost has as 
much as we do. How dare we come here and talk about 2 weeks of oil that 
ain't going to reduce gas none and suggest to people it's going to put 
people back to work. Balderdash.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I would just point out that it is 
skewing the statistics and not accurate to say that the U.S. only has 2 
percent of the world's oil reserves. When you look at Btus, energy 
production, we have more energy available in this country than any 
other country in the world; and looking at oil specifically, we have 
145 billion barrels of recoverable oil, according to the CRS. So that 
is much larger than what some people say.
  On the point of whether the President has taken a position, this is 
the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, and there is no 
veto threat in here. So if we are fortunate to see this bill not just 
pass the House but the Senate as well, I am sure the White House will 
seriously consider this, and I would be hopeful that it would be signed 
into law.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, 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 Florida will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Madam 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, beginning at line 1, strike section 202 (and 
     redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Chairman, a little more than a year ago, the BP 
Deepwater Horizon oil drilling vessel exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Over several months, millions of gallons of oil were dumped into the 
gulf. The oil spill caused irreparable damage to delicate ecosystems, 
damaged natural barriers that protect States along the Gulf of Mexico 
from deadly storm surge, and was devastating to local jobs and 
livelihoods along the gulf coast. Indeed, the oil spill caused 
significant harm to my State of Florida's environment and economy from 
which we are still recovering.
  My amendment will have no impact on the overall bill. While I do 
oppose weakening the Federal review process of lease applications for 
energy development, production and exploration of the Gulf of Mexico, 
the purpose of my amendment is simply to correct an injustice to the 
residents of Florida and Alabama in the bill as it is written. My 
amendment would strike section 202, which imposes an exclusive venue in 
the Fifth Circuit for civil actions relating to the leasing of Federal 
lands in the Gulf of Mexico for energy development, production and 
exploration.
  Under this provision, litigation relating to leases on energy 
development can only be filed in a district court in the Fifth Circuit. 
And while the Fifth Circuit includes the Gulf States of Mississippi, 
Louisiana and Texas, two States that comprise substantial gulf 
coastlines, Florida and Alabama, are in the 11th Circuit, and it makes 
no sense that the residents of these States will have to travel to the 
Fifth Circuit to have their cases heard. The effect of this section 
would be to prevent the district courts in Florida and Alabama from 
considering civil cases related to the issuance of leases for energy 
development, production and exploration off the coastlines of these 
States.
  Congress has no business telling courts within a State that they are 
prohibited from considering issues involving a lease for energy 
development, production and exploration that have the potential to 
cause irreparable environmental and economic damage to the gulf coast 
area of that State.
  In addition, requiring these cases to be moved from Florida and 
Alabama to a State within the Fifth Circuit will cause substantial 
hardship for the parties involved in the litigation, substantial 
hardship for the witnesses who would need to testify, and would result 
in substantial costs. Striking this exclusive venue provision would 
ensure that Florida and Alabama courts could hear these cases and reach 
a just result that reflects the needs of that State.
  Section 202 does provide an exception only in cases in which there is 
no proper venue in a court within the Fifth District. However, this 
exception fails to address these very serious concerns. The parties 
involved in litigation on leasing would first have to determine that 
there is no court within the Fifth Circuit that would be able to 
consider the case. Only after determining that there was no court in 
the Fifth Circuit, then the parties will be permitted to file in 
Florida or Alabama.
  In short, section 202 will prohibit the courts in Florida and Alabama 
from considering and rendering a decision in lawsuits on leases for 
energy development, production and exploration off their coasts. My 
amendment would strike the section. It makes no changes to the overall 
bill. It provides a simple solution to address this bill's unwarranted 
restrictions on which courts will be able to review these leases should 
they pose a threat to the gulf coast area. I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page 6950]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In order to ensure that there is a circuit court that is familiar 
with the legal issues surrounding civil actions involving gulf energy 
production, it is important that venue be restricted to the Fifth 
Circuit so that those district and appeals court judges would have the 
essential experience and legal precedent to fairly rule on these 
technical cases. For that reason, I oppose this amendment.
  The Fifth Circuit, as was pointed out earlier, does include 
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, all Gulf Coast States. If various 
district courts and courts of appeal throughout the country were able 
to hear these cases, there may be a result of having no uniformity in 
decisionmaking, and judges who do not have as much expertise or 
background could be making vital decisions in which the energy security 
of our Nation hangs in the balance.

                              {time}  1930

  It is essential that there be one Federal judicial circuit that 
understands the technical aspects of these cases with judges who have a 
background in understanding offshore energy policies and practices. 
That will ensure that all cases are handled fairly and expeditiously 
and uniformly without any confusion or delay. By requiring all cases to 
go through the Fifth Circuit, we accomplish this important goal.
  For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I urge 
my colleagues to oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEUTCH. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. As a former judge--and as a State and 
Federal judge--I would urge my colleague from Colorado to understand 
something. Circuit judges don't of necessity have specific specialty in 
the area they live. A judge may go on the bench in the Fifth Circuit 
and have studied patent law all of his life and know nothing about oil.
  Mr. DEUTCH. May I ask how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Chair, the gentleman's opposition to this amendment 
is premised on a very interesting, and I would respectfully suggest 
dangerous, interpretation of what is our responsibility as Members of 
this House. The gentleman spoke of the need to have uniformity of 
decisionmaking. Uniformity of decisionmaking. As I understand the role 
of the Federal judiciary, the role of our court system is to provide 
justice. The role is not to ensure that we have the same decision in 
every court.
  My amendment simply says that if you are a judge in the State of 
Florida or a judge in the State of Alabama, that you are in a position 
just as well as a judge in Texas or these other Gulf States to make a 
determination about how the law should be interpreted--the idea that 
judges have to have a sufficient background, and that if courts 
throughout the country were able to hear these, we would not be able to 
reach a logical conclusion.
  The fact is we're not asking courts throughout the country to hear 
these cases, Madam Chairman. We're asking the judges within the States 
whose coastlines would be dramatically affected and have been affected 
in the case of spills like the Deepwater Horizon.
  Madam Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that if our goal here is 
to seek justice, then we must seek justice in those courts in the 
States that have seen the damage.
  I ask for the adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. If the gentleman wanted to make sure that the judges of 
Alabama and Florida were included, then maybe the amendment should have 
been written that way, and I think we would have a strong point of 
debate and that would be a legitimate item to discuss. However, that's 
not how the amendment is drafted. The amendment talks about letting in 
judges of the entire country, circuits of the entire country. For that 
reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. I would like to confirm. Therefore, if the language in 
the bill were very clear that for cases to be brought affecting the 
leasing and the exploration of oil in the gulf, that if those cases 
could be brought in any of the Gulf States, including Florida and 
Alabama, then the bill's sponsor would not oppose this amendment?
  Mr. LAMBORN. Reclaiming my time, I would say that we would have a 
more legitimate issue to debate. We could go into that. But it's too 
late, the amendment doesn't say that. And so that's not an option in 
front of us.
  Mr. DEUTCH. So just to confirm, the gentleman's position is that in 
fact the courts in Florida and Alabama are just as well equipped to 
hear these cases as are the courts in Texas and the other Gulf States.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I would say that those judges certainly would have a 
closeness to the situation that would be helpful. But the circuit, I 
believe it's the 11th Circuit, includes a number of other States that 
are not as situated like Alabama and Florida. So in choosing the Fifth 
Circuit, all the States there are Gulf Coast States.
  Mr. DEUTCH. If the gentleman would yield for one final question, I 
would also note that while the Natural Resources Committee has acted on 
this bill, this provision very clearly should have been debated in the 
Judiciary Committee where all of these issues could have been worked 
out. It is for that reason, given what we have to work with, that I 
would again ask for adoption of my amendment, which helps to bring 
justice and some clarity to what is otherwise a murky provision in this 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Reclaiming my time, my understanding is the Judiciary 
Committee did not have any problems with this particular revision. But 
having discussed all the issues around this amendment, I would urge a 
``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Madam 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 Florida will 
be postponed.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part A of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment as 
the designee of the maker of the amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, line 11, strike ``EXPEDITION'' and insert ``QUALITY 
     ABOVE SPEED''.
       Page 9, line 14, strike ``expeditiously'' and insert 
     ``justly''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, this amendment, the scrivener 
of same, is Jared Polis, our colleague from Colorado. I can't resist, 
however, departing from the preparation that he has undergone to 
suggest that if my other friend from Colorado's logic is followed, then 
I gather that the circuit courts of the United States, all 13 of them, 
must be the courts of last resort. And if you followed your logic to 
its conclusion, I guess we would eliminate the United States Supreme 
Court because, of course, those nine people wouldn't know anything 
about what the circuits had done, wherever they came from.

[[Page 6951]]

  Madam Chair, when reading this bill, and particularly the section on 
judicial review, the phrase ``rush to judgment'' came to mind to Mr. 
Polis, because that's exactly what this bill directs our courts to do. 
Instead of hearing and deciding a case based on the case's merits, this 
bill tells the courts that speed, not justice, should be their top 
priority.
  Madam Chair, the integrity of any law enforcement is only as good as 
the court's ability to review and enforce it. We all learned in civics 
class that one of the strengths of our Nation is its system of checks 
and balances. Passing legislation that tilts the courts in favor of one 
side or another is hardly in line with this most fundamental of 
American values, yet this is what much of what H.R. 1229's judicial 
review section does.
  Mr. Polis' amendment that I offer as his designee is a modest 
amendment that promotes the integrity of that review and the integrity 
of our Nation's principle of fair and impartial courts. H.R. 1229 as a 
whole gives an even greater handout to the well-funded legal teams 
employed by the big oil companies, at the expense of protecting our 
health, our communities, our environment, and justice in general.
  The underlying bill in section 204 states: ``The court shall endeavor 
to hear and determine any covered civil action as expeditiously as 
possible.'' Exactly who does it help when the courts are directed to 
make decisions in haste at the expense of research and deliberation? It 
only helps those who can afford teams of high-priced lawyers and 
lobbyists who know where and when to push the pressure buttons of 
influence.
  My colleague's amendment simply replaces the word ``expeditiously'' 
with the word ``justly,'' as the courts should be deciding cases based 
not simply on speed but on the law. Undoubtedly, the judicial review 
provisions in H.R. 1229 have been included to promote the misleading 
argument commonly used by the majority party and the big oil companies 
alike that frivolous lawsuits by local communities and 
environmentalists strangle the industry and stall domestic drilling. 
Yet quarter after quarter, oil companies continue to reap record 
profits and are developing more domestic energy than ever before. Exxon 
actually is ahead of us. They're in the business of talking about gas 
while we around here are dilly-dallying about oil.
  Furthermore, this misleading hard-luck story leaves out a critical 
fact--that the industry is just as active in using the courts to get 
its way as any public health or environmental watchdog. But the 
industry has much more money for such legal actions, already giving it 
an unfair advantage.

                              {time}  1940

  In fact, recent lawsuits have been filed against the government by 
Alaskan oil companies to overturn critical habitat restrictions, by oil 
companies against the EPA for ethanol standards, and numerous suits 
against the Department of the Interior by industry over the temporary 
ban following the BP disaster.
  Let's remember that the point of judicial review is to ensure that 
the law is followed and to provide a check and balance when it is not. 
The underlying bill is, in effect, saying that following the law no 
longer matters. It doesn't matter if justice is served or if a case is 
heard properly. It only matters if it appears that way.
  Madam Chair, the east front of the Supreme Court building contains 
the following inscription: ``Justice, the guardian of liberty.'' Should 
any company in our country have the right to pursue profits and the 
prerogative of our capitalist system? Of course. But even our Founders 
recognized that this should be done within the confines of the law. 
Justice, meaning impartial courts and stringent checks and balances, is 
the guardian of our liberties and freedom as Americans. Instead of 
promoting a rush to judgment and a blind rubber stamp within the 
courts, we should, instead, promote integrity and a system of rigorous 
checks and balances, as these are truly fundamental American values.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let's stand back and look for a moment at the big picture. This 
administration has been held in contempt of court for slow-walking 
permits and is currently trying to appeal a Federal judge's warning 
that ordered them to act on stalled deepwater permits. While the 
administration continues to hold up the permitting process, thousands 
of Americans remain unemployed, and American energy is locked up.
  This legislation encourages courts that are hearing permitting cases 
to act as expeditiously as possible. Environmental groups are already 
working to prepare lawsuits aimed at stalling and holding up offshore 
energy production. This bill encourages the courts to work 
expeditiously so that lawsuits can be settled quickly.
  Now, in seeking to replace the word ``expeditiously'' with 
``justly,'' we are doing something that is totally unnecessary. Those 
of us supporting this bill already assume that the courts will act 
justly. That's what they're appointed for, and that's what we expect 
and require them to do. So it is superfluous and unnecessary to say 
that they have to act justly when that's what they're going to do. At 
least that's our assumption over here anyway. Yet we need to say that 
they act expeditiously as well as justly because of the slow-walking 
nature of this current administration's approach to permitting.
  The effect of this amendment, were it to be adopted, would slow down 
American energy production at a time when prices are skyrocketing. We 
need judges to move cases in an expeditious manner so that we can use 
American energy. This bill ensures that everyone will have their day in 
court, but it also ensures that the slow walking of permits by this 
executive branch will not continue.
  I urge a ``no'' vote and for my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was rejected.


          Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part A of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, 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 10, beginning at line 3, strike section 207.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, H.R. 1229, in my opinion, is an 
irresponsible giveaway to the oil industry, which has taken enormous 
profit at American taxpayer expense. Section 207 of the bill repeals 
the Equal Access to Justice Act, thereby eliminating the awarding of 
attorneys' fees to litigants bringing successful legal challenges, be 
they expeditious, just or not, to offshore oil and gas activities, 
making this kind of litigation prohibitively expensive.
  As the BP oil spill demonstrated, there has been a lack of Federal 
oversight of the drilling industry. Consequently, legal challenges have 
become the only enforcement mechanism for many related laws and 
regulations. Removing the judiciary system from the equation makes it 
even less likely that large oil and gas companies will comply with 
environmental and safety standards. Let me insert something here.
  As to the commission that was set up under BP, a colleague of mine on 
the Rules Committee said that BP has been accountable. Only 3.8 
percent, $3.8 billion of the $20 billion, has been left to 177,000 
claimants. That ensures, among

[[Page 6952]]

other things, that by 2013, at the expiration of the commission's term, 
there will be money left over.
  Guess what my friends at Fox News reported? They reported that the 
money goes back to BP. How crazy can we be around here?
  Eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees means the traditional 
groups that bring lawsuits on environmental or safety grounds, such as 
fishermen, small business owners and environmental groups, will no 
longer be reimbursed for the cost of successfully litigating these 
kinds of claims. The idea that the bill will somehow eliminate an 
excess of lawsuits is ridiculous. Since litigation is by its nature so 
expensive, these cash-strapped plaintiffs usually only bring those 
lawsuits with the most likelihood of success. Without the possibility 
of receiving attorneys' fees, legal challenges will effectively become 
impossible.
  Madam Chair, section 207 of H.R. 1229 only helps large oil companies 
avoid having to comply with U.S. law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Equal Access to Justice Act provisions in this bill are necessary 
to avoid costly delays to domestic energy development based on the 
extreme anti-energy agenda of a few groups. The Equal Access to Justice 
Act was intended to allow people and small businesses with limited 
financial means the ability to challenge the actions of the Federal 
Government. However, it is now being abused by deep-pocketed special 
interest organizations.
  For example, in 2005, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources 
Defense Council received nearly $200,000 in taxpayer dollars after 
suing the Federal Government in an offshore energy project in 
California. The Sierra Club has annual revenues of $85 million, and the 
Natural Resources Defense Council has annual revenues of over $100 
million.
  There is no justification for forcing the American taxpayer to pay 
the attorneys' fees of special interest groups that have ample funds of 
their own. Wealthy, ideological groups opposed to more American-made 
offshore energy can continue to sue to their hearts' content, but 
taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.
  I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the 
same. Taxpayer dollars should not go to lawsuits being filed by special 
interests that are making millions and millions of dollars in annual 
revenue. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, when you're flabbergasted, the 
easiest thing to do is to not say anything else. I just can't believe 
that we're doing this useless legislation while people in the gulf are 
hurting the way that they are. It's senseless.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, the Equal Access to Justice Act 
restrictions in this bill is necessary to avoid costly delays to 
domestic energy development based on the political agenda of a few 
groups.
  EAJA was established in 1980 as means for small businesses and 
individuals to seek judicial redress from wrongful government action.
  It allows for party's to seek reimbursement of attorneys' fees from 
the taxpayers.
  Payment of these fees comes directly of out agency budgets, in this 
case the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
  EAJA was intended to allow people and small businesses with ``limited 
financial means'' the ability to sue the Federal Government without 
having to worry about the costs associated if they prevail.
  However, it is being abused by deep-pocketed organizations with a 
political agenda.
  For example, in 2005 the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources 
Defense Council received nearly $200,000 dollars in taxpayer dollars 
after suing the Federal Government on an offshore energy project in 
California.
  The Sierra Club has annual revenue of $85 million dollars, and the 
Natural Resources Defense Council has annual revenue of over $100 
million dollars.
  There is no justification for forcing the American taxpayer--
particularly those on the gulf coast--to pay the attorney's fees of 
political advocacy organizations that have ample funds of their own.
  That is not what EAJA was intended to accomplish, and restricting its 
use in this bill is both necessary and appropriate.
  Environmental groups can continue to sue to their hearts' content--
and they will because suing the Federal Government is their modus 
operandi--but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, 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 Florida will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Lamborn) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Adams, 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. 1229) to 
amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to facilitate the safe and 
timely production of American energy resources from the Gulf of Mexico, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________