brought forward. i urge that my colleagues from across the country vote to lower gas prices and pass this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i think the gentleman and the others from the natural resources committee on the republican side who have spoke on this issue or the energy and commerce committee and made great comments about how we do need to do what we can in congress to lower the price of gasoline and we do that by increasing production. both go together. we don't do it by increasing taxes on the energy producers. we allow for policies to allow for more production and we have to pass 1229 to make thure shah whether it's deliberate or not, this administration will not continue to stonewall the permitting process. it's a long and lengthy process, there are multiple environmental reviews that take place and then to hold it up at the last and not allow for a permit to be issued is just not acceptable. all the work has been done when

it becomes time to issue the permits so the only thing this bill says is you have 30 days with a couple of extensions if necessary to make the final decision and you don't have to issue the permit, you can say no if that's the best decision. just take action and let's have a little certainty in the business world and in the economy of our country, especially the gulf of mexico and the coastal states like louisiana that are so heavily affected. on the issue of safety, mr. chairman, we do share the goal to make sure that offshore drilling is the safest in the world. significant and fundamental changes have taken place over the past year to improve offshore drilling safety and response. regulations have been enhanced and strengthened. standards have been increased. new technology has been developed to be reviewed, tested and is being currently deployed. director michael bromwich came

to our committee and testified in front of the natural resources committee and said, quote, we have confidence that offshore drilling can be conducted now more safely than it had been before and that we would be better able to deal with a blowout than we were before, unquote. now, if anyone on the other side of the aisle wants to add that nothing has been changed and there have been no safety reforms imposed, they are indicting the obama administration in saying they have turned a blind eye to the situation since the b.p. crisis took place and that's simply not true. as i said a minute ago, new regulations have been imposed, standards have been strengthened. so i'm not going to sit here and indict the administration on the safety aspect. there have been a lot of safety regulations by bureaucratic regulation put into place, and this bill does acknowledge that two additional things will be part of our law should and when

this bill passes. h.r. 1229 says, number one, the secretary will issue a permit that -- the need for a permit has not been ever codified. so we're requiring that a permit has to be issued before drilling can take place. and number two, that the secretary is to conduct a safety review. that is being mandated and put into law. mr. chairman, i'd urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 1229. we are going to be looking at some amendments shortly. at this time -- at this time, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has yielded the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on rising. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1229 directs me to report to the speaker that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1229 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on a motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or on which the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1016 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1016, a bill to measure the progress of relief, recovery, reconstruction and development efforts in haiti following the earthquake of january 12, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wilson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, mr. speaker. status of post earthquake humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in haiti.

this bill supplements my bill under the haiti act which i introduced last congress to exercise greater oversight over the disbursement of u.s. assistance to haiti to ensure it is meeting the intended recipients and purposes that it is advancing u.s. priorities, that it is promoting recovery and it is not being derailed by waste, duplication or corruption. this past january, i traveled to haiti with secretary clinton's chief of staff and point person on haiti to observe some of the tremendous work the united states is doing to learn about u.s. plans for the future as well. much progress has been seen in haiti over the past and there is increased access to more clean water than before the earthquake

and the interim haiti reconstruction commission has approved 86 reconstruction projects accounting for about one-third of the total pledges made by international donors last year. however, mr. speaker, with each stated achievement, we are reminded how much further haiti has to go. hundreds of thousands of haitians are reportedly still without safe and secure sustainable shelter. a recent u.n. report indicated that peacekeepers in haiti may have been contributed to the environmental contamination which could have led to the choreria outbreak. rising food and gas lien prices will make day-to-day survival difficult for many of the people of haiti. and haiti is still dealing with lingering questions regarding

the recently announced parliamentary election results. in order for progress in haiti to continue, it is important that allegations of election corruption are resolved quickly. that the concerns of the haitian people are put to rest. and that the duly elected parliamentarians are seated as soon as possible. this weekend the president-elect, martelli, is about to be inaugurated. as the new government takes office, i have my work cut out for it. the new leadership must make a commitment to root out corruption in haiti and with all of haiti's partners. the president-elect's recent statement regarding his intent to pursue allegation of electoral fraud in the parliamentary election results are in the step in the right

direction. the governor must also make certain that the haitian people are fully consulted on the direction in which their country's heading and that they will have opportunities to create a better future for themselves and their families. civil society and local governments must increasingly become a partner at the table of haiti's future. with the security situation reportedly deteriorating, it will be important for haiti's new leaders to commit to the necessary resources to support the expansion of the haitian national police as well as implement updates to the criminal code and other reforms to strengthen its judicial system. and i understand the united states intends to work with the new haitian government to help haiti become a more business-friendly environment. as a proud representative of

florida's 18th congressional district, i can tell you firsthand the interest of u.s. businesses, organizations and private citizens, including the haitian deaspra, to participate in the recovery and development efforts in haiti, and that only continues to grow stronger. more importantly, it is imperative that the united states take every proponent measure to ensure that our funding and our efforts in haiti and around the world are not squandered. this includes accountability for u.n. contractors who owe a duty of care for the civilians whom they are there to protect. the report called for in this bill, h.r. 1016, will provide members of congress and the public an opportunity to see what is working and, yes, to see what is not working. i would also note that the funding that will be needed to

develop this report is directed to be pulled from already proponented funding. further, c.b.o. found that the cost of this report in this bill is so minimal that it did not meet the threshold of an estimate. i would like to thank ranking member berman and his staff for working with us on this measure. i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in support of our oversight effort. and i'm so pleased to join congresswoman wilson's efforts in making sure that we could provide our great partner, haiti, with the resources it needs to build itself up. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. wilson: i rise in support of this bill, the assessing progress in haiti act.

a year and a half ago on january 12, 2010, the world for the caribbean island of haiti and my constituents changed forever. an earthquake measuring an incredible 7.0 on the richter scale, shook the earth in haiti . it killed elected officials, top of the president's palace, the senate and all of the cabinet buildings. people are still missing. the affect of this earthquake is still being felt today. -- the effect of this earthquake is still being felt today. basic items such as food, clothing, shelter and health services are lacking. thanks to our military, the u.s. coast guard, who performed thousands of hours of rescue in the first 24 hours of the earthquake, the u.s. marine corps who provided stability and protection, the u.s. army which helped establish

logistics and additional protection, the u.s. navy with floating hospitals and surgeons, and the u.s. agency for international development, this disaster was not the total disaster it could have been. usaid worked then and continues to work to coordinate and implement programs with other international organizations. adding further -- has been the widespread outbreak of cholera last october. cholera, a disease due to the lack of access of clean water, has killed hundreds of haitians and has further set back progress in one of our closest caribbean neighbors. the people of haiti deserve the opportunity to live in a clean, safe and economically thriving country. the people of america deserve and want to know how their tax

dollars are being spent and need to know that the $1.8 billion invested in haiti will speededly facilitate haiti's transition to economic stability. that is why i support house resolution 1018, the haiti assessment act. this bill, which provides for one of the first times the strong, fair and objective accountability of how the people's money is being spent in haiti. this report will also analyze how well the united nations and other organizations and groups are coordinating their efforts to reduce duplication. . finally, miami's-dade's rescue teams volunteered their time, effort and energy to save lives. these people save lives and

found those trapped in the rubble and for those who were worried about the safety and well-being of their loved ones. i also would like to thank respectfully the chairman and ranking minority members on the subcommittee of western hemisphere, connie mack and eliot engel and their staff for making this happened. representative engel was kind enough to carry my language and chairman mack and both the republican and democratic staff worked toward a compromise that worked on both sides. i want to thank our full committee chairman and my florida colleague, representative ros-lehtinen, for managing this language in her amendment during full committee consideration of this bill. perhaps a bright spot in this

ongoing disaster is the people of haiti elected a new president with whom we expect to work arm-in-in arm with. his inauguration is next weekend. on saturday, i traveled to haiti and i met with the president-elect and met with the senators as they debated their new constitution. i'm hoping that that constitution will help guide them towards the next century in haiti. there are 1,000 410 tent cities that house 850,000 residents in the streets of haiti. no running water and one porta-toilet. families are huddled under the

tents mostly women and children. armed bandits roam these tent cities and sexual abuse is rampant. the police force is compromised and not trained. the army is nonexistent and many bodies have not been found from this earthquake. it is inhumane to send anybody back to such conditions. we must help rebuild haiti. we must support haiti. we must support the new president from this moment on. we must include the agricultural community at the table of negotiations. mr. speaker, this legislation is an affirmation of the general rossity and will of the american people to come to the aid of a country in our neighborhood that desperately needs our help. the report required by this bill

should help us channel our assistance, efforts to make them as effective and efficient as possible. the haitian people deserve nothing less. i strongly urge passage of this legislation. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida reserves. ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and stepped their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1016. and with that, i continue to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve her time. ms. wilson. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, it is my privilege to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. waters: i would like to thank the gentlelady from florida for extending time to me to rise in support of this bill. i am now and have been for many years a big supporter of the people of haiti. i'm the proud author of h.r. 4573, the debt relief for earthquake recovery in haiti act. it was that bill that freed up $828 million that they would have had to pay out for their debts that could now go toward helping with the earthquake response. immediately following the earthquake, there was an outpouring of sympathy from people in the united states and around the world and i'm appreciatetive with our government did and individuals,

churches did. we have not had our politics right in haiti, but we sure rose to the occasion based on this devastating earthquake that hit haiti. the international community has a total of $9.9 billion in reconstruction funds, including $5.3 billion for the first two years. yet more than one later, little if any of the money has reached the people of haiti. according to the u.s. agency for international development, 680,000 displaced people are living in tent camps. there is a critical need for clean water, food and sanitation facilities. a deadly outbreak has killed people and affected 280,000 people. the effects were exacerbated by the lack of clean water and

sanitation infrastructure. foreign aid without transparency will accomplish nothing. we owe it to the haitian people to find out how much of this money has been delivered to haiti and where that money went. i strongly support this bill, which requires the president to report on the status of post-earthquake relief, recovery, reconstruction and development efforts in haiti. the report must evaluate coordination among various international agencies and donors. the extent to which u.s. and international efforts are in line with the priorities of the government of haiti and mechanisms the haiti civil society to participate in recovery efforts. i'm in awe of the strength and resiliencey of the haitian people. we owe it to them to assist them. we also owe it to them to make certain our assistance reaches the people who need it most. as i said, we have not always had our act together in haiti.

well, there has been a new election and they have elected a president. there was a lot of turmoil and disorder around this election but it's over now and it's been done. and we want to work with the new government to make sure that there is transparency and that we do know what happened to this money. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. ros-lehtinen continues to reserve. ms. wilson. ms. wilson: it is my privilege to yield five minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from california, congresswoman barbara lee, who is the author of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and your leadership as it relates to your community, district and haitians in haiti.

i rise in support of h.r. 1016, legislation which i authored to direct the united states government to report on the status of humanitarian, reconstruction and development efforts in the aftermath of the tragic earthquake of january 12, 2010 and let me thank chairwoman ros-lehtinen for your leadership and assistance in helping to bring this floor to the floor and chairman berman and representative mack and the committee's staff and my staff and democratic and leader's office in bringing this bill to the floor. i would like to acknowledge the work of my congressional black caucus colleagues. you just heard from representative waters in terms of her leadership and commitment to the people of haiti and so many others who have worked in support of haitian people and ongoing united states humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in haiti.

today we are provided with the opportunity to not only remember those who have lost their lives, but to reaffirm the commitment of the united states to support haitians as they struggle to combat the cholera epidemic and rebuild their country and lives following the devastation of january 12. following the earthquake many of us came together to pass a bill h.r. 1021 and was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 411 to one. this expressed solidarity with the haitian people and our support for the long-term reconstruction needs of the country. through the bill on the floor today, we have provided with the next step, with an opportunity to assess the progress that we have made, the extraordinary challenges that remain and the areas in which improvement is greatly needed. i traveled to haiti immediately following the earthquake, again

in november during haiti's recent elections, many of us have been many, many times over the years and once again, let me say, i have seen real progress that has been made. the cholera outbreak, a devastating set back, this revealed the ramp-uped national laboratory and identified the strain very rapidly and improving our ability to response to the outbreak, a feat that would have been impossible a year earlier. however, significant improvements remain desperately needed. the unprecedented relief effort has given way to a sluggish, at best reconstruction effort. this can be attributed to the magnitude that haiti faces as well as haiti's political and legal hurdles.

without a doubt, though, part of the blame rests with the lack of urgency, mind you, the lack of urgency on the international community's part. at the international donors conference, 58 donors pledged $5.5 billion to support haiti's action plan for recovery and resacramento. as of march this year, 37% of these funds have been disbursed. this is unacceptable. if we are to break the cycle of emergency relief and disaster in which haiti has been trapped in many years and act with the same sense of urgency and reconstruction as we did following the quake. in addition, we must ensure that those promises are in line with the will of the haitian people. the international community recognized early on if our efforts are to be sustainable, they had to reflect the priorities of the people of

haiti. the establishment of the interim haiti commission was a very good idea in this regard and moving forward, we must ensure that it's inclusive, transparent and adequately resourced. additionally, we must substantially our communication with and participation of haitian civil society. the united states and the united nations are sponsoring outreach for civil society organizations. however, many haitians hold the perception that recovery efforts are dominated by exclusive foreign actors. unless civil society, the people of haiti are involved in every major stage in the post-earthquake response, this perception will remain and prove detrimental to the sustainability of our efforts. in this vein, we must give special priority to programs that protect vulnerable populations including internally displaced persons. we must ensure that -- may have an additional 30 seconds?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. lee: we must ensure these populations are involved in recovery efforts which reinforces their protections. the united nations has specifically stated that women should be involved in security decisions that affect their daily lives as a means of combating the alarming level of gender-based violence. on the topic of vulnerable populations we must look at the deportations to haiti. given the fragile state, i call on the department of homeland security to halt doe importanttations to make sure it does not violate human rights laws and that haiti is able to support the influx of deporteys. we must not ensure assisting undermining. can i have another 30 seconds?

. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. lee: we must continue to support the public health ministry. treat those affected with the disease and buildup health systems. the international community must plan for the long-term presence of this disease, and provide the necessary resources to ensure that the planning is thorough and complete. throughout these tragedies and crises, haitians have demonstrated resilience, and courage and i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i thank you for your time and your leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. ros-lehtinen continues to reserve her time. ms. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. i had an opportunity this past weekend to go to haiti to take a helicopter ride to survey the damage on haiti and all of the

hope for haiti, all of the islands and the connecting islands of haiti to see what was happening. the african-american dies a practice, which are members of district 17, they all want to help rebuild haiti. they will apply for contracts and of -- if duo nationality is granted, they'll run for office and lend their expertise to the recovery of haiti. we all know that p.p.s. expires in june. t.p.s., temporary protective status, was extened to the haitian nationals. we, along with the black caucus, congresswoman barbara lee, congresswoman maxine waters, and congressman payne were working on trying to extend that deadline for at least another year.

haiti is in no position to accept any further deportation. mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i have no further requests for time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house strulls and pass h.r. 1016 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 246 and rule 18, the chair declares that the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1229. will the gentleman from

arkansas, mr. womack, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1229 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the outer continental shelf lands act, to facilitate the safe and kindly production of american energy resources from the gulf of mexico. the chair: when the committee of the whole rows earlier today, all time for general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill printed in the bill is adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 112-73. each further amendment may be offered only in the order

printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the period of time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by an opponent and proponent, shall not be subject for amendment and shall not be -- division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-73. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-73 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 245, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, following last year's b.p. deepwater horizon disaster, one would think that a foundational and critical element with any

bill related to deep-water oil drilling would be to improve our safety and environmental safeguards based on the lessons we learned the hard way costing jobs, reducing health and damaging the environment. well, h.r. 1229 does include a provision at that states that the secretary shall not issue a permit without ensuring the proposed drilling operation meets critical safety systems requirements and oil spill response and containment requirements. it fails to make mention of and owe mitts requiring the secretary to ensure the critical environmental and economic laws are adheres to. a prolific problem that led up to the deepwater horizon spill. mr. speaker, for years an ongoing problem for issuing permits for offshore drilling is under these laws. these laws, like the endangered

species act, the marine mammal protection a county and the mack numb stevenson act, sustains the gulf's fishing and tourism industries. in the gulf region, the number of jobs dependent on tour itch and fishing is five times the number of jobs related to the oil and gas industry. while reforms within the obama administration are moving in the right direction, the fact is that this bill in its current form leaves out a major chunk of what should be included in any safety or oversight review that we require of the secretary. i'm grateful for the rule for allowing for a full discussion and vote on this amendment. mr. speaker, a may 2010 article, outlines the roots of this problem in detail and without objection i'd like to enter that article in the record. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. polis: it explains how the endangered species act the department of interior is

required to get permits for drilling might harm mammals. the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, or noaa, is partially responsible for protecting endangered species and mammals. it says that drilling in the gulf does affect these an madam speaker. that's simply science. but records shows that permits for hundreds of wells, including the b.p. disaster well itself were granted without getting the permits required under existing federal law. federal records show that noaa instructed the mineral agency to continue drink in the gulf harmed wildlife and needed to get compliance with federal law but sadly those permits were never sawed. with regard to the national environmental protection act, the government has time and time again performed cursory and environmental analysis and exempted entire projects from nepa review, including the well. in the past, the only wells have been through lawsuits. my amendment would require these assurances from the secretary before the permit is

issued. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: although well intended, this amendment is duplicative and would add delays to the permitting process and production of american-made energy. it is the responsibility of the department of the interior as overseers of permitting in the gulf to ensure safe and environmentally responsible drilling in the gulf. since the spill last year, the department of the interior has made extensive changes to permitting requirements for offshore operations. every drilling permit is required to go through multiple environmental reviews before the application can be approved. this begins with an initial program athic environmental impact statement and is followed by a lease sale-specific environmental impact statement and continues with additional environmental

reviews as drilling activity move forward. in carrying outs its responsibility, the department already must comply with numerous environmental statutes, regulations and executive orders. these regulations include the national environmental policy act, the endangered species act, the marine mammal protection act, the coastal zone management act, the clean air act, and the fishery conservation and management act, and i may have left some out. this demonstrates the redundancy in this amendment and why it is not necessary. administration officials and even director bromwich have stated on numerous occasions to both the natural resources committee and the american people that they would not permit operations if they did not believe they meet all the requirements to be conducted safely, efficiently and in an environmentally responsible manner. the interior department already complies with these particular environmental regulations when approving permits. and the fact that the

department is permitting operations although at a slower pace than i would like to see demonstrate that they have confidence in the regulations that the agency have set for offshore drilling operations. the real effect of this amendment, whether intended or not, it more delays to offshore energy production and more lengthy and burdensome lawsuits. so, mr. chairman, i urge a no vote and i oppose this amendment. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: mr. lamborn reserves the balance of his time. mr. polis. mr. polis: mr. speaker, this underlying legislation is very basic safety review provision. it simply doesn't address the broad swath of problems that need to be addressed by any serious offshore drilling project. my amendment is a simple way of ensuring that the many shortcomings are at least considered by the secretary as articulated in federal law and are discussed during this debate. unfortunately, this bill does not take into account the

lessons our country learned from the terrible b.p. deep-water disaster. in addition to accepting my amendment, i certainly hope the committee will address these problems with even stronger language in any future bill it does on the issue of offshore drilling in general with regard to safety and the environment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn: may i inquire of the chair how much time remains on my side? the chair: mr. lamborn has three minutes. mr. lamborn: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to mr. gohmert. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. gohmert: i appreciate the gentleman's amendment and his zeal to ensure that the environment is properly addressed, but those concerns are properly addressed in the permitting policy. the problem is that we had a company with around 800 safety violations, british petroleum,

was allowed to drill and why? could it be they were negotiating at the very time the blowout with democrats in the senate for making the big announcement that they supported the administration's cap and trade bill? could it be that they were going to be involved in the carbon credit business and would work with the administration? perhaps a better question than the effect on the environment is, how close will the applicant for a drilling permit be politically with this administration? because what we see time after time is a situation of political payback. we see crony capitalism. if you're a good buddy at g.e. you're going to do well. if you're on wall street and you contribute 4-1 to this administration over its

opponent then you're going to do well. you may have to endure being called a fat cat from time to time. otherwise we're going to make sure your profits exceed anything you've ever seen before. we've seen this administration rush to libya. we've seen this administration rush proponently to help our friend, japan. we've seen them rush all over the place, but when it came to really helping the gulf coast region this administration rushed in and did more damage to people's lives by putting this moratorium on than the spill itself did. at some point it's time for the administration to stop the political payback game. perhaps louisiana would be better off if they disassociated themselves with texas. we know that you can have 500,000 acres burned and be a disaster area. you can have two million in texas. they won't come to your help because this administration is partisan and bitterly so.

but it's time for this administration to quit playing political games and help people where they need it in our own let's vote no on the amendments and get this bill through. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is the only speaker with time remaining. mr. lamborn: i would urge opposition and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. polis: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be

postponed. it is in order to consider amendment number 2. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-73 offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 245, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: we just heard a pretty good discussion here a moment ago about the safety issues in the gulf. and the legislation before us seems to ignore every one of the recommendations that the bipartisan independent commission made about how to conduct deepwater drilling in a safe manner. actually bp did have a terrible record.

i'm pleased my colleague from texas pointed out the 800 violations that bp had. there was a bit of a problem for at least 11 members of the gulf oil industry. they died as a result of the inattention to safety. the proposal that i have before us deals with one of the recommendations that the commission made. and that is that there be an independent safety organization created to provide an additional level of review of the requirements that drilling be done safely. now, the legislation before us ignores that recommendation by the commission. and basically says that the american petroleum institution is quite capable of doing this. well, the commission, the independent, bipartisan commission said the american petroleum industry is culturally

ill-suited to drive the safety revolution in the industry. for this reason, it is essential that a safety enterprise operate apart from the american petroleum industry, and i could not agree more. and my amendment would require that the secretary, in determining whether a permit application meets the critical safety requirements, that he must consult with an independent safety organization and that organization must not be affiliated with the american petroleum institute. now the institute said no problem, we'll create our own. i'm sorry. but that's not the way to provide the appropriate safety standard. we don't need to have more deaths or more blowouts. we need to do the drilling safely and that it be done in a manner that assures that lives will not be lost and oil will not be spilled in the ocean.

that's what this amendment does, by providing an outside, independent organization with the requirement that they requirement with the secretary on the applications. we do not change the 50-day requirement. that remains in place. and so there is a time frame, we don't change any of the requirements with regard to lawsuits and the rest, which i don't think are appropriate. i would ask for the adoption of this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: i yield myself such time as i may consume and i do oppose this amendment, although well intended, the putting of the gulf of mexico back to work ensures that any proposed drilling operation be subject to a safety review and there in the

bill already, and that it meets established critical safety system requirements including blowout prevention and oil drill response and this has to be done before theishance of a permit. this is the responsibility of the department of interior. i don't believe it should be farmed out to other organizations that may or may not have the background, expertise or resources to evaluate drilling permits. in fiscal year 2011, house republicans voted to increase funding for the department of the interior in order to ensure they have the resources to safely, responsibly and effectively approve permits. the interior department has the responsibility as the draft legislation to solicit public comment and do take advice and counsel from all americans including those with exeter tease in these areas. however, once the standards are set, it is the responsibility of

the government to enforce the standards. oversight is the government's responsibility and should not be delegated to outside organizations. this amendment would slow down and make more complicated the already lengthy and involved permitting process. so i urge opposition to this amendment and urge opponents to vote no on it and i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: an interesting discussion from my colleague from colorado. i would note that there are numerous examples where the federal government does rely upon outside safety organizations. for example, the institute of nuclear power operations provides safety standards for our nuclear industry. specifically not allowing the nuclear power industry to do the safety reviews, but rather an

outside organization. we are simply calling for a level of review that is not associated with those two organizations that caused the problem. the department of interior and i was the deputy secretary of the department of interior in the 1990's and have some familiarity of the comings and goings and that department. this particular section of the department of interior has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, over time, it has not been able to regulate properly the safety and other elements of the natural gas and oil industry. we need to provide an outside level of review on the safety requirements, both to keep the department of interior on the proper course and the industry itself on the proper course. that's what the amendment does. i think it makes sense and we are really talking about both environmental issues here, that

is the health of the environment and the coast, which was seriously compromised and the well-being of the men and women who work on these oil platforms and we know that their fate has been jeopardized in the past and should not be jeopardized in the future. i ask for an aye vote on this amendment both here and later on the floor. i yield back the remaining amount of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i would point out there is a public comment period that is available right now and that is a proper and appropriate forum for an outside group to make the kind of standards-related comments that would be possibly helpful. when it comes to issuing the permit, that is something that should be delegated to the federal government. they do have the resources. in fact, they have expanded resources to do a better job of that hopefully in the future.

for those reasons, mr. chairman, i would urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the e the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. garamendi: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 112-73. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in part a of house report 112-73, offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 245, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes. mr. speaker, one year has past since the deepwater horizon accident, yet bp, transocean, haliburton and cameron continue to argue in court which of them deserves more blame for the 11 deaths and environmental devastation. bp continues to fight the estimates of the amount of oil spilled in order to minimize its liability. and more than one year after the beginning of this disaster, congress has still not passed any legislation to improve the safety of offshore drilling and ensure that the lessons of the bp spill are incorporated into future drilling. the co-chairs of the independent bp commission have testified before the natural resources committee that the accident could have been prevented and the commission found that the root causes of the disaster were

systemic to the entire industry and there are extensive reports documented numerous specific failures of the cementing, well design and testing and maintenance associated with the deepwater horizon well. and recently, the department of interior's contractor, released its report on the forensic investigation of the deepwater horizon blow outpreventor and here's what they found. the results indicated that the drilling pipes had buckled due to the force of the blowout and the cutting devices therefore couldn't fully severe the pipe and seal off the well. according to the report, contrary to the claims of the oil industry, the blowout preventors are fail-safe devices and seems unclear that the blowout preventors can prevent

major blow outs at all once they are under way. here we are today with the republicans bringing out legislation that takes no meaningful safety protections for the industry. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: this amendment was rejected by a bipartisan vote of the full natural resources committee and i urge opposition to it. this amendment micro manages and dictates specific safety and blowout preventor standards for permit applications. many of these standards would do lig or nothing different than what is already being done by the department of interior. however these restrictions would if this amendment is passed, making congress the micro

manager of outer continental shelf regulations and reducing the flexibility of the department to adapt to new technology and new developments in drilling safety. if we are lagging behind developments in the industry, this would prevent us or could prevent us from adopting the new or better standards in the future. the technical stands proposed in this amendment have not been subject to a thorough review or understanding of the impacts of such changes. this is particularly troubling when you consider that this language is written before we even knew why the blowout preventor failed. h.r. 1229 already takes steps to increase the safety of offshore drilling by requiring the secretary of the interior to conduct a safety review to ensure that the proposed drilling operations meet, quote, critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements. that language is lifted straight

out of the bill. so, my colleagues on the other side are acting as if nothing has changed and no safety reforms have been made. by doing so, they are ignoring the facts on the ground and the actions of their own party's administration. i'm not willing to indict the administration and say that they have done nothing in this regard. so at this point, i yield, mr. chairman, -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself two minutes again. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: mr. chairman, here is the bp blue ribbon commission report that was conducted to investigate and to make recommendations as to what the causes were and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. right now, nothing that's in this report has been implemented in terms of legislation here on

the house floor. so i'll tell you what my bill does, it will require multiple lines of defense against the blowout and ensures that these defenses are redundant so failure of one does not lead to cascading failures of the entire system as occurred with bp's well. first, the amendment sets minimum standards for blowout preventors, including a requirement that the preventors operate as intended even when the force of an ongoing blowout shifts the pipe out of position. the requirement requires new standards on safe well design and cementing to ensure multiple redundant barriers within the well that could lead to a blowout and the amendment also requires independent third-pearlt certification of well design and finally the language ensures if the

department of interior finds that some other measures that it has or one day may require a higher level of safety, that the secretary can substitute those better alternatives instead. this is the direction we should be heading in. and at this point, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. mr. landry: i would like to point out to my colleague, that one of my colleagues from louisiana, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, h r. 56, puts into law a portion of that report and since he is so interested in making sure that some of the information in the president's report becomes law, i certainly hope he will co-sponsor that legislation. i'm sure those in the gulf

would appreciate that piece. i didn't know he was an expert in oil and gas drilling. you know. because when i go back home and talk to those in louisiana they tell me they've already instituted safety guidelines above and beyond what the gentleman from massachusetts puts forth here. the industry is safer today than it was the day before the deepwater accident. in addition to that, we have the ability to cap the type of incident that happened in the gulf, today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i inchoir how many minutes are remaining on both sides and who has the right to conclude debate? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/4 minutes, and the gentleman from colorado has two minutes remaining.

the gentleman from colorado has the right to close. mr. markey: i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i would rather close and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself the remaining time. i am not an expert on drilling. we are congressional experts and that's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, like jumbo shrimp or salt lake city night life. we rely on real experts. here are the real experts, the blue ribbon commission put together to study what went wrong and what needs to be done. that's what my amendment will do. my amendment is very close to the legislation that passed 48-0 out of the commerce

committee last year and was later adopted by the house. so all we're doing is reflecting what all these experts recommended and want incorporated. we can ignore the experts but then we roll the dice. and once again, a part of our coastline could be held hostage to an oil company that was trying to save money. but at the risk of endangering the lives and livelihoods of millions of people off the coastline of our country. i urge an aye vote for the markey amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i would close by saying that the experts we should rely on are those in the department of interior, director michael bronwich, and on down, who have been working on this for the last year. they have extensive regulations. some of what is proposed are actually regulations right now. while the bill does call for

certain safety standards to be satisfied and met, we have delegated the responsibility for the exact language and implementation of those regulations to those who deal with this eight hours a day, day in and day out, week in, week out, year in, year out. so there is a balance. we give the broad parameters, they carry out, as a regulatory agency, every last final detail and congress as has been admitted does not have the technical expertise to foresee every single development and foresee every single problem that could arise. so while overseeing, we have to do some delegation. this bill does that. we strike that fine balance. and the administration's department has been doing a job, a strong job of strengthening the safety requirements. i do take issue with the pace of their permitting but as far

as the safety implementation they have put very aggressive safety measures into place. so for those reasons, mr. chairman, i oppose this amendment and urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. markey: mr. chairman, on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. markey: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pusuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed.

the chair: it's now ein order to consider amendment number four printed in house report part a. ms. hanabusa: mr. chairman, i rise -- i offer the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 112-73, offered by ms. hanabusa of haye. -- of hawaii. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from haye, ms. han due -- -- from hawaii, the -- the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, and a member oppose each will control five minutes. ms. hanabusa: the amendment i propose is a simple amendment. title 43, section 1340, entitled geological and

geophysical explorations is what is the subject of h r. 1229. specifically, subsection d entitled drilling permits. under that subsection, the secretary -- it states the secretary offer us an approved exploration plan to drilling any well in accordance with such plan. what the amendments are proposing here today and what my amendment is addresses is what is set forth as page four and i propose that it amends after line 6 and includes a subsection three, which addresses the worst case discharge scenario certification this amendment requires the secretary shall not issue a permit without certifying that the applicant first has calculated a worst case discharge scenario for the proposed drilling operations and b has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the secretary that the applicant possesses

the capability and technology to respond immediately and effectively to such worst case discharge scenario. mr. chairman, we are talking here to the people. the people across this nation and the world who watched the worst case scenario. what happened in the b.p. oil spill. what we are simply saying is that before any permit is issued, that the secretary take the precaution of first having a sense of what that worst case scenario could be and second that whoever is seeking that applicant who is seeking this permit has both the capability and technology and has demonstrated as such to address that worst case scenario. mr. chairman, it is a simple statement. and it is a requirement that the people would like to see. no one wants to sit there and experience a b.p. oil spill

again. mr. chairman, i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i do oppose this amendment, it is duplicative and unnecessary. it attempts to expand on the language in the bill that mandates that the secretary conduct a safety review to affirm oil spill response and containment capability prior to issuing a permit. we believe that the department of the interior already requires that applicants must calculate worst case discharge before approving a permit. on june 18 of last year, the department issued a notice to lessees outlining the information requirements and standard to be met before a permit could be approved. in the notice, it required that a lessee, quote, describe the assumption and calculations you

used to determine the volume of your worst case discharge scenario. unquote. so this exact language this exact intention has already been addressed so i would oppose this amendment as redundant and unnecessary. at this point, mr. chairman, i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: i yield myself a minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: mr. chairman, this amendment should not be an issue. it contains the language the people want to hear. the people want to hear what is the worst case scenario. i also contend it does not do that, it is not duplicative. what is contained in the bill is a statement of critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and

contamination requirements. it does not say the worst case scenario and does not require the applicant to show the secretary it has the capability and technological ability to address that. so it is not duplicative. but to the extent that the opposer would like to say it is duplicative, then i believe they should not object to this. after all, it does say what people want to hear. people want to be guaranteed that the b.p. oil spill does not happen again. i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. che the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i yield two minutes to a member of the energy and commerce committee who has a district in the state of louisiana, mr. cassidy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cassidy: rarely are the goals of our country as aligned as they are now. we need economic recovery with good jobs with good benefits for those who have a problem with unemployment. as it turns out, we also have the goal of increasing energy

security and lastly a goal of protecting our environment. now, let's just go through these in order. as regards jobs. let's tuck about the oil and gas industry. the president, the administration's estimate of the economic impact of the moratorium and the perm toirm are -- and the permitorium are 2,000 jobs loss. it's not just the gulf coast and oil rig workers. it's also those who work on pipelines. it is boat builders. one of the boat builders in louisiana is the largest customer worldwide of caterpillar engyps, an engine built in the state of illinois using steel from the midwest, it's used on the coast of louisiana to build boat tosser vis rigs. needless to say, those caterpillar engines are in the now being ordered. that steel order going to caterpillar to order these is not being done. so the jobs that ripple out are not just in the gulf coast. they go all the way across the

country. we also have a goal to increase energy security. prior to this bill, 1/3 of the domestically produced oil in the united states came from the outer continental shelf. since we have limited further exploration, we have lost the opportunity to increase the domestic sfly of energy to increase our security, to insulate us from issues in north africa driving up fuel prices. we have the goal to protect the environment. in louisiana we particularly care about that. we do not take this for granted but we realize you have to be both pro business as well as pro environment. and we take that very seriously. so what are the facts on this? the president right after the spill appointed a blue ribbon commission from the national academy of engineering. these engineers that the president picked said that the causes of oil spill are identifiable and correctable and that a prolonged moratorium

will not appreciably improve safety. mr. lamborn: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cassidy: what we see is not a recognition that the blue ribbon commission is right but rather a regulatory hurdle set upon regulatory hurdle. now we have a notice that demands that which this amendment also demands and we're not going to add a notice to lessees but add this on top of this at some point hostility to energy becomes hostility to workers and a hostility to our environment. i oppose this amendment, i think it's bad for workers, i think it's bad for the economy the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: may i inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides? the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii has 1 3/4 and the

gentleman from colorado has 1 1/2 minutes. ms. hanabusa: i yield myself a minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: i'm sure the gentleman from louisiana had no intention of saying that anyone who may want an amendment to this bill is somehow hostile or somehow anti-jobs, anti-energy environment because that's not the intent. this is putting gulf of mexico back to work act. we have no objections to that, but why can't it say putting the gulf of mexico back to work act safely and that is all being requested here. let's look at what happened at the bp oil spill and make sure it doesn't happen again. another spill like that, by taking these precautions can be avoided and by doing that, by doing that, we will not be faced with a situation where someone

from that district said we are hostile and not encouraging jobs or energy security or not en couraging the environment. this is what we are trying to do and do all of these and has an ripple effect. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. lamborn: i have no other speakers and wait to close as soon as the gentlelady is done. i reserve. the chair: the the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. . ms. hanabusa: i request an aye vote on this amendment and very straightforward common sense amendment. we are ready to address the worst case scenario and the secretary will not issue a permit until it is addressed and not only identified but the applicant has the skills and the capabilities to do and prevent such a spill.

we are all interested in the jobs and the economic security of the gulf and all the neighboring states in that area plus its ripple effect. that's why we want to see it doesn't happen again and want the people to be confident that we in congress address their concerns. thank you and i request an aye vote. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i will close by saying that this amendment, though well intended, is duplicative and is admitted by the other side and unnecessary and i would urge a no vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from hawaii. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. hanabusa: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from hawaii will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 5 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6, printed in part a of house report 112-73. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: i have amendment number 6 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 112-73 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 245, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: the amendment includes

language that would add a time line to the permitting practice to offshore oil and gas drilling. this provision states that, quote, 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, end quote. my amendment would simply strike this section. in other words, as it stands in the legislation before us, if for whatever reason, incomplete information, new information, the secretary has not made a decision whether or not to approve the application, then the application will be considered from then on approved. there are a number of provisions in this bill that could make offshore drilling less safe. my amendment is aimed at perhaps

the most dangerous of those provisions. this bill short circuits existing requirements to protect oil industry workers and those who depend on marine resources for their livelihoods and so forth. ensuring that environmental and safety standards are met so the new permits will not result in a repeat of the deepwater horizon disaster is really too important to allow permits to go through the door prematurely and automatically simply because of an arbitrary time line imposed by this legislation. depending on the dedication of a particular secretary on safety and environmental protection, it would produce either automatic approval to drill or unjustified rejection of a valid application if the review is not completed within the allotted time. either way the imposition of an

arbitrary deadline is bad policy. it's based on a presumption that environmental and safety reviews are worthless and there is really no value in getting the review right. my amendment would leave in place the permitting time line set in h.r. 1229 creating the sense of urgency my colleagues are seeking, but would remove the automatic approval of applications after that 60-daytimeline. if we learned anything from the deepwater horizon disaster, we must do more, not less, to protect those who work in the oil industry and those who depend on offshore resources and onshore resources for their livelihood. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. lamborn: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the legislation on the floor today is designed to put americans in the gulf region back to work and to ensure that permits are processed in a timely fashion and bureaucratic delays are not hampering the nation's energy production. there are critics of the timeline that is proposed in this bill on both sides of that timeline. some say it is too short, others say it is too long. it is important for people to understand that no wherein this bill do we require the administration to do anything but reach a decision, whatever that decision might be. they may deny an application at any time in the process as long as they provide a clear description of why they are doing so. prior to the incident in the gulf, the administration was capable of processing permits in five to 15 days on average. the 30-daytime line in the bill is significantly longer and

allows the administration extensions. in the end, the administration must reach a decision. the provision this amendment proposes to remove is the final deadline that the administration must meet and one that should be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that no defacto moratorium or per hit torium is instituted. this amendment, if adopted, would further delay offshore energy production. it would continue to allow the department to impose a defacto drilling moratorium that could cost thousands of jobs and allow higher prices on energy with less supply. i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: may i ask the chair the time remaining? the chair: both sides have three minutes remaining.

mr. holt: mr. chair, the -- my friend from colorado talked about the harm that this bill would do and why it's important that the application be approved even if the review is not complete. even if the review is not yet done right. i wonder if the gentleman from colorado thinks that maybe a student should graduate, even if he hasn't taken the exam because the semester is coming to an end and, well, time's up. i guess we should just declare the student dual -- duly passed even if the review hasn't been done. that's a question. if the gentleman feels that a student should be deemed passed because the semester is coming to an end, even if a review of that student's work has not been

completed. i would yield to the gentleman if he cares to answer. if not, i will continue. i guess not. you know, this legislation might make sense if, if we thought there were some economic need for it, if we thought that there was some safety need for it, if we thought it was important to agrees the skid and move through the environmental review quickly, but none of those things apply. this will not bring down prices. certainly release of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve would do more for prices at the pump than this. this won't make a difference in the price of the gas at the pump and won't help the troubled industry. this industry is not troubled and going to take home $100

billion in profits this year. we don't need to greece the -- grease the skids and getting the review right would subject them to undue hardship. no, in fact, this is a very dangerous provision in a bill that that is part of the set of amnesia acts. the bill is part of these three bills that pretend that the -- there are no lessons to be learned from 2010. the bill that present tends the gulf oil blowout never occurred. that wills amnesia on the policy of the united states so that we forget that the worst oil spill in history, from which there are real lessons to be learned, never occurred. i urge passage of this amendment.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i want to apologize i was confused whether you were asking a rhetorical question or wanted to have a colloquy and i was happy to and hopefully in the future could have a colloquy on that with you. i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. land the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. landland he wants to reinstate the moratorium. it is exactly what he is trying to put in place which is to allow the administration to drag its feet not only on the wells and drilling in deep water but also on the shelf as well. he must be confused because you see what the democrats have proposed, what the other side has proposed in removing the tax

breaks for these companies would make oil and gas, the congressional research service has reported, that that proposal would also make oil and natural gas more expensive for the u.s. consumers and likely increase our foreign dependence. what are we here to do today? we are here to bring relief to americans at the pump and get people in the gulf of mexico region back to work. i yield back. mr. lamborn: i conclude by saying that what this bill wants to accomplish is that the administration must reach a decision on whether a permit should be issued. this amendment proposes to remove the final deadline that the administration would have to meet and one that should be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that no defacto moratorium is

instituted. this amendment would simply further delay offshore energy production. that does not help jobs and does not help the supply or cost of energy in this country and would allow the department to ash temporarily impose a defacto moratorium that would cost thousands of jobs. i oppose this amendment. i urge my colleagues to vote know. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. holt: i ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. . it is now in order to consider

amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-73. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-73, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 245, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i would like to submit my entire statement for the record. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. polis: this bill would impose a 30-day deadline for internal action on drilling permits. if at the end of the 30 to 60 day period they haven't acted, the permit is quote-unquote deemed approved automatically, even if the environmental work

hasn't been done this legislation doesn't get to the root of the problem. we know that one of the fundamental causes of the b.p. spill was not the lack of not only enough inspectors but the lack of inspectors with a high level of expertise and engineering knowledge. you wouldn't referee a game by doing away with the rules because the referee didn't know them. you do away with -- you get another referee. the department shouldn't be forced to do the job too fast. we should be working to make government more efficient and more effective my amendment addresses the root of this issue by lifting the arbitrary timeline environments if the -- requirements if the department isn't given enough time. i yield back my time. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'll do my best to be brief. the purpose of h.r. 1229 is to get residents of the gulf back to work producing offshore energy, not only good for them, good for the entire country this amendment, whether intended or not, would allow the administration to continue to impose a de facto moratorium that would delay production and keep thousands of people out of work. the residents in the gull rf in a holding pattern waiting for their jobs to come back. some of them have even seen their jobs outsourced to other countries as rigs leave the gulf of mexico bound for other parts of the world. now there is an established process for the administration to propose and advocate for funding and resources different from what this amendment addresses. this annual process, the budget process, prvidse ample opportunity for considering what is needed to safely and

responsibly oversee offshore energy production. let us note that the house republican majority, in enacting the budget, acted to increase funding for reviewing and i approving offshore permits for the year which was not done by the congress last year this amendment would delay american energy production for that -- and for that reason i oppose it. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. polis: on that, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed.

pusuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 112-73 on which further proceedings were postponed. -- postponed in the following order. amendment number one by mr. polis of colorado. amendment number two by mr. garamendi of california, amendment number three by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-73 by the gentleman from coloro, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-73 offered by mr. polis of colorado.

e chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is offered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of presentatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

thchair: on this vote, the yeas are 167, the nays are 245. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recoed vote on amendment number 2, printed in part a of house report 112-73 by the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part a of house report 112-73 offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the unitedtates house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commerci purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment, the yeas are 249, the nays are 240, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is t request for a recorded vote on amendment number three printed in house re-- part a of house report 112-73 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, oen which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will dere-designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in part a of house report 112-73, offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: those in request of the -- support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperatio with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of reprentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 175, the nays are 237. the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 176, the nays are 237, the amendment is not adopted.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report if the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the chair: will the gentleman suspend. the chair will entertain a motion to rise. >> mr. chairman, i move that the committee rise. the chair: the question son the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee rises.

the chair: mr. speaker the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 1279, reports that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee -- the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee had under consideration h.r. 1229 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> mr. speaker, now isen to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house 257, resolution to provide for consideration of the bill h. -- h.r. 231 to provide that each oil and gas leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most

prospective ail areas and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: preferred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of h.r. 856, a bill originally introduced by representative heller of nevada for the purpose of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my namesas co-spon or of the bill h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

pursuant to house resolution 245 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1229. will the gentleman from -- will the gentlelady from florida, mrs. adams, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1229 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the outer continental shelf lands act, to facilitate the safe and timely production of american energy resources from the gulf of mexico. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today amendment number 3 offered by

the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, had been disposed of. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 112-73. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 112-73 offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 245, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will come to order. the house will be in order.

members, please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: madam speaker, speeding up the permitting process and thereby making it easier to drill off our country's shores in the manner that this bill does will do little to help americans at the gas pump. according to the energy information agency, even tripling our current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only five cents per gallon more than if we continue at the current levels. at maximum output, the united states holds only 2%, less than really 2% of the world's oil reserves. not nearly enough to significantly impact the price

per barrel which is set on a global level primarily by the organization of trell exporting countries that -- petroleum exporting countries that we represent as opec. in reality the united states is already producing more oil per day than it ever has. yet gas prices are still around $4 per gallon. though production in our country has actually increased every year since 2005, crude oil hit a record 147 -- $147 per barrel over this same time period. demonstrating that there is little correlation between drilling levels in the united states and the price of oil. more drilling will put our businesses as well as our environment and health at an increased risk with little return to the average american. the united states consumes 1/4

of the world's oil. what drives the price of oil more than any other factor is the large scale and high demand for it worldwide. the only way we can reduce gasoline prices is to decrease our country's demand for fossil fuels by increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of our cars and developing real renewable energy resources. federal policy should focus on making these changes, not on dangerously restricting federal oversight of the industry. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you and i yield myself such time as i may

consume. the intent of h.r. 1229 is to put americans in the gulf back to work and to ensure a steady domestic supply of oil for our citizens and consumers. thereby lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil. i must oppose this amendment. the effect of the amendment is that we are going to hold ourselves hostage to foreign energy unless we can prove that domestic energy meets some abstract standard and satisfies some bureaucrat. where i disagree with this amendment the most is the assumption that domestic energy production might not be good for america and might not be allowed. more supply cannot help but to lower prices, reduce dependence, generate revenue and create jobs. i see all these results of domestic energy production as good, good for america, good for consumers and good for a balance of trade. this is true whether the impact from a single well is sufficient in an of itself to move the

price of oil prices overseas or not. the real result of this amendment would be that we don't create jobs, revenue and more energy. for these reasons, madam speaker, i oppose this amendment and i encourage my colleagues to vote no and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. hastings: madam speaker, how much time i do have remaining? -- time do i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: i hope no one in the gulf is sitting out there holding their breath waiting for this named bill here, amendment on h.r. 1229, putting the gulf of mexico back to work. let me talk real here about what's getting ready to happen. the republicans will pass this particular measure. it will go to that black hole over in the senate and never become the law of the united states and the administration has made it very clear that if this measure were to pass it is

not going to in fact be permitted under the agents of the president's veto which they cannot overturn. so while people in mississippi and people in louisiana are suffering floods right now, compounding all of the circumstances that they've had to put up with with the b.p. oil spill, here we are dilly daliing, making like we are going to do something to create work in the gulf. we're not going to do one single solitary thing and if we can do nothing more we ought to tell the people the truth. and if we drilled everywhere you say drill in america, we still would only have 1.97% of all of the oil in the world. canada has more oil than we do and we get plenty of it from them. mexico almost has as much as we do. how dare we come here and talk about with two weeks of oil that ain't going to reduce gas none

and suggest to people it's going to put people back to work. balderdash. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: thank you, madam chairman. i would point out that it's skewing the statistics and not accurate to say the u.s. has only 2% of the world's oil reserves. when you look at b.t.u.'s, energy production, we have more energy available in this country than any other country in the world. and looking at oil specifically, we have 145 billion barrels of recoverable oil according to the c.r.s.. so that is much larger than what some people say. and on the point of whether the president has taken a position, this is the statement of administration policy on this bill and there's no veto threat

in here. so if we are fortunate to see this bill not just pass the house but the senate as well i'm sure the white house will seriously consider this and i would be hopeful that it would be signed into law. with that, madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 prohibited in part a of house report -- printed in part a of house

report 11-73. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- 112-73. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the bill. offered by mr. deutsche of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 245, the gentleman from florida, mr. deutsche, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. deutsche deutsche a little more than a -- mr. deutsche: a little more than a year ago, the b.p. oil vessel exploded in the gulf of mexico. over several months millions of gallons of oil were dumped into the gulf. the oil spill caused irreparable damage to delicate eke systems, damaged -- ecosystems, damaged the shore and was devastating to local jobs and livelihoods along the gulf coast. indeed the oil spill caused significant harm to my state of florida's environment and economy from which we are still recovering. my amendment will have no impact on the overall bill.

while i do oppose weakening the federal review process of lease applications for energy development, production and exploration of the gulf of mexico, the purpose of my amendment is simply to correct an injustice to the residents of florida and alabama in the bill as it is written. my amendment would strike section 202 which imposes an exclusive venue in the fifth circuit for civil actions relating to the leasing of federal land in the gulf of mexico for energy development, production and exploration. under this provision litigation related to leases on energy development can only be filed in a district court in the fifth circuit. and while the fifth circuit includes the gulf coast states of mississippi, louisiana and texas, two states that comprise substantial gulf coastlines, florida and alabama, are in the 11th circuit and it makes no sense that the residents of these states will have to travel to the fifth circuit to have their cases heard. the affect of this section would

be to prevent the district courts in florida and alabama from considering civil cases related to the issuance of leases for energy development production and exploration off the coastlines theefs states. congress has -- these states. congress has no business telling courts within a state that they are prohibited from considering issues involving a lease for energy development, production and exploration that has the potential to cause irreparable environmental and economic damage to the gulf coast area of that state. in addition, requiring these cases to be moved from florida or alabama to a state within the fifth circuit will cause substantial hardship for the parties involved in the litigation, substantial hardship for the witnesses who would need to testify and would result in substantial costs. striking this exclusive venue provision would ensure that florida and alabama courts could hear these cases and reach a just result that reflects the needs of that state. section 202 does provide an exception only in cases in which there is no proper venue in a

court within the fifth district. however, this exception fails to address these very serious concerns. the parties involved in litigation on leasing would first have to determine that there is no court within the fifth circuit that would be available to consider the case. only after determining that there was no court in the fifth circuit, then the parties will be permitted to file in florida or alabama. in short, section 202 will prohibit the courts in florida and alabama from considering and rendering a decision in lawsuits on leases for energy development, production and exploration off their coasts. my amendment would strike this section, it makes no changes to the overall bill, provides a simple solution to address this bill's unwarranted restrictions on which courts will be able to review these leases, should they pose a threat to the gulf coast area. i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition to this amendment.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. in order to ensure that there is a circuit court that is familiar with the legal issues surrounding civil actions involving gulf energy production, it is important that venue be restricted to the fifth circuit. so that those district and appeals court judges would have the essential experience and legal precedent to fairly rule on these technical cases. for that reason i oppose this amendment. the fifth circuit as was pointed out earlier does include louisiana, mississippi and texas, all gulf coast states. if area district courts and courts of appeals throughout the country were able to hear these cases, there may be a result of having no uniformity in decision making. and judges who do not have as much expertise or background could be making vital decisions in which the energy security of our nation hangs in the balance.

it is essential that there be one federal judicial circuit that understands the technical aspects of these cases with judges who have a background in understanding offshore energy policies and practices. this len sure that all cases -- this will ensure that all cases are handled fairly and expeditiously and uniformly without any confusion or delay. by requiring all cases to go through the fifth circuit we accomplish this important goal. for that reason i urge a no on this amendment and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. deutch: as -- mr. hastings: as a state and federal judge i urge my colleague it is from colorado to understand something. circuit judges don't of necessity in the area they live have specific specialty. a judge may go on the bench in the fifth circuit and have studied patent law and know

nothing about oil. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. deutch: may i ask how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/4. mr. deutch: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the gentleman's theory is based on a flawed interpretation. the gentleman spoke of the need to have uniformity of decision making. uniformity of decision making. as i understand the role of the federal judiciary, the role of our court system is to provide justice. the role is not to ensure we have the same decision in every court. my amendment simply says that if you are a judge in the state of florida, or a judge in the state of alabama, that you are

in a position just as well as the judge in texas or these other gulf states to make a determination about how the law should be interpreted. the idea that judges have to have a sufficient background and that if courts throughout the country were table hear these they would not reach a logical conclusion, the fact is, we're not asking courts throughout the country to hear these cases. we're asking judges within the states whose coastlines would be dramatically affected and have been afingted in the case of spills like the deepwater horizon. madam chairwoman, i would suggest that if our goal is to seek justice, we must seek justice in the courts where the states that have seen the damage. i ask for the coppings of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: if the gentleman wanted to make sure the judges of alabama and florida were

included, maybe the amendment should have been written that way. i think we would have a strong point of debate, and that would be a legitimate item to discuss. however that's not how the amendment is draft the amendment talks about letting in judges of the entire country, circuits of the entire country. for that reason, i urge a no vote on this amendment. yes, i would yield. mr. deutch: therefore, i would like to confirm, if the language in the will bill -- in the bill were very clear that cases -- for cases to be brought affecting the leasing and exploration of oil in the gulf, that if those cases could be brought in any of the gulf states, including florida and alabama, then the sponsor would not oppose the amendment? mr. lamborn: reclaiming my time, i would say we would have a more legitimate issue to debate.

but it's too late. the amendment doesn't say that so that's not an option in front of us. mr. deutch: if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman's position is courts in florida and alabama are just as well equipped to hear these cases as are the courts in texas and the other gulf states? mr. lamborn: reclaiming my time, i would say those judges certainly have a closeness to the situation that would be helpful but the circuit, i believe it's the 11th circuit includes a number of other states that are not as situated like alabama and florida. so in choosing the fifth circuit, all the states there are gulf coast states. mr. deutch: if the gentleman would yield for one final question. while the natural resources committee has acted on this bill this should have been debated in the judiciary committee, where all these issues could have been worked

out. for that reason, given what we have to work with, i again ask for adoption of my amendment, which helps to bring justice and some clarity to what is otherwise a murky provision in this piece of legislation. mr. lamborn: reclaiming my time, my understanding is the judiciary committee didn't have any problems with this revision. but having discussed this, i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields become. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. deutch: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the quelt from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-73. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek

recognition? mr. hastings: i rise as the designee of the maker of the amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will -- will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-73, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 245, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: this amendment, the writer of this amendment is jared polis of colorado. i can't resist departing from the preparation he has undergone to suggest that if my other friend from colorado's logic is followed then i gather that the circuit courts of the united states, all 13 of them, must be the courts of last resort and if you follow your logic to its conclusion, we would eliminate the united states supreme court because, of course, those nine people

wouldn't know anything about what the sirblingts had done wherever they came from. madam speaker, when reading this bill, particularly the section on judicial review, the phrase rush to judgment came to mind to mr. polis. that's exactly what this bill directs our courts to do. instead of hearing and deciding a case based on the case's merits, this bill tells the courts that speed, not justice, should be their top priority. madam speaker, the integrity of any law is only as good as the court's ability to review and enforce it. we all learned in civics class that one of the strengths of our nation is its system of checks and balances. passing legislation that tilts the court in favor of one side or another is hardly in line with this most fundamental of american values, yet this is what much of what h.r. 1229's

judicial review section does. mr. polis' amendment that i offer as his designee is a modest amendment that promotes the integrity of that review and the integrity of our nation's principal affair and impartial -- principal of fair and impartial courts. the bill gives a handout to the lawyers for the oil companies while not protecting our health. this states the court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered civil action as expeditiously as possible. who does it help when the courts are directed to make decisions in haste at the expense of research and deliberation? it only helps those who can afford teams of high-priced lawyers and lobbyists, who know where and when to push the pressure buttons of influence. my colleagues' -- my colleague's amendment replaces

the word expeditiously with the word justly. as the courts should be deciding cases based not simply on speed but on the law. undoubtedly the judicial review provisions in h.r. 1229 have been included to promote the misleading argument commonly used by the majority party and the big oil companies alike that frivolous lawsuits by local communities and environmentalists strangle the industry and staal demoastic drilling, yet quarter after quarter, oil companies continue to reap record profits and are developing more domestic energy than ever before. exxon is actually ahead of us. they're in the business of talking about gas while we're around here dilly-dallying about oil. furthermore this misleading hard luck story leaves out a critical fact, that the industry is just as active in using the courts to get its way as any public health or

environmental watchdog but the industry has much more money for such legal actions already giving it an unfair advantage. in fact, recent lawsuits have been filed against the government by alaskan oil companies to overturn critical habitat restricks by oil companies against the e.p.a. for ethanol standards and numerous suits against the department of the interior by industry over the temporary ban following the b.p. disaster. let's remember the point of judicial review is to ensure that the law is followed and to provide a check and balance when it is not. the underlying bill is in effect saying that following the law no longer matters. it doesn't matter if justice is served and it only matters if it appears that way. the east front of the supreme court building contains the following inscription -- justice the guardian of

lickerity. should any company have the right to pursue profits? of course. but even our founders recognized that this should be done within the confines of the law, justice, meaning impartial courts and stringent checks and balances are the guardians of our liberty and freedom as americans. instead of promoting a rush to judgment and a blind rubber stamp within the courts, we should instead promote integrity and a system of rigorous checks and balances as these are truly fundamental american values. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has ex-spired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: i yield myself such time as i may consume and i do oppose this amendment. let's look at the big picture. this administration has been held in contempt of court for slow walking permits and is currently trying to appeal a

federal judge's warning that ordered them to act on stalled deepwater permits. while the administration continues to hold up the permitting process, thousands of americans remain unemployed and american energy is locked up. this legislation encourages courts that are hearing permitting cases to act as expeditiously as possible. environmental groups are already working to prepare lawsuits aimed at stalling and holding up offshore energy production. this bill encourages the court to work expeditiously so that lawsuits can be settled quickly. now by seeking to replace the word expeditiously with justly, we're doing something that's totally unnecessary. those of us supporting this bill already assume that courts will act justly. that's what they're appointed for, and that's what we expect and require them to do. so it's superfluous and unnecessary to say they have to act justly when that's what

they're going to do, at least that's our assumption over here anyway. but we need to say that they act expeditiously as well as justly because of the slow walking nature of this current administration's approach to permitting. the effect of this amendment, were it to be adopted, would slow down american energy production at a time when prices are skyrocketing. we need judges to move cases in an expeditious manner so we can use american energy. this bill ensures that everyone will have their day in court but it also ensures that the slow walking of permits by this executive branch will not continue. i urge a no vote and for my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman yield back the remainder of his time?

mr. lamborn: if they've yielded, i yield also. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 112-73. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 112-73, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 245, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: 1229, this bill, in my opinion is an irresponsible giveaway to the

oil industry that has taken enormous profit at american taxpayer expense. section 207 of the bill repeals the equal access to justice act. thereby eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees to litigants bringing successful challenges, be they expeditious, just, or not, to offshore oil and gas activities, making this kind of litigation prohibitively expensive. the b.p. oil spill demonstrated there has been a lack of federal oversight of the drilling industry. consequently legal challenges have become the only enforcement mechanism for many related laws and regulations, removing the judiciary system from the equation makes it even less likely that large oil and gas companies will comply with the environmental and safety standards. let me insert something here.

the commission that was set up under b.p., a colleague of mine in the rules committee said that b.p. has been accountable, only 3.8%, 3.8 -- $3.8 billion of the $20 billion has been let to 177,000 claimants and that ensures, among other things, that by 2013 at the exploration of the commission's -- expertation of the commission's term there will be money left over. guess what my friends at fox news reported? that the money goes back to b.p. how crazy can we be around here? eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees means that the traditional group who brings lawsuits on virme or safety grounds such as fishermen, small business owners and environmental groups will no longer be reimburse withed for the cost of successfully litigating these kinds of claims.

the idea that the bill will somehow eliminate in excess of lawsuits is ridiculous since litigation is by its nature so expensive, these cash-strapped plaintiffs usually only bring those lawsuits with the most likely success. without the possibility of receiving attorneys' fees, legal challenges will effectively become with impossible. madam speaker, section 207 of h.r. 1229 only helps large oil companies avoid having to comply with u.s. law. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you and i yield myself such time as i may consume. i do oppose this amendment. the equal access to justice act provisions in this bill are necessary to avoid costly delays to domestic energy development based on the extreme antienergy agenda of a few groups.

the equal access to justice act was intended to allow people and small businesses with limited financial means the ability to challenge the actions of the federal government. however, it is now being abused by depocketed -- deep pocketed special interest organizations. for example, in 2005 the sierra club and the natural resources defense council received nearly $200,000 in taxpayer dollars after suing the federal government in an offshore ng energy project in california. the sierra club has annual revenues of $85 million and the natural resources defense council has annual revenue of over $100 million. there is no justification for forcing the american taxpayer to pay the attorneys' fees of special interests groups that have ample funds of their own. wealthy ideological groups opposed to more americanmade offshore energy can continue to sue to their heart's content but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot

the bill. i oppose this amendment and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. taxpayer dollars should not go to lawsuits being filed by special interests making millions and millions of dollars in annual revenue. i urge a no vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, when you're flabbergasted the easiest thing to do is just don't say anything else. i just can't believe that we are doing this useless legislation while people in the gulf are hurting the way that they are. it's senseless. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

the amendment is not agreed to. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded -- recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i move the committee rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole on the

state of the union having had under consideration direct mess to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1229 and has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requestsed for mr. hastings of washington for today and the balance of the week and mr. jackson of illinois for today. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam speaker. i thank you for the opportunity to talk to you this evening about jobs and the make it in america agenda. but before i begin i'd like to yield as much time as he deems necessary to the gentleman from michigan to begin this

conversation. >> thank you, representative cicilline. and i represent the city of detroit. in fact, the congressional district think a represent includes metropolitan detroit. and over the last 10 years metropolitan detroit has lost more jobs than any other metropolitan area in this country. mr. clarke: but it wasn't just detroit and its metropolitan area that's lost jobs, other areas, other cities, other metropolitan regions in the country have lost millions of jobs over the last 10 years. now, during this same time frame this country has been investing our tax dollars to build bridges, to repair roads, to build hospitals, sewer systems, schools, to build industrial parks that will promote more business, to actually develop businesses in free enterprise

models that are successful. now many of the american people may not have seen the benefits of this type of investment because all of the work that i'm talking about that was funded by tax dollars was done in afghanistan. and the people who directly benefited from these projects were the people of afghanistan. my position is this, we need to create jobs in america, we need to keep the jobs that we have here so they don't go overseas like they have in the past. in order to do that i'm proposing let's take a share of the money that's intended to go to afghanistan, redirect it to the united states to create jobs right here, jobs for the american people because we're the ones that actually need it and it makes sense.

the money that we're investing in afghanistan comes from u.s. taxpayers. let's spend it in a way that benefits the taxpayers and creates jobs right here in the united states. now, i do understand that we've got to stop terrorism from breeding in other countries. and we certainly don't want other safe havens for terrorism to develop overseas. but in light of the fact that bin laden is now gone, i'm asking this congress, this administration to reassess our mission in afghanistan. let's take a part of the over half a trillion dollars and that's trillion with a t in military assistance that we've spent in afghanistan over the last 10 years, let's take a share of that and return it home to protect our people right here

in the united states. yes, we are at risk of a terrorist attack, but more than likely that risk is increasingly coming from within the u.s. so let's fully equip and fund the first line of defense against terrorism in this country which is our first responders. if our local police, our local firefighters, our local emergency medical providers that we call on to help protect the american people. so i'm proposing let's take a share of that military assistance that's going to afghanistan and let's invest it in our local police, fire and emergency medical providers to protect our citizens right here at home. and then, finally, over the past 10 years taxpayers have invested nearly $30 billion and that's billion with a b, so we get

these figures clear, and the magnitude of our investment we with invested nearly $30 billion in afghanistan for nondefense spending, much of it going toward economic development and civilian assistance. let's take a portion of that funding and redirect it to the united states and create jobs right here. my point is this. it takes money to create jobs and more accurately it takes public funds that can be leveraged effectively to create the investment that yields jobs. we've been spending that money for over a decade in another country. bin laden is now gone. let's reevaluate our role in afghanistan and while we're doing that let's take a share of our precious tax dollars, people, this is your money and we need it right now.

to create jobs, to fight for -- to fight foreclosures, to invest in manufacturing. it's our manufacturing capacity that made this country strong, that created the best products that were sold around the world, it's our manufacturing strategy and capacity that transformed the city that i represent, the city of detroit, from the motor capital of the world to the arsenal of democracy back in world war ii. and metro detroit and this country's ability to innovate and create and manufacture saved this country and saved this world from fascism. if we invest a portion of the money right now that we're spending overseas in afghanistan and in iraq and we invest it right here in cities like detroit and elk heart, indiana, and louisville, tennessee, these are other cities that have also lot a lot -- lost a lot of jobs,

we can make america stronger. we want to fight terrorism, we need to be a strong country. but the strength of our country comes from within. it comes from protecting the american people and the most effective way to do that, invest in homeland security, support our local police and fire and invest in jobs in america. so that u.s. citizens can be financially stable and hopefully prosperous. this is how we built this country in just a little over 200 years in into one of the greatest countries human civilization has ever known. we've done it by investing the people's money into the innovation and capacity to create jobs. it's through investing in the u.s. and, you know, i know i've been going on a little bit longer but my point is this.