[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6947-6948]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PILOT PROJECT OFFICES OF FEDERAL PERMIT STREAMLINING PILOT PROJECT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 767) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify 
the Pilot Project offices of the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot 
Project, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 767

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

     SECTION 1. PILOT PROJECT OFFICES OF FEDERAL PERMIT 
                   STREAMLINING PILOT PROJECT.

       Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     15924) is amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(d) Pilot Project Offices.--The following Bureau of Land 
     Management Offices shall serve as the Pilot Project offices:
       ``(1) Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming.
       ``(2) High Plains District Office, Wyoming.
       ``(3) Montana/Dakotas State Office, Montana.
       ``(4) Farmington Field Office, New Mexico.
       ``(5) Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico.
       ``(6) Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs Field Office, 
     Colorado.
       ``(7) Vernal Field Office, Utah.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands 
(Mr. Sablan) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are in strong support of this particular piece of legislation, 
which would be a name change in the Montana Pilot Project office in 
Billings, Montana, to include the words ``Montana/Dakotas State 
Office.'' It's extremely important in this pilot process that we don't 
actually just limit it only to the area of Montana, especially because 
the area of North Dakota is so important in the development of these 
pilot projects.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Thanks to my colleague from Utah.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, 
Mr. Hastings, and the ranking member, Mr. Markey, and especially thank 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals, Mr. Lamborn, 
and the ranking member, Mr. Holt. We worked together on this, and I'm 
very proud of the outcome. It's a rather benign bill that has rather 
major ramifications, I believe.
  I also want to thank the leadership at the Bureau of Land Management 
for not only doing an excellent job in managing the Federal lands in 
North Dakota, but their support of this bill and their guidance, 
frankly, in helping to craft it in a way that meets the objectives.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a Federal permit 
streamlining pilot project to improve the processing of oil and gas 
applications for drilling on Federal lands. The Montana BLM office in 
Miles City was included in the pilot project, but what was not known to 
the drafters of the legislation then was that North and South Dakota 
are under the direct jurisdiction of that regional office in Miles 
City. So, without the word ``Dakotas'' in the Energy Policy Act, North 
Dakota was excluded from this pilot project.
  That, in normal times, may not be all that important. But as it turns 
out, North Dakota really is the heart of the largest oil play and the 
most exciting oil play going on on the continent.
  So the streamlining process itself, I think, deserves some 
explanation, because I think what I want to do is to calm the fears of 
anybody that might think we're looking at cutting corners or expediting 
regulatory process that deserves the rigor that it is receiving.

                              {time}  1320

  What the streamlining process does is not cut corners, but rather, it 
streamlines by co-locating all of the various federal agencies that 
have jurisdiction, like the EPA, like the Bureau of Land Management, 
perhaps the USDA and USGS. And by co-locating them, you actually not 
only enjoy the efficiency of everybody working together in the same 
place, but you actually get some synergy as well, because you have the 
experts in the same room on the same plot of land at the same time.
  This is a bill, as I said, that doesn't cut corners and streamlines, 
but it also has broad ramifications because I think that North Dakota 
is the perfect

[[Page 6948]]

laboratory for a pilot project like this. The reason I say that is 
because there's high demand for processing and a lot of applications 
for drilling on very few acres.
  North Dakota is blessed to largely be private and State land, not 
much Federal land. But there are about 2 million Federal acres that BLM 
has direct oversight of; that is to say, we have 2 million mineral 
acres, and there are over 700 permits or applications for permits to 
drill on that small plot of land.
  In North Dakota, the average number of days for getting a permit 
processed by the State regulatory body is about 20 days. For the 
Federal lands, it's anywhere from 225 to 300 or more days. That's too 
much. I certainly don't advocate, nor do I think anybody else could 
advocate, streamlining this to the point of where it only takes 10 or 
20 days to issue a permit on Federal lands. Clearly, there are 325 
million owners of those Federal lands. It requires a more robust 
environmental protection regime. But we can do better than that, and I 
think we ought to do better than that.
  I think the North Dakota experiment is one that people will look back 
on and say, that's the way to do it, that's the right way to do it. We 
in North Dakota care a great deal about our land, about our water, and 
about our air, and we look forward to working closely with the Federal 
officials who have an equal care in making this work.
  I might also just add that this similar bill was passed last year in 
the Senate. It did not get a hearing in the House. The same, a 
companion bill, has been introduced again in the Senate this year by 
Senator Hoeven and cosponsored by Senator Heitkamp. It has bipartisan 
support in the Senate. It has passed the committee over there. It has 
not gotten to the floor yet.
  So, again, I appreciate the leadership that the chair and ranking 
members have provided on this and urge my colleagues to pass this 
important bill.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 767 will broaden the geographic reach of a pilot 
program created in 2005 to provide additional resources to some BLM 
field offices to permit oil and gas development and conduct 
environmental reviews.
  The Bureau of Land Management has testified that this pilot program 
has led to increased oil and gas inspection and enforcement capability 
as a result of hiring more skilled specialists. The Bureau of Land 
Management has also stated that the increase in inspections has led to 
better compliance by the industry and a reduction in major violations 
due to the increased number of inspectors in the field.
  We do not oppose this bill, and I ask support for H.R. 767.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It's an excellent bill. I urge adoption of it, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 767, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________