[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17367-17389]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 17368]]

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 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.

[[Page 17369]]

  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. 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.
  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. 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.

[[Page 17370]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 17371]]

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 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.

[[Page 17372]]

  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 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

[[Page 17373]]

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 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

[[Page 17374]]

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.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1965, a 
bill that would unnecessarily and irresponsibly give away public lands 
to Big Oil, even as U.S. oil production is at a 24-year high and the 
oil industry receives billions of dollars in tax breaks per year.
  H.R. 1965 would remove the safeguards that protect taxpayers and 
public lands by requiring the Interior Department to grant leases on 25 
percent of the land requested by oil companies every year and imposing 
strict deadlines on application review, automatically approving leases 
after just 60 days even if safety and environmental reviews are not yet 
complete. It would also enact barriers to public review--if a community 
wanted to challenge a leasing decision, it would have to pay a $5,000 
fee to be heard. If a case took more than 60 days to adjudicate, it 
would be automatically denied.
  Mr. Chairman, under this Administration, domestic oil production has 
increased by 35 percent on Western public and Indian lands. Oil and gas 
companies are currently only developing about a third of the public 
lands they already lease. This bill, which would prioritize energy 
production over hunting, fishing, grazing, conservation, and every 
other use of public lands, will not reduce energy prices or increase 
energy security. It would simply cede control of natural resources held 
in public trust to already-profitable big oil companies. I urge a no 
vote.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 1965, the so-called Federal Lands, Jobs, and Energy 
Security Act. This bill would fundamentally undermine the way our 
public lands are managed by forcing us to prioritize oil drilling over 
all other land uses. Current law requires the federal government to 
manage public lands by taking into account a variety of uses, including 
recreation, wildlife habitats, and indeed, oil exploration. This bill 
would throw this successful historical precedent out the window and put 
the destructive practice of oil drilling at the top of the list. If 
this would happen in my home state of Florida, we would see devastating 
effects to the Florida panther--an iconic symbol of our state and also 
one of the most threatened species in the world. Panthers play a

[[Page 17375]]

critical role in our ecosystem, but their habitat has been greatly 
diminished and now there are only 160 panthers. Fortunately, the 
government recognizes that we need to consider important species like 
the Florida panther when making land-use decisions. Today's legislation 
could destroy efforts to protect endangered species like the beloved 
Florida panther. That's why I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on 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.

[[Page 17376]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 17377]]

     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 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

[[Page 17378]]

     may elect to set their own production objectives as part of 
     the Strategy under this section. The Secretary shall work in 
     cooperation with any federally recognized Indian tribe that 
     elects to participate in achieving its own strategic energy 
     objectives designated under this subsection.
       ``(c) Execution of the Strategy.--The relevant Secretary 
     shall have all necessary authority to make determinations 
     regarding which additional lands will be made available in 
     order to meet the production objectives established by 
     strategies under this section. The Secretary shall also take 
     all necessary actions to achieve these production objectives 
     unless the President determines that it is not in the 
     national security and economic interests of the United States 
     to increase Federal domestic energy production and to further 
     decrease dependence upon foreign sources of energy. In 
     administering this section, the relevant Secretary shall only 
     consider leasing Federal lands available for leasing at the 
     time the lease sale occurs.
       ``(d) State, Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, Local 
     Government, and Public Input.--In developing each strategy, 
     the Secretary shall solicit the input of affected States, 
     federally recognized Indian tribes, local governments, and 
     the public.
       ``(e) Reporting.--The Secretary shall report annually to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate on the progress of meeting the 
     production goals set forth in the strategy. The Secretary 
     shall identify in the report projections for production and 
     capacity installations and any problems with leasing, 
     permitting, siting, or production that will prevent meeting 
     the goal. In addition, the Secretary shall make suggestions 
     to help meet any shortfalls in meeting the production goals.
       ``(f) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.--Not 
     later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this 
     section, in accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), the 
     Secretary shall complete a programmatic environmental impact 
     statement. This programmatic environmental impact statement 
     will be deemed sufficient to comply with all requirements 
     under that Act for all necessary resource management and land 
     use plans associated with the implementation of the strategy.
       ``(g) Congressional Review.--At least 60 days prior to 
     publishing a proposed strategy under this section, the 
     Secretary shall submit it to the President and the Congress, 
     together with any comments received from States, federally 
     recognized Indian tribes, and local governments. Such 
     submission shall indicate why any specific recommendation of 
     a State, federally recognized Indian tribe, or local 
     government was not accepted.
       ``(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

[[Page 17379]]

     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 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.

[[Page 17380]]

       ``(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 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 part A of 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.

[[Page 17381]]

  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 part A of 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 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

[[Page 17382]]

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. 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.

[[Page 17383]]

  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 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 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 part A of 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.

[[Page 17384]]

  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.
  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 would 
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.

[[Page 17385]]

  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.
  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 part A of 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.

[[Page 17386]]

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 part A of 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.
  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 part A of 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

[[Page 17387]]

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.
  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).

[[Page 17388]]

  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 part A of 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.
  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

[[Page 17389]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________