office to ensure the speedy delay in a bureaucratic process approval of applications. through an environmental appeals board not created by so that they're relevant and reviewed and granted in a time congress but was created as an frame consistent with the needs of the private sector. the p.t.o. needs to be able to charge fees sufficient to recover the costs of its services and use those fees for the cost of providing those services. the p.t.o. has a backlog of more than 700,000 patent applications and it takes on average, well, you know, my wonderful documentation for my staff says two to three years for a patent to get approved or rejected. i've never had one reviewed any close to that time. maybe they see my name on it and they put it under a pile of notes and it takes five or six years. there's no way the p.t.o. can expand the number of highly qualified examiners to actually reduce patent review time and put it on a time frame consistent with the needs of the private sector, protecting innovation. . it's crucial the fees generated be made available to the p.t.o. they should not be held hostage

to political squabbling here in this body every year on appropriations bills, every year on the budget debate. the price to american innovation is one that's too steep to pay to make that beholden to our very important political discussions we have every year, but one that inventors need predictibility and companies need when deciding how much to invest in r&d deciding to pursue patents with their invention. i understand some on the other side might be satisfied with the current manager's language, but the worry is the patent and trademark office cannot use the patent fees to search, examine, and grant patents where warranted. i would ask what's the point? patent reform is not traditionally nor should it be a democratic or republican issue. high quality patents as mentioned in the united states constitution are crucial to our economy getting back on track and moving forward. president obama issued a challenge in our state of the union address to outinnovate,

outbuild, and out educate the world and our having a patent and trademark system we can be proud of is an important part of american competitiveness and one that -- a mark we failed to reach with this bill in the manager's amendment. contrary to the belief of some, america still does invent, build, and sell our goods and services throughout the world. in fact, one of america's main competitive avalanches is in the information economy, intellectual economy, creative economy, the very types of economic innovations we rely on patent, trademark, and copyright to protect. yet if we fail to improve the quality of our patent application system, including rapid and high quality review, we risk losing our leadership and innovation and i think this congress needs to rise beyond the petty squabbling over committee jurisdiction, over trying to bind future congresses over budget appropriations debates. we really need to rise beyond that and come up with a patent bill we can all be proud of,

that leaves american innovation in good stead. mr. speaker, this rule also calls for the consideration of h.r. 2021, that's called the jobs and energy permitting act. the proponents of this bill continue to push a false narrative sprinkled with outrage based not on facts but sound bites. they somehow want to convince the american people that president obama is single-handedly shutting down oil drilling when in fact he's granted more permits than his predecessor. we have heard this broken record from my colleagues over and over again. as dramatic as the story is, the fact is it's not true. the american people know that prices at the pump and that's caused difficulty for a lot of american families, have nothing to do with drilling here and now. not only is there a lag effect in the five to 10 year time frame, but in fact the domestic part of that equation in terms of reflecting gas prices is de minimus. the u.s. simply doesn't have enough oil to feed our addiction to oil and gas prices are

controlled by international markets and international supply and demand. despite the close relationship between the oil industry and bush administration, the obama administration is allowing more drilling than the bush administration did. much to the chagrin of the democratic caucus. the obama administration administration approved more leases in to 10 than the bush administration did in seven out of eight years of its presidency. in addition to more drilling, we are producing more oil yet gasoline prices continue to go up. gasoline price, international market, supply and demand separate from the long-term issues of drilling in this country. the united states produces 9.7 million barrels of oil per day, and that's the most oil we have proud in 20 years. -- produced in 20 years. we are just behind saudi arabia and russia as the world's top producer. we have been rising since 2005 and that's a trend i think we'll be able to continue. yet over the same period, oil hit a record high of $147 a barrel in 2008.

during our period of production rise, and we need a real solution not simply a solution focused on 2012 election, decrying president obama's pol significance. we need a real -- policies. we need a real solution to help end our nation's reliance on fossil fuels and reduce the demand and supplement energy supply with renewable energy sources. again and again republicans are proving that their energy platform isn't all of the above that common sevens would dictate but rather oil above all, drill, baby, drill. mr. speaker, this rule and the underlying bills are bad policy. and i think we need an open discussion of these issues rather than trying to split the baby in half, pleasing no one. and on the energy issue giving a sound bite approach that really requires a comprehensive national energy strategy, including all of the above. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. >> i appreciate the comments of

my good friend from colorado and we want to make sure there is innovators like him don't have to wait five years to get something to market. mr. mr. new gent, with that i greeled two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman for the recognition. i rise in support of this rule to bring more american energy online into our country. more american energy produced in america. this is a bipartisan bill. bipartisan bill, h.r. 2021. it deserves debate on the floor today. everybody in this chamber ought to vote for this rule if they care about our gas prices, about our national security, about our energy security, and about job creation. this bill has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs annually. over $100 billion in payroll over the next 50 years and one million barrels of oil a day. that's nearly enough oil to replace our imports from saudi arabia. this bill would reduce our

dependence on middle east oil significantly. and that ought to be our goal. foreign nations, some of which have serious an mossity towards the united states, are in control of the vast majority of oil we use day in and day out. is dependency on these foreign countries not one of the biggest threats our country faces today? it's a scary reality that this bill directly addresses. the energy security bill will streamline the process of offshore permitting. current impediments have delayed development of the beaumont for five years. these are areas that have already been approved for drilling. the revenues for the leases have already been collected by the federal government and yet over five years drilling has yet to occur. the bill will make a number of minor changes. first it will clarify a drilling vessel is stationary when drig begins and therefore should only be regulated as a stationary source at that point. it clarifies that service ships are not stationary sources by the simple virtue of the fact that they do not stop to drill.

they are mobile sources, regulated as such, regulated as such under title 2 of the clean air act. third, the bill clarifies that emission impacts are measured on shore where the public resides. lastly, the bill eliminates the needless delays, the constant ping-pong between the e.p.a. and the environmental appeals board when it comes to exploration, clean air permits. it requires final agency action to take place in six months. to give an up or down approval. deny or approve within six months. alaska holds tremendous potential and this bipartisan bill achieves great things by allowing a responsible and efficient process to take place. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the judiciary committee, mr. conyers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank jerry polis, who is a formerly brilliant member of the judiciary committee, and we miss

him very much. ladies and gentlemen, the reason these two bills are put together is very easy to fathom. that is that we have started off by, for the first time in the 112th congress, violating the cut-go rule, formerly known as the pay-as-you-go rule, and we are trying to mask it by talking about how wonderful the second bill, the jobs and energy permitting act, h.r. 2021, is. but it's not going to work, friends, because we know why we are trying to play down the patent bill that the rule is originally committed to. it's because there are growing

numbers of members that are not overwhelm going to vote no on the rule, but they are going to vote no on the bill. and since for the first time since january that this cut-go rule was instituted, which prohibits consideration of a bill that has the net effect of increasing spending within a five-year window. in other words, you can't pass a bill that will increase spending without providing an offset. and we don't hear, is there -- there is no offset. that's understood. but here's what the congressional budget office said that this bill will increase direct spending by $1.1 billion

over the 2012-2021 period t will increase it by $140 million by establishing a new procedure post grad review. who increase it by $750 million because they establish a procedure that would allow patent holders to request the p.t.o. to review and extend an existing patent. it will increase it by $251 million by already allowing interparties re-examination. that is to make it tougher and longer for a small inventor to be able to get his patent secured. so, ladies and gentlemen, please

vote no on this rule for the reason that it violates the pay-as-you-go, now known as the cut-go rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: it's amazing when you hear the arguments regards to cut-go that our friends are raising today. but in the 111th congress pay-go was the flavor of the week and that was violated eight times. of those eight times it actually increased, increased spending and added to our deficit each and every one of those. this waiver of cut-go does neither. it merely is a technical ability for us to hear those two underlying pieces of legislation. so we now have open debate on the house floor and have the amendment process be intact.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 45 minutes. mr. conyers: i thank the gentleman, mr. nugegent, what do you think the -- mr. nugent, what do you think the congressional budget office sent us and you a letter saying it will increase direct spending by a total of $1.1 billion. that's not even a small increase. and by the way, the fact that somebody else waived pay-as-you-go doesn't give you the right to pay as you cut, or cut as you go. this is outrageous. that this would be allowed in the first six months of the year where -- and it's never been waived before in the 112th

congress. and he says it's not going to cost us very much. or nothing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are also reminded that their remarks should be directed to the speaker. not directed to one another. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, just in response. the letter that we have from the congressional budget office of may 26 talks about c.b.o. estimates enacting the bill would reduce net direct spend ig by $725 million. -- spending by $725 million. i'm not sure if we have the same letter. but this is the letter i referred to, mr. speaker, and i suggest those on the other side of the aisle may look at the same letter. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. polis: to be clear the gentleman from florida refers to a letter regarding the initial

bill. the manager's amendment actually changes the equation the gentleman indicated and renders that side letter inaccurate relating to the manager's amendment which if adopted under this rule will then be part of the bill. i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, a member of the budget committee, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague the gentleman from colorado. . i rise in opposition to this rule in the 112th congress. six months, that's it, six months, it took less than six months for the republican majority to come to the floor of this house and break their most treasured promise to the american people, a promise made in writing to the rules of the house of representatives. today by waiving the house cut-go rule, my colleagues across the aisle are giving up on their foundational principle of deficit reduction. no new spending without offsets. don't take my word for it, the congressional budget office clearly states that the

manager's amendment, as we just heard, to the base bill, h.r. 1249, breaks the ruleses of the house and so the majority -- rules of the house and so the majority has written a new one-time rule that breaks their most fundamental promise to america, that this congress will not enact new spending without cutting spending from another area of our federal budget. this bill is going to increase discretionary spending by nearly half a billion dollars, with no offset to cover that new spending. from my seat in the budget committee, i have watched how fiercely they have clung to this promise and though i disagree with many of their choices in cuts, this is truly a new low. it is an historic breakdown that only took six months to arrive. though america's watching and waiting for a solution, a jobs bill, for instance, to our nation's fiscal and economic crisis, republicans began the year by saying that half the budget question was off the table. for instance, questions like $800 billion spent on tax breaks

for the wealthy, or like tens of billions in subsidies and deliberate loopholes for some of the wealthiest compings -- corporations on earth. cut gd doesn't lay down any rules about tax expenditures. we could entirely stop collecting taxes and let the budget and the economy collapse tomorrow. and that would abide by cut-go. again, this rule only deals with spending without finding the roughly half a billion dollars worth of offsets to pay for the bill. not surprisingly this rule has lasted us only six months. i would ask my republican colleagues, what will the next six months bring and the six months after that? with that i yield back to my colleague from colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, the manager's amendment fixes a rules violation. it requires a technical waiver of cut-go to move the patent fees back to the discretionary side. those fees were going to be put into a mandatory spending, now

it's back to the discretionary. of course the discretionary spending went up but think about this, the fees that are utilized to pay for this come from those that actually apply for patents. the money is going to be utilized to make sure that folks like mr. polis don't have to wait five years. these are dollars collected for specific reasons and the reason is to allow us to become innovators again. to allow us to compete with china. we need to do things in america to make us stronger. and while people might rally against the cut-go -- cut-go waiver, let's talk about the real issues that face america and that's energy in regards to finding more energy, bringing it to market, whether it's oil or natural gas. those are the issues that are up and it's about invention, it's about allowing the patent and trademark office to actually get back to work and do the right

things and have some ability to look forward in regards to what they can do in regards to moving forward the process. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute -- 1 1/2 minutes to the ranking member of the rules committee, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you, sir, and i do appreciate my friend from colorado for yielding me time. now with this rule today the republicans waive their so-called cut-go rule to protect a republican manager's amendment to the patent reform bill. now, nonpartisan experts at the congressional budget office said, and i quote, we estimate that amendment, number 15 smith, the manager's amendment, would significantly increase spending, would not effect revenues. i think if i understand correctly it adds about $140 million in spending. and by reclassifying fees and

spending by p.t.o., it would eliminate $712 million in savings that we are already scoring as the original bill. now, republicans have repeatedly characterized this waiver azteccal. they may think the waiver is technical, but for $712 million to be tossed around does not sound technical to me or to most americans, i'd wage. we think it's real money. it was our speaker, mr. boehner, who complained that the previous democrat majority frequently waived pay-as-you-go to meet its needs. when the republicans eliminated the pay-go rule and replaced it with their cut-go rule, boehner complained that, quote, we routinely waived the budget act requirements to serve our purposes, end quote. today it is the internal squabbling of house republican conferences purposes are being served by a waiver of cut-go them. go on to say that the manager's amendment is important enough to waive cut-go because it preserves congressional

oversight at the patent office. may i ask for an additional half minute? mr. polis: i yield an additional 45 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: this is simply not accurate. the cut-go violation in the manager's amendment, the provision increases direct spending by $712 million, would simply remove from the bill a provision that was going to ensure the patent office was fully funded. now, if i didn't already have enough complaints against this manager's amendment, i want to call attention to the house that after 13 years of work, we finally got genetic non discrimination passed in this congress so that people could feel free to have genetic tests. this manager's amendment for the first time talks about the patenting of human genes. that must never, ever happen. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, for yielding and rise against this rule and the underlying bill. the bill is unconstitutional, it will stifle american job creation, cripple american innovation, throws out 220 years of patent protections for individual inventors and violates the cut-go rules, increasing our deficit by over $1 billion. this bill should never have been brought to the floor. not only is it chalk full of special interest legislation for large banks and a handful of corporate interests, what we are voting on today makes mockery of the openness that the republican leadership promised in legislative procedures. the bill has gone through a lot of its rations without sunlight since it was first reported out of committee. and the congressional budget office is scoring this latest version of the bill that just came out last night, shows that it vie slates the cut-go rules -- violates the cut-go rules. that's right, it increases the

deficit every year between now and 2021. just last week we couldn't find enough money to provide hungry american children with food. but for some reason the republican leadership believes that the -- it's appropriate to add hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to the taxpayers and more regulations at the patent office, that c.b.o.'s -- that's c.b.o.'s numbers by the way. meanwhile the bill takes away patent and intellectual property rights of individual inventors. this is not the bill passed by the senate, this is not the bill that passed out of the judiciary committee. as the details of what we are actually being asked to vote on leaks out, more people, including now those who actually work in the patent office, oppose the bill. importantly the bill removes the requirement that only first inventors may receive a patent. and it creates a monopoly nightmare that the founders of our constitution intended to prevent. first, the first to file patent system, the federal government will create commercial monopolies and more regulation,

exactly what jefferson, madison and other founders opposed. because, as opposed to securing to first inventors their property rights, they will merely secure the first to file, the first one to run over to the patent office might get the patent. that is not what is enshrined in our constitution, the very first right, even before the bill of rights, the right to your intellectual property. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. polis: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, a champion of individual inventors, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. i rise in opposition to the rule. the c.b.o. says the manager's amendment to this bill, h.r. 1249, would significantly increase direct spending, according to c.b.o. over a

10-year period h.r. 1249 would incur significant new deficit spending, for example, switching to first to file is $18 million, the new post grand review -- grant review in this bill would cost $140 million, amending the re-examination would increase direct spending by $250 million. this is all annually. and the new supplemental review would increase direct spending by $758 billion. that's a $1.1 billion increase in spending and yet we as republicans promised that if there would be this increase in spending, we would cut spending in a proportion at share. we made that the rule -- proportionate share. we made that the rule of how we were going to do business. this rule purpose seeds that promise. we should not be going back on our promise to the american people to act responsibly. this bill will lay the foundation, not only for weaker

patent protection for american inventors, but it will also knock the legs out from us being responsible, finally being responsible in our spending patterns. this bill is not about making the patent law office more efficient. that's what we keep hearing. it is about harmanizing american patent law with those of europe and in europe and in asia they do not have strong patent protection for their people. what that means is weaker patent protection for americans, weaker patent protection for americans. that is what they're trying to achieve. and who's going to be strengthened by this? multinational corporations who don't care about the united states, hoover institute just did a major study showing that the patent bill is a plus for large corporations who have created no jobs and hurts all the little guys and the small guys and the startups who have

created all the jobs. this is an antijobs bill, it should be defeated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i listened to the arguments, the key to this is allowing this bill to go forward. the key to this is allowing amendments to come to the floor and have open debate. even mr. rohrabacher has some amendments that are going to be coming to this floor to have debate in regards to the merits. debate regards to what is the will of the house. that's the reason we have the time set aside on each of these bills, so those that are opposed to it can be heard, those that have a -- amendments that want to modify what the underlying legislation is can be heard, and so issues about constitutionality, that's why this rule sets aside specific time, specific time to talk about the constitutionality of

the american invents act. that's the beauty of this building that we're in and the organization and the institution that we represent. is the ability to have open debate. both sides of the aisle. doesn't matter. it's about open debate and about changing and allowing us to hear differing opinions and different views. so i respect, i respect those on the other side of the aisle, i respect those members within this republican side of the aisle. i respect the difference of opinion. that's what families are all about. so we can have an open discussion and exchange. that's what this rule does, it allows us to hear on both of these bills an open and frank discussion about the merits of each, the merits of any amendments. as to how we want to change or modify. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is -- kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my colleague from colorado. mr. speaker, i rise to oppose the rule. you know, when the republicans last fall traveled around the country asking the american people to return this house to their control, they promised two things. one is they were going to create jobs and secondly they were going to promote fiscal responsibility and try to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt. well, on the first go it's been six months and we haven't seen the first item of job creating legislation. on the second item we should have known better. we should have known better than to trust them to actually try and rein in the deficit. today with the rule under consideration the republican majority is proposing to waive the very rules they wrote to supposedly cut spending. g.o.p. proposed the cut-go rule last year saying it was part of

their plan to rein in spending and just a few short months later they're violating their own rules. we heard the gentleman from florida concede that they're violating their own rules. that is award-winning hypocrisy but it's not surprising because the speaker of the house said last year, we routinely waived the budget act's requirements to serve our purposes. maybe we could excuse that if they were proposing legislation to create scrobs, but we know that isn't happening. in fact, the underlying bill does exactly the opposite. it stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. . it could be used to protect patents and process new ones so that there are new inventions, new innovation coming to market, creating jobs. the republican majority wants to take those funds and put them into the general kitty where they can spend it on other things, like, who knows? more tax breaks for the rich or maybe big oil companies. only time will tell that. but now for today it is best

advised to reject this rule and not allow the republicans to get away with violating their own cut-go rules and then pass this legislation that would stifle innovation in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. woodall: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today as a proud member of the rules committee. i appreciate my colleague on the rules committee yielding to me. it's not likely that i come down to the floor today because i have only been on the job here five months. mr. speaker, you know that i'm one of the new guys in congress. i came down to the house floor because i thought this is where deliberation went on. i thought this is where folks had candid conversations about how to improve a bill. i see my colleague, mr. polis, there at the table. we have made a lot of amendments available. not just on the patent bill but on the e.p.a. bill as well. and so when i come to the floor

and hear folks talking about cut-go, i wonder what happened to the serious conversations that we were going to have here on the floor? i wonder where the seriousness about improving the bills that are coming to the floor went? because as you know, mr. chairman, this cut-go issue is one that was created solely because, solely because the way the bill was reported out of committee and the way the manager's amendment impact it create a technical cut-go violation. technical cut-go violation. ask a freshman member of congress i'll tell you there is a technical cut-go violation in the manager's amendment. does it spend one dollar, does it spend one dollar that the federal government wasn't going to spend anyway? no. does it cost the american taxpayer $1? the answer's no. i'll be happy to yield to the ranking member. mr. conyers: $1.1 billion. that's not technical, my friend.

it would spend $1.1 billion. mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. that's what tubbles me as a freshman because i know, mr. speaker -- troubles me as a freshman because i know, mr. speaker, that the distinguished member knows that had the committee reported this bill out the way the manager's amendment crafts its bill, there would be no cut-go violation whatsoever. hear that. had the committee reported this bill out with the way we are bringing this bill to the floor, there would have been no cut-go violation whatsoever. yet we are raising this issue on the floor of the house as if there's some big backroom deal going on. that's frustrating to me as a freshman member, mr. speaker, because there is no backroom deal. this is the most open house of representatives that i have seen in my lifetime. this is the most open rules committee that i have seen in my lifetime. this is the most open process in the people's house that i have seen in my lifetime. and yet for reasons that i

cannot suppose, mr. speaker, folks make this case as if there are in fairous things going on in the background. i just say to my colleague, i say to you, mr. speaker, the american people have a distrust of washington, d.c. i will tell you that distrust is we learned. that distrust is well earned and that's why there are 96 new people here this time around. but, folks, let's not suggest that there's something going on when there's not. let's be honest when there are problems and let's be honest when we are doing it right. mr. speaker, we are doing it right today. i thank my colleague for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i have been advised by some of the advisors on our side this would have been a cut-go violation even if this had been an amendment in committee. and this is a serious discussion when we are talking about cut-go. it's a serious issue. i think this congress on both sides of the aisle have come

here to balance the budget, to restore fiscal discipline to our country, and sending the president a cut-go violation so early in the term calls into question what a rule of the house means as if it's to be casually disregarded. i'd like to yield 45 seconds to the ranking member of the judiciary committee, mr. conyers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. conyers: i thank you, mr. polis. i just wanted my dear friend, and i recognize he's only been here five months, to realize that this is not a technical cut-go violation, this is a $1.1 billion violation. and that's real money that we are going to have to get from somewhere else. and we are waiving cut-go for the first time in the 112th congress.

i am appealing to republicans and democrats, mr. speaker, to join with us at this outrageous and costly and blatant violation of the house rules that they wrote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield as much time as the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, consumes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support for this rule and i realize that we are dealing with a somewhat unprecedented situation here, but i've got to say that as i listened to the characterization being put forward by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on this so-called cut-go waiver, they appear to be way off base. i have no idea, mr. speaker, what this $1.1 billion figure

is. i have been asking my staff since i heard the distinguished former chair of the committee, the ranking member, throw this figure out and they said we have no idea where this $1.1 billion figure has come from. and we know, and i would be happy to yield to my friend if he wants to explain that to me, i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. conyers: the distinguished chair of the rules committee, came from the congressional budget office. i will be pleased to quote it to you. the $1.1 billion is accumulation of several other costs that they reported -- mr. dreier: mr. speaker, reclaiming my time. let me just say that -- reclaiming my time. thank you, mr. speaker. let me say that my staff -- i asked my staff where this $1.1

billion figure came from. my staff members are right here on the floor and they said they don't know what the basis of this $1.1 billion is. mr. speaker, let me say that what happened in the rule -- in the judiciary committee was unfortunate. it was an unfortunate development that took place because the judiciary committee proceeded to do something that they should not do. they began appropriating. and all we are doing is we are with this provision that we have in place, we are simply saying that the power should in fact lie with the house appropriations committee and it should not be mandatory spending that does not provide the first branch of government, the legislative branch, with the adequate oversight. mr. speaker, as i walked into the chamber, my friend from kentucky was saying that this bill was not focused on job creation and economic growth, when in fact we know that

encouraging creativity and innovation is about, about our creating good jobs right here in the united states of america. mr. speaker, the american people get it. they realize that if we were to take our time and energy and focus on job creation and economic growth, we would be able, we would be able to improve the standard of living and quality of life for the american people. unfortunately, unfortunately we have not been vigorously pursuing those. i think one of the most important things we can do is to open up new markets around the world for u.s. goods and services. and our kind of innovation that is developing. we at this moment are waiting for three trade agreements that have been languishing over the past four years, unfortunately this house, the last four years, failed to consider them. they would create good union and

nonunion jobs for the american worker. good jobs for union and nonunion members would be created if we were to pursue that kind of policy. now, a greements are pending. we have gotten a positive indication the administration is going to send those to us. we need to move on those as quickly as possible. having the kind of innovative ideas that will be able to take place creating new products is going to be wonderful because we'll have new markets for those products around the world. that's why again, mr. speaker, here we are under a process that allowed -- an amendment by my friend from michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on judiciary, to be made in order. my friend from boulder, colorado, mr. polis i'm happy to make his amendment in order. ms. jackson lee was here a few minutes ago. she withdrew an amendment that she offered before the rules committee and a similar

amendment was offered by my colleague colleague, ms. eshoo. we chose to make that amendment in order which is virtually identical to the one my friend from houston offered. so as my friend from lawrenceville, georgia, my rules committee colleague said, mr. speaker, here we are, we made 15 amendments in order for consideration allowing virtually every idea to be considered. my friend from california, mr. rohrabacher, has his amendment made in order. and so the idea of somehow criticizing the rules committee and the action that we have taken is just way off base. we have, mr. speaker, 15 amendments made in order under this bill, 10 amendments have been made in order for the energy and commerce legislation that's come before us. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. conyers: thank you. my friend, we are not criticizing the rules committee. the cut-go violation which you have not even seen the c.b.o. letter that described the $1.1

billion -- mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. let me just say i asked my staff about this and they were unaware of exactly where this $1.1 billion figure came from. and so in light of that it seems to me that we are in a position where we need to proceed with this very important work and we are trying our doggonest to make it happen. we are going to allow proposals from messrs. rohrabacher, conyers, and polis, and others to be considered and that's why it's important that we pass this rule. if we don't pass this rule, we won't have the opportunity for the rohrabacher, conyers, and polis ideas to be considered here on the house floor. so let me thank my friend for yielding. i know he has other speakers. with that i'm going to urge support of the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i think some of the frustration here, mr. speaker, is the work product of the committee is being disregarded in favor of a rule that provides for a manager's amendment.

that fundamentally alters the character of the bill in a way that many members of both parties have quite a few problems with. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, a member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman. i appreciate the again rossity of the rules chairman -- generosity on the rules chairman and the number of occasions i have sought both to represent my constituents at the rules committee and represent issues that are of concern to america. let me just say that i believe in efficiency of time, but i am struck by a rule that has two major legislative initiatives that require the deliberation and thoughtfulness of members of congress. i believe the rule is not necessarily a place to express

one's opposition or support, but i do believe it's important procedurally to discuss the number of issues. the legislation that deals with the e.p.a. that h.r. 2021 in and of itself would warrant an opportunity for full discussion. and i offered a number of amendments that i thought were quite productive and those amendments would have provided some reasonable thought about the e.a.b. it would have provided a review period. and one in particular that the gentleman mentioned as the opportunity to file your cases in local courts. i'm glad we'll have the general discussion on the floor, far be it for me to suggest that is not a good thing, but i do want to

say that i had a very strong amendment and we did have an opportunity to correct a letter that we had, but i'm glad for the debate. my amendment discussed the courts -- i'll yield for a moment. mr. conyers: the reason -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 0 second. mr. conyers: the reason both these bills were combined is because they are trying to mask all the defects in the patent bill. that's why they put this great new jobs supposedly creating bill together. . ms. jackson lee: reclaiming my time, whatever the reason was, we both agree we needed to have more time. and i will move to the patent bill and as i said, i will not discuss the pros and cons of this legislation, but i will say to you and i see the gentleman rising over here, maybe trying to correct something that was said, there's no reason to correct anything other than the fact that we had a number of

amendments that we offered and we would hope that we would have had an open rule. on the patent bill, let me just say that the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: do you have 15 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. on the patent bill in particular, two amendments that would have been vital, that is to announce that this was not an undo taking of property, to indicate to those who are concerned about this issue, because i think the bill does have the ability to create jobs and lastly it is the point of being able to give small businesses an 18-month period for disclosure when many small businesses have to secure funding from other places. this would have added to the debate and i look forward to the debate but i hope we will not have this kind of rule in the future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: just as a clarification, the rules committee has the obligation to make sure that they move this through the house. so it can come up.

so these bills can come up. it's about -- it's not about combining two bills, it's about a rule that allows two bills to be heard separately. that's all this does. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. issa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i do not commonly talk on rules, usually i come for the substance of the underlying bill. and i will be speaking later on the underlying bill on the judiciary's patent reform bill. but i would like to speak not only to the fairness of the rule and the appropriateness and the reason for passage, but also perhaps clarify something related to the underlying bill in the case of judiciary. first of all, i'm delighted, delighted to see that we are reducing the amount of time when -- for passage of a rule when they are alike. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle certainly know that

in the beginning of every congress, once every two years, we pass a massive rule package that every suspension, every other bill is elention i -- essentially brought under. a rules package is nothing but a slight addition to the overall set of rules of the house. and if we do not produce one then we operate under the rules of the house. so i'm delighted to see that we are using floor time more efficiently. as to the question of the cost related to the upcoming bill on patent reform, i find something really amazing that i think all the members should be aware of, mr. speaker. and that is, this is a piece of legislation that is already passed by 95-5 out of the senate. this is a piece of legislation that the rank member and i have worked on -- ranking member and i have worked on for my entire 11 years here. this is a piece of legislation that every one of us has had input into and found ways to come together so that we had a

10-1 ratio when we passed it out of committee. and when it comes to the cost, the american people, mr. speaker, have to understand this is simply talking about the exclusive fees that both republicans and democrats on the committee have demanded be used only for the patent office work and not be diverted. so even if at some point we have to admonish the appropriators to stay within a number, we are only talking about how much of the money that the men and women who apply for patents, the men and women who invent contribute for the purpose of having that passed. so although people will pass dollars around, let's understand, these are not tax dollars. these are dollars contributed with an application for a patent or for the extension or continuation of a patent. these are fees that inventors pay in order to have their invention considered and retained and nothing should be more sacred to republicans and

democrats than making sure that those funds collected by these people are used there and i believe -- i of course would yield to my colleague. mr. conyers: i thank you so much, the distinguished member of the judiciary committee. and the chair of intelligence. the congressional budget office sent the letter, mr. issa, about the manager's amendment which had nothing to do with the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. issa: i would ask for an additional 0 seconds. -- 30 seconds. reclaiming that 30 seconds, i fully understand my colleague's statement about the c.b.o. scoring question. but understand, mr. speaker, that subject to appropriations, only the money -- no money will be spent except money contributed in fees by those folks. so whatever we must do in enactment of this law over time, we will do. but let's understand, we're not talking about the normal budget

situation. we're clearly, any dollars the c.b.o. is referring to are the dollars contributed by the men and women who invent things. i think we really have to look at that and say, we know they're entitled to 100 cents on the dollar, that's all we're doing in regards to scoring. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i want to point out to the vote my colleague referenced is a completely different bill and finance mechanism that's contemplated on the manager's amendment to this bill. this manager's amendment has not been seen or voted on by any of the committees of jurisdiction and is a major break from precedence on this issue. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of the appropriations committee, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding and, mr. speaker, i rise to raise my concerns about h.r. 1249 and the rule and in particular the manager's amendment.

america is uniquely -- america's unique lee -- uniquely innovative culture is our strength and i've supported reforms that would reduce the patent backlog, increase the quality of patents and ensure that the patent system is not abused in ways that threaten innovation. one of the best things in the bill up until now has been a provision to attack the backlog by devoting all of the fees gathered in the patent process to the patent office. we are asking the stakeholders of invention to pay higher fees to reduce the backlog. how can we ask them to do that if we're going to divert the fees they pay to paying general government expenses? the provision in the underlying bill would have ended that practice. would have ended fee diversion, a diversion that has cost the invention community and our economy over $1 billion in diverted funds. but unfortunately the manager amendment would severely undercut and do away with that principle and i know as an appropriator i'm not supposed to be saying this, as a former

member of the judiciary committee, however, i am, and that is we should not be diverting these fees. we should not be diverting fees that need to be used to take down that backlog, to make sure that inventors can quickly patent their products and take them to market, this is part of our competitive economic advantage and so i was very enthusiastic about that part of the bill. concerned about others, concerned about moving to first to file, which i'll talk about late, but now i am doubly concerned because i think the most constructive part of the bill has been seriously diminished. yes. >> i think the gentleman has a misunderstanding about the content of that provision. the provision in the manager's bill states that no moneys can be diverted from the fee collections. all the fees have to stay with the patent office. it has to be reprogrammed. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: i ask that the conversation might continue on your side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield two minutes if i could to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in support of the rule. but also in support of the manager's amendment. i think the gentleman from kentucky, the chairman of one of the two committees that you have referred to here, is absolutely right. that these funds are sequestered and cannot be used for any other purpose. the appropriations committee may not appropriate all of the funds at one time, but they can only hold those funds in trust for the patent office and then the patent office, as they identify needs that need to be worked on, will come to the appropriators, will come to you and your committee and get approval for them. that maintains congressional oversight of the patent office, this is supported by the

commissioner of the patent office and i would be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> thank you and i'll be very brief. if the funds that are sequestered, first of all, it requires another act of congress to appropriate those sequestered funds back to the patent office. if it was never the intention to divert those, then why change the bill? >> we've long had a practice on the appropriations committee of reprogramming funds within an agency's budget. mr. rogers: all of the agencies have problems during the year where they need to change moneys from one particular county to another, that's fine. but they have to come to the appropriations committee for a reprogramming request. it's routine, it's considered normal, it does not act -- require an act of congress, it's simply the signature of the chairman of the appropriations committee and the ranking democrat and the moneys are transferred.

now, when the patent office collects fees that exceed its appropriated level, that amount of money is placed in an escrow account. just for their purposes, just for their use. and if they see the need for more funds, they simply send up another reprogramming request and the moneys can be transferred from the escrow account to the patent office. i mean, it's a standard procedure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'll yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman. the only concluding point i want to make is, the funds that are held in the escrow account, if the congress subsequently decides, because of budgetary problems, they have a better use for those funds, they want to be used for something else to pay down something else, there's nothing that precludes the congress from reallocating those funds, the patent community still has to come hat in hand to

the appropriations committee and say, please give us the money you put in escrow. there's no need to set up this account if we simply take the step in the underlying bill which would end diversion one -- once and for all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from kentucky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rogers: the gentleman is not correct. this provision in the manager's amendment precludes the expenditure of this escrow account for any purpose other than patent office. it's in the manager's amendment. and the gentleman will have a chance to vote on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. appropriations are at the discretion of congress every year and for that reason and others i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill. now, patent reform is critical, it's important, it's the right way to go, this bill and the manager's amendment and the rule

are the wrong approach. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to remove the $712 million-plus cut-go waiver for amendments to h.r. 1249. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. because while it has shortcummings, at least the cut-go rule provides some checks on spending. by waiving cut-go today this congress might risk demonstrating how little we care about fiscal discipline. i urge a no vote on the rule and in order to get patent reform right, i urge a no vote on the rule in the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. i don't like the idea that we have to waive cut-go any more than anyone else in this chamber, however if we want to maintain congress' constitutional ability to

appropriate funds it's necessary. with that i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i request a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion for the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 316 if ordered and the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 672. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,

inc., in cooperation 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 representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 230. the nays are 184. the previous question is ordered. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

will members please take their conversations off the house floor? the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, madam speaker. ladies and gentlemen of the house, i rise to call attention of my colleagues to a milestone that one of our members has now reached. a very significant milestone. one of my best friends in the house who i serve with on the appropriations committee for many years and who greeted me when i first came to the congress, my friend, congressman norm dicks, has just recently cast his 20,000th

vote in the house of representatives. and, madam speaker, i personally think almost every one of them was correct. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman may proceed. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, as a testament to his distinguished record of service in this chamber, which began on january 3, 1977, at the start of the 85th congress. since that date our colleague, norm dicks, has continued to represent the people of the sixth congressional district of washington, the cities of

birmington and tacoma, as well as the olympic peninsula. as he's worked his way up to the top of the leadership of the house appropriations subcommittee. as some of you know, i refer to him as the chairman in waiting. the expertise he's developed on defense and natural resource issues throughout those years on the committee is well-known. madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. could all folks please take your conversations off of the house floor so the gentleman may be heard? and that would be on my left and on my right, both. thank you. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, as i indicated, norm dicks now serves as our ranking democratic member on the appropriations committee and serves with the distinguished chairman, hal rogers from kentucky. i believe i can speak for all of us, all of our members today in congratulating norm on reaching this important

milestone. i think i can also say for both sides of the aisle, norm dicks is one of those members who reaches across the aisle and tries to make policy in a positive way. norm dicks, i think, is an example for all of us. he's become one of the few members of the house who've had the determination and endurance to remain engaged in the people's business for so long here in the house of representatives. norm, we congratulate you, not only on your 20,000th vote, but on the quality of service you've given to this house, to this country and to your district in washington state. congratulations. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> madam speaker, i request a recorded vote. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. 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 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 representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239. the nays are 1786.

the resolution is adopted -- 186. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 672 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 55, h.r. 672, a bill to terminate the election assistance commission, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation 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 representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 187. 2/3 not being in the affirmative, the rulings are not suspended, and the bill is not passed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, pursuant to house resolution 216 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2021. the chair appointments the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. emerson, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2021 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the clean air act regarding air pollution from the outer continental shelf activities. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control 30 minutes. the chair will recognize the gentleman from kentucky in one moment once the house is in order.

excuse me, the committee. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: madam chair, as we prepare to take up an important piece of legislation today, h.r. 2021, i'd like to yield at this time for as much time as he may consume the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. upton of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: madam speaker, i want to thank cory gardner, the sponsor of this legislation, and ed whitfield, the chairman of the energy and power subcommittee. the chair: will the gentleman suspend? the committee is not in order. will all members please take their conversations outside the chamber?

the gentleman may continue. mr. upton: as the -- again, i want to commend mr. gardner from colorado and mr. whitfield from kentucky for moving this legislation along. the purpose of this bill is real simple. it is to streamline the permit process, to allow for more domestic production for oil and gas. in this country we consume about 19 million barrels a day of oil and we produce about seven million. and the exploration on the outer continental shelf has been delayed for years because of a broken bureaucracy. the regional e.p.a., they're going to approve exploration air permits only to have them challenged again by e.p.a.'s environmental appeals board. it has been a never-ending circuit of appeals, reapplications and it has stalled the exploration for nearly five years. so what does that mean?

it means that these resources, which perhaps contained as much as 28 billion -- yep, that's billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas has been stalled. we know that if production is allowed here, state production, we could produce as much as a million barrels of oil a day from these sites and it would add about 54,000 american jobs. yet, five years after the original lease sales not a single test well has been drilled. not a single barrel of domestic oil has been brought to market to reduce our alliance on middle east oil, and not a single job has been created to develop the resources because the bureaucracy is standing in the way of exploration. this legislation changes that. and i would urge my colleagues to support this sensible

bipartisan legislation to streamline the permitting process and finally allow us to explore and develop the vast resources of our nation. this bill was approved by the energy and commerce committee with a strong bipartisan vote, and i look forward to the same result today, and i yield back my time to the gentleman from kentucky. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i yield myself five minutes to speak on this legislation. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i rise in opposition to this legislation. the legislation is not about creating jobs. it's not about lowering gasoline prices. it's a giveaway to the oil industry that would increase pollution along our coasts. this legislation's supporters is a narrow bill designed to address specific problems that shale has -- for exploratory drilling off the coast of alaska.

but this legislation will have wide-ranging impacts beyond the arctic ocean. the states of california and delaware have grave concerns about the impact of this bill on their ability to protect public health and welfare from air pollution. in fact, this bill could affect every state on the atlantic and pacific coasts. i agree that the provisions of the clean air act that apply to the outer continental shelf have some ambiguities that could have some clarification but this legislation takes the wrong approach. each of the so-called clarifications in this bill would have the effect of allowing more pollution and providing less public health protection for the nearby communities and limiting participation of affected stakeholders in the permitting process. the republicans say that it shouldn't take five years to get a permit, and i agree with

them, but the truth is it has not taken five years for shell to get a permit. shell has pulled permit applications and modified its proposed operations on numerous occasions. each time e.p.a. has had to adjust its assessment of the potential impacts on air quality and public health. this is what e.p.a. is supposed to do. no one would want the e.p.a. to take a one-size-fits-all approach in permitting these major sources of pollution. it allows huge increases in air pollution from oil and gas drilling activities by moving the point of measurement from the drill ship to the shore. it threatens the ability of california and other states to regulate the admissions of support vessels, and it sends an arbitrary -- sets an arbitrary deadline for six months for final agency action on every offshore exploratory

drilling permit no matter the size or complexity of the proposed operations. the e.p.a. assistant administrator for air and radiation testified before the energy and commerce committee that six months is too short to allow for adequate technical analysis, public participation and administrative review. with it the states of california and delaware agree that it wouldn't work for their states' programs. yet these concerns have been ignored. it eliminates the environmental appeals board from the permitting process even though it is a cheaper, faster and more expert substitute for judicial review, and it requires all challenges to air permits to be raised before the federal court of appeals in washington, d.c., thousands of miles away from the affected communities. claims that this legislation will reduce gas prices or the

budget deficit are nonsense. they have no substantiation. there are significant improvements we could make but we are not making them. instead, this bill raises environmental requirements and short-circuits permitting reviews at the expense of public health. the administration opposes h.r. 2021 because it would curtail the authority of e.p.a. to help ensure that oil production on the outer continental shelf proceeds safely, responsibly and opportunity for sufficient stakeholder input. i agree with them. i ask my colleagues to oppose h.r. 2021 and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time, madam chair, i'd like to yield to the author of this bill, the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: thank you, madam chair.

i thank the chairman of the subcommittee that brought this bill before the body today and thank the chairman, mr. upton, for his work on this piece of legislation. energy security, job creation, working to reduce the pain at the pump, that is what h.r. 2021 is about, the jobs and energy permitting act of 2011. and i thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor today. this is an important bill for our country and a step in the right direction when it comes to weaning ourselves off of foreign energy, middle eastern oil. it allows us to utilize the resources we have in our own back yard, american energy for american jobs responsibly and environmentally friendly. gas prices are fluctuating near historic levels that can send our economy into yet another recession. millions of americans are out of work, and the unemployment rate has ticked back up above 9%. unrest in the middle east has highlighted our vulnerabilities that stem from dependence on oil half a world away.

and for many countries that seek to do us harm. in the face of seemingly untractable problems, it is our duty as elected representatives of the people of this country to pursue solutions that benefit our neighbors and our nation as a whole. one such solution is unlocking america's vast energy potential. the jobs and energy permitting act is a bipartisan approach, a bipartisan bill to bring a massive domestic resource online and create tens of thousands of jobs. i am delighted to have my friend and colleague, mr. green from texas, as co-author of this legislation. in this bill we move in a nimble and elegant manner to tie the loose ends in the e.p.a. permitting process and the clean air itself to expedite decisions on air permits for offshore oil exploration. the needless red tape inherent to e.p.a.'s current permitting process has blocked access to a truly enormous reserve, a

reserve in our own back yard. alaska. taken together we have been told that upwards of one million barrels of oil a day can be brought online as a result of the responsible development of these resources. entirely offsetting our imports from saudi arabia. doing so will create and sustain over 50,000 jobs as massive projects get under way to bring this resource to american consumers. such a vast amount of oil will not only reduce prices at the pump in the future, as testimony was given before the energy and commerce committee. but keep us more secure by eliminating imports from hostile regimes abroad. for these reasons, the president agrees that we should be moving forward with permitting exploration off alaska's coast. this bipartisan bill is the most efficient way to get the job done. through two exhaustive hearings on this bill, we heard testimony from numerous stakeholders and citizens of alaska.

we believe we have created a solution that balances both environmental protection with public priorities, a balance that does not exist with current e.p.a. procedures. during our subcommittee and full committee markups, we debated numerous amendments, giving members an opportunity to propose substantive changes to the underlying bill. i am glad that we had a very serious and thought-provoking meeting and i look forward to the debate today. the jobs and permitting act is a serious bill with serious implications for our economy and our energy security. i am delighted to be here today working with my democratic colleague to move forward with an effective solution to regulatory problems experienced in alaska and alaska's offshore areas. i thank my colleagues for their time today and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i'm pleased at this time to yield to our democratic leader in the energy area, the ranking member of the energy subcommittee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, for five minutes.

the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank you, madam speaker, and i'm also want to thank the ranking member from the full committee, my friend from california, mr. waxman, for yielding this time. madam speaker, i'm not opposed to drilling in alaska, and i'm not opposed to streamlining the permitting process in a sensible manner. but i do object to cutting out input and participation from the very communities that would be most affected by this process. in order to expedite the permitting process for one single company.

unfortunately communities who are -- who would be adversely affected do not have the resources of the oil industry to lobby congress on their own behalf. so it's up to us, those members who represent those same people, to come to this floor to represent them. and while this bill will benefit the shell company, the consequences, both intended and unintended, will have a much greater impact on many stakeholders. if the majority had been willing to work with our side on this bill, and we owe it to -- we begged, we pleaded, we

almost crawled to try to get bipartisan participation on this bill. if they had been willing to work, we would have crafted a bipartisan piece of legislation that would move through the house and the senate and ultimately become law. hour, this bill does not take into account some of the very real concerns that the majority -- that the minority has outlined to the majority on several occasions. in fact, yesterday the white house entered a statement opposing this bill because, and i quote, h.r. 2021 will curtail the authority of the environmental protection agency, to help ensure that the oil production on the outer continental shelf proceeds

safely, responsibly and with opportunities for efficient stakeholder input. h.r. 2021 will limit existing authority to protect human health and the environment. h.r. 2021 will increase and deprive citizens of an important avenue for a chance for challenging government action that affects local public health , end of quote. madam speaker, this bill is certainly not about creating jobs. and it's certainly not about lowering gasoline prices. it is a blatant way of giving to

the oil industry that will increase pollution along our coasts. in fact, as the administration has pointed out, 70% of offshore leases that oil companies currently possess are not even at this very moment in production. 70% of the leases that the oil companies own are not now in production. and 29 million onshore permits aren't being developed as we speak. so it is unnecessary for us to intervene by incentivizing participation and protection for the sake of expediency on behalf of the companies as this bill does. madam speaker, i hope, i sincerely hope that we can sign bipartisan support for the amendments that will be offered

today including my own, that would simply allow the e.p.a. administration, the e.p.a. administrator to provide an additional 30-day extension if the same administrator determines that such time as necessary -- is necessary to provide adequate time for public participation and decision involvement by a state. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i might just add here that the university of alaska did a study on this legislation and oil and gas development in alaska's arctic seas and they concluded that the total development there would create 54,000 jobs. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, mr. barton of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. barton: madam chairwoman, i'd ask unanimous consent to

revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. barton: madam chairwoman, shale oil company has spent five years of time and $3 billion of money trying to drill one well in the arctic ocean. five years, $3 billion. and that time period worldwide in other areas of the outer continental shelf of the world, they have drilled and received permits for over 200 wells. 200. the rest of the world. zero in the arctic ocean. all this bill does is set up a fair procedure so that any company that wishes to drill a well where the environmental protection agency, the e.p.a., which should probably be renamed under the obama administration the energy prohibition

administration, can go through the permitting process and get a decision within an adequate time period. our friends in russia are drilling wells in the territorial watters in the arctic ocean up there, our friends in norway are drilling wells in the arctic ocean in their territorial waters, we in the united states are, because of bureaucratic foot dragging at the e.p.a., refusing to even let one well be drilled. this bill changes that, it sets timetables, it sets standards, it determines where you measure the emissions. there will be some emissions when you drill a few well notice arctic ocean, but they're not going to be -- in the arctic ocean but they're not going to be extensive. this bill sets that you determine the emissions at the shoreline which in the case of this particular well is about 80 miles away and you measure it there. madam chairwoman, there will be more emissions created from the

e.p.a. agency heads and staff assistants driving up to capitol hill to testify than there probably will be in the service supply ships that go out to service the handful of wells that will be drilled. this is a commonsense bill, it doesn't change underlying statutory language at all in terms of standards, it does set timetables, it does define where you measure the pollution and it does require that you actually make a decision. it is a good bill, 2021 in black jack if you get a 20 that's almost a sure winner. if you get a 21 it's a sure winner. this bill is a sure winner. 2021, please vote for it. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield at this time to a very important member of our committee, mr. markey, for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from

massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. markey: i thank the chairman, the ranking member, very much. this underlying legislation represents another attempt by the republicans to gut the clean air act. you know, shell oil spent years changing its mind about how it wanted to drill, what ship it wanted to use and even which of the arctic seas it planned to drill in. they themselves dragged out this process internally. this legislation prevents e.p.a. from requiring emissions reductions from all drilling support vessels, from icebreakers to the drilling ship itself as part of the air permitting process. what that means is that up to -- listen to this number, up to 98%

of the total air emissions associated with the arctic outer continental shelf drilling could not be regulated by the e.p.a. under the permitting process. so hear that again. that bill says that the e.p.a. can't regulate 98% of the emissions. that's not reasonable. that's not a compromise, that's not balance. the e.p.a. has informed congressman waxman that as part of its permit negotiations shell has actually agreed to add technology to one of its icebreakers to reduce the icebreakers' knox emissions by 96%, reduce them by 96%, and particulate emissions reduced by 82%. shell has already agreed to use a cleaner burning fuel than what would otherwise be required by law. shell agreed to take these measures so that it could receive its permit from e.p.a.

and the net effect of all the measures, shell has agreed to take will reduce the knox emissions for the entire drilling project by 72%. but under this bill the e.p.a. would no longer have the ability to require or to request measures such as these because the bill says that e.p.a. can't require reductions in emissions from mobile sources using its stationary source air permitting authority. several weeks ago bob miers who led e.p.a.'s air office during the bush administration pointed out at the energy and power subcommittee hearing that in fact e.p.a. can regulate icebreakers and other support vessels under title 2 of the clean air act. he said that this is why -- he said that this is why these mobile sources emissions could be exempted from being regulated as part of the stationary source

air permitting process. that all sounds so reasonable. but what these guys are saying is, maybe you shouldn't be regulated as both a mobile source and a stationary source under the clean air act. but there's just one problem. shell's air permit says that all of its icebreakers and other support vessels are foreign flag so they can't be regulated under title 2 of the clean air act in the first place and even if they were american vessels that they're all too old to have been subject to the most stringent clean air act or international emissions requirements. so what they're saying is, for all intents and purposes they're neither mobile nor are they stationary. so they're not regulated at all. it's like being a car nive rouse -- car nive rouse vegetarians or a chevy chase nightlife. there is no such thing.

you know, you've got to have it be one or the other. you got to pick one or the other here. and it can't wind up with nothing being required from them . mr. chairman, can i have an additional one minute? mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. markey: i thank the chair. so, while republicans say that this bill just keeps the icebreakers and the icebreaker part of the clean air act, the reality is that it effectively puts e.p.a.'s ability to reduce emissions from these sources on ice. my amendment to remedy the problem by ensuring that these vessels met the most stringent mobile source standards, so that we would realize some emissions reductions from them, was rejected by the majority in the committee. so instead of what the majority claims to want to do, which was to ensure that these vessels were not regulated as both mobile source and stationary source under the clean air act, was what this bill does censure

that the emissions from these vessels aren't regulated at all. that's their goal. that 98% of emissions will go unregulated and i don't think there's anyone listening to this debate that thinks that that's a good thing for the public health of our country. i urge opposition to this bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i might remind our friend from massachusetts that e.p.a. actually approved the permit, the drilling permit, the exploratory drilling permit for shell in this case on three separate occasions. but the delay has been the appeals by the opposing party to the environmental appeals board which is not even in the clean air statute. so this bill is simply designed to speed up the process and give people an adequate time to oppose the exploratory permitting. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman, mr. terry, who is a member of

the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for three minutes. mr. terry: thank you, madam chairman. mr. gardener's bill addresses this country's need on energy and power. mr. gardener's bill prevents the government from going out of its way to stop private sector from creating jobs. this job alone will create 54,000 jobs sustained over 50 years. the economic report from northern economics of the university of alaska, i would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record. the chair: request being covered under general. mr. terry: we will do it then. and with one million barrels per day going to our country's need of about 19 million barrels per day makes us more energy secure.

so what we hear from the e.p.a. in the minority is they will do everything they can to stop fossil fuels, even though this is a fossil fuel economy, yes, we need all of the above, but to stop all fossil fuels creates national insecurity, making us more dependent on foreign oil, sending more of our financial resources and jobs overseas and that's what we need to stop and that's what this bill takes a large step towards doing. now, the e.p.a. has made it impossible for new exploration off the coast of alaska by continually changing the rules. the e.p.a. has even testified before our committee that there is no anticipated human health risk at issue. and we still have been waiting six years and counting for this permit to be issued. let's make it clear.

bureaucratic delays are blocking energy development. while the e.p.a.'s regional office has granted air permits to allow this deep sea drilling, the process has been repeatedly stalled when the administrators' environmental repeals board rejects the permits already granted. yes, it gets to washington, they stop it. and this process repeats itself. we'll have a bill maybe in a couple of weeks where the e.p.a.'s done the same thing, where they've changed the rules to stop a project. the federal government's inability to issue viable permits to drill offshore alaska is keeping resources and domestic jobs from the american people. the gardner bill, 2021, eliminates the uncertainty that has delayed exploration in deep

sea, alaskan outer continental shelf, and i hope my colleagues will support this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, madam chair. i rise today to support h.r. 2021, the jobs and energy permitting act and i thank my ranking member for providing time. an area that is sensitive to the air quality issues, i appreciate the e.p.a. that has contributed to our goal to cleaner air. for that reason i remain hopeful that e.p.a.'s administrative air permitting barriers would be addressed but they haven't. as such we continue to see air permits for offshore exploration to go back and forth between the producer, e.p.a., the environmental appeals board with no movement towards a final decision. that's why i'm an original could he sponsor of the jobs

and energy permitting act which would rectify some of these permitting questions so we can safely and responsibly produce our resources in the arctic ocean. we need something that's predictable, workable and understanding. when i hear last five years shell has tried to get one single permit for alaska something is wrong with the process. while opponents of this -- proponents of this bill says it guts the clean air act that's not true. it matches the e.p.a. outer continental shelf permitting process with the air permitting process planned parenthood by the department of interior in the gulf of mexico. a clean air act air-emitting process that successfully has been used for decades. by doing so we can rest assure we have a strong permitting process. these will not left in limbo like we've seen from the environmental appeals board for years. exploration wells where activity typically only lasts for a few days, not production

wells where activity lasts for months. i've long been a supporter for safe drilling on the outer continental shelf as thee resources are a -- these resources are a vital resource. it's important to diversify our resources by exploring in this area and this bill is the first step in that process. i strongly encourages my colleagues to support the bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: this five or six-year period for this permit was only for an exploratory permit, not even a production permit. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for two minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, madam chair. i rise in strong support of h.r. 2021. i appreciate mr. gardner for bringing this to our attention. this is not a bill about shell of oil company. this is about a system that is broken. shell oil company has been

trying for almost five years to get a permit and still doesn't get the answer. in the meantime they've drilled over 400 exploratory wells around the world, but they can't drill in the united states. i recently spent time at gas stations talking to people. their frustration over our gas prices is, why are they so high here? why are the prices going up? this bill answers why they are going up. we have a government that has a war on american jobs and a war on american energy. they have a war on western jobs because oil production is concentrated in the west. every time a drill bit is stopped by its own actions the price of gas will go incrementally up by just a small multiple percentages, very small amount. but when it's stopped by bureaucratic action, then the markets can assess that a government is going to be unfriendly to future production and the price begins to escalate because people get out of dollars and out of other

investments into this because they know the price of gas and oil are going to go up because they can see the bureaucratic delays being played out. so understand that when we have high gas prices in this country it is because the government is making them high. it's making them high by moratoriums. it's making them high by delaying tactics in our administration's responses to these things, like this permit. so mr. gardner's bill simply says we are going to unravel a piece of the delay that's been happening. it's a well thought out bill, it's a well thought out process and one which will result in lower prices for american consumers. there's absolutely no health hazard. lisa jackson, herself, has said that. they're going to get the permits. what we're doing is a bill that won't help shell but help future producers that they can get answers when they're asking questions to the government. it's a reasonable request and one which we should do, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i want to yield myself one minute to correct some of the statements that have been made that i don't think are accurate. lisa jackson, the head of the environmental protection agency, said if they got a permit that was approved by the e.p.a. there would be no adverse environmental impact. but what the proponents of this bill are trying to do is to circumvent the e.p.a. action and to have congress shorten the ability of the e.p.a. to act. there will be pollution problems. states will not be able to control the pollution off their coast. that is why california and delaware have expressed such great concern. there are other states that are going to be in the same situation. this bill does not deal with just the problem in arkansas. it tries to circumvent the orderly procedure by which those who are trying to get permits will come in and submit their permit and show that

they're justified. unlike the situation with shell where they submitted a permit, pulled it back, it will be another one, pulled it back. at this time i want to yield four minutes to my colleague from california, a member of the energy and commerce committee, ms. kaptur. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for four -- the gentlewoman from california is recognized for four minutes. mrs. capps: it gives oil companies a pass to pollute. it doesn't allow them from applying technology to vessels like crude and supply boats which account for most of the air pollution from drilling off my congressional district's coast. it also opens up a loophole for drill ships to pollute with no limit while the ship moves into play. and instead of measuring pollution as a source itself, h.r. 2021 allows oil companies to measure the impacts at the

shore with a net result of more air pollution overall. second, h.r. 2021 does away with proven processes that move -- provide an expert, efficient of air permits decisions. i would note that in 20 years the santa barbara air pollution control district has never denied an offshore drilling permit and there's more drilling off my district than just about anywhere in this country. the local air permitting review process works. we don't need to change it. in addition, this bill's provision to remove all appellate action to washington, d.c., is wholly unfair. this limits the rights of my constituents to participate in very important matters affecting their health. it forces cash-strapped local governments to travel thousands of miles to defend their permitting decisions, placing a serious burden on local taxpayers. and finally and perhaps most importantly to my constituents, h.r. 2021 poses real health risks to the communities surrounding offshore drilling by weakening local air quality

standards. pollution from nearly two dozen oil platforms and the vessels that supply them in the santa barbara channel includes high levels of airborne pollutants. these pollutants can cause severe lung problems and other major health issues and that's why our state adopted rules to strengthen air quality standards and helped protect coastal residents from this pollution. it makes no sense to block these rules that will help my community clean up its air. so, madam chair, h.r. 2021 is a bad bill. let me address a theme that's been repeated on the other side. supporters of this bill compare the shell talking points that's taken five years to get a clean air act permit for them to drill in the ok o.c.s. they cite this five-year delay as vacation for this legislation. this claim might make a nice sound bite but it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts and here are the facts. first, shell has pulled its permit applications, modified its proposed operations,

changed its target drilling sites on numerous occasions over the past few years. shell pulled the permit application for drilling in the bufort sea for two years. every time shell changed its plans, e.p.a. had to adjust its assessment of a potential impact on air quality and public health and that's what we expect e.p.a. to do. no one wants e.p.a. to take a one-size-fits-all approach to the permitting of these major sources of pollution. second, shell delayed a final e.p.a. on its air permit for drilling in the chukchi sea by submitting insufficient permit applications. that's shell's fault, not e.p.a. and finally, e.p.a. has prioritized shell's permit applications and finalized them quickly. the two shell permits were proposed and finalized within three to four months after receiving completed applications. both went from submission of a completed application to a decision by the environmental appeals board within one year.

e.p.a. now says it's on track to finalize shell's revised permits by the end of this summer. this -- if this bill is about addressing shell's so-called five-year permitting delay then i see no basis for this legislation. the truth is that this bill isn't about expediting the permit process. it's about rolling back air quality protection. this bill will create more problems than it purports to solve because it will allow oil companies to pollute more offshore and cut the concern that stakeholders have out of the very process itself, and i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: madam chair, i'd like to clarify this bill does not change the clean air act in any way as it relates to monitoring stationary sources or mobile sources. and i wanted to point that out. and second of all, the gentlelady from california mentioned additional drilling

going on in the pacific region. the government records show since 1994 not one exploratory permit has been issued. the production -- there are production wells out there but not one new exploratory permit since 1994. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. can i seinger, for two minutes. -- mr. kinzinger, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: every generation has an opportunity to excell in one area. every 10 years or so a country decides whether they're going to be a recipient of something or whether they're going to be a world leader. for too long the united states of america has accepted that we are going to be a net importer of energy, that we are always going to be energy independent, that we're always going to be reliant on foreign sources of

energy. ladies and gentlemen, two of alaska's arctic seas contain up to 27.9 billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that could deliver up to one million barrels of oil a day. beginning the process of getting us unaddicted to foreign oil, beginning the process of bringing us energy security and getting america back to work. we have an opportunity here in the united states to get people back to work, but it's being limited and hamstrung by bureaucrats in washington, d.c., and by those with a political agenda. we have the equivalent of a pile of cash under our mattress but we're taking out loans from the mafia to care for our energy needs. it is hard time we stand up and say we have resources in the united states and we're not going to allow political agendas to drive us to continue

energy independence and we're going to stand up and say produce it here in the united states of america and do it now. american people, mr. chairman, are beginning to understand that this administration and its agencies are having real consequences and real impacts on the unemployment rate, on the joblessness, and on the price we're paying for a barrel of oil and a gallon of gasoline. because every dollar that a gallon of gasoline increases it is a regressive tax on americans. and meanwhile, we sit around and we argue while bureaucrats in washington, d.c., have their way. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i'd like to now yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank my colleague. mr. connolly: madam chairman, the legislation before us would repeal pollutant standards for ships and oil rigs located offshore anywhere in america. it appears to be based on the

belief that as a general principle air does not move. this legislation endangers air quality from alaska to virginia while offering another token of appreciation to the oil companies that was so generous in creating a new majority in the 112th congress. the premise of this bill is that pollution generated offshore doesn't matter because it will not affect any humans onshore or humans working offshore. and i know that those of us who represent little states are most reassured from our colleagues from colorado and kentucky and nebraska in reassuring us we won't negatively be affected by this legislation. based on the content of this bill, apparently the majority believes that individuals planned parenthood on offshore oil rigs and ship servicing rigs do not breathe while they're working offshore. this bill would reregulate drilling in alaska and drilling

off the coast of virginia and all other coastal states. the majority is attempting to pass yet another bill to sacrifice the health and economic livelihoods of american citizens to pad the pocketbooks of big oil. this legislation which presupposes that air does not move is as dangerous as the previous republican oil bills which denied the existence of global warming and enacted wholesale repeals of the few safety and environmental safety cuts that still protect coastal communities from oil drilling. we keep hearing from across the aisle that this legislation will create 50,000 jobs. my friends, don't be misinformed. the study they refer to is a shell-funded oil study that estimates how many jobs could be created all things being equal like no pollution regulation by offshore oil drilling in alaska. today's debate is not about whether to drill, it's about whether we will allow a massive increase in pollution when we do

it. it is a false choice and i urge my colleagues in the house to reject it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: madam chair, our friends on the other side of the aisle would make it appear that we're abandoning all environmental protections and i would say that under this bill there are still five opportunities for public comment , the nepa process is not changed in any way and at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. olson: thank you, madam chairman, and thanks to my colleague from kentucky for giving me this time. i rise in strong support of h.r. 2021, the jobs and energy permitting act. this bill will help clarify and improve e.p.a.'s decision making and air permitting off the coast of alaska and restore much-needed certainty to that

regulatory process. estimates show that the seas have the potential to produce up to one million barrels of oil per day while creating over 50,000 american jobs. it is unacceptable that the bureaucratic process has caused a race for five years and continues to block american energy resources from being developed. this bill would hold the administration accountable for its actions and provide the certainty so desperately needed by the private sector to grow jobs and get our economy back on track. at a time of record high gas prices, we should be committed to developing american energy resources, reducing our dependence on middle eastern sources of energy and providing good paying american jobs. let's put america back to work. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: may i inquire how much time is on each side? the chair: the gentleman from california has seven minutes remaining and the gentleman from kentucky has 81 fourts minutes remaining. -- 8 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. waxman: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i would like to yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i would like to say that the american people expect the congress to provide opportunities for us to fully explore our natural resources. this is a very modest bill that only changes one very small part of the clean air act. and it relates explicitly only to exploratory drilling permits. and it changes only appeals to the environmental appeals board.

and the environmental appeals board is not even in the statute of the clean air act. it was put in by regulation. and what's happening here in the one issue we're talking about today, the e.p.a. has approved this permit on three separate occasions and yet it's been appealed in the environmental appeals board and it's tied up and tied up and they will not make the final decision. and if you cannot exhaust your administrative remedies you cannot even go to the court system. so this legislation simply expedites the process without removing protections for people concerned about the environment, as we all are, and i wanted to make that comment and i would also at this point like to yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. gardener of colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. gardner: i thank you, madam chair, and i thank the gentleman

from kentucky. we've heard all kinds of arguments today. red herrings that would make the fulton fish market proud of this debate. this bill is not about jobs, my colleagues on the other side of this debate said. this bill is not about pain at the pump, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said. this bill won't create jobs, i've heard in the arguments today, that it is a massive excuse for people to do incredible things to the environment, unthought of things. again, red herrings that the american people are tired of. the american people are asking for jobs, they're asking for relief at the pump. this bill is nothing more than creating economic opportunity for not only people in alaska but throughout this country with the creation of 50,000 jobs. when we access our resources, evidently there are some who believe it doesn't create jobs. when we create one million barrels of oil a day coming into our supplies, apparently that doesn't create jobs.

when we build operations for our workers in the north shore of alaska, that supply facilities in the lower 48 states, apparently that doesn't create jobs. apparently we don't lose jobs when people are beginning to pay nearly $4 a gallon for the price of gas. that seems to be the argument that i hear against this bill. my constituents are paying $3 .50, $3.60 for a gallon of gas. and apparently as energy prices increase, some believe that doesn't cut jobs. it doesn't hurt our economy. i have heard time and time again through testimony before the energy and commerce committee, through town meetings, constituent calls and letters, they are tired of paying $50, $60 every time they fill up the fuel tank. they're tired of paying their hard-earned money for rising gas prices because this congress has failed to pass energy policies that rein in the bureaucrats and

regulators. we have an opportunity with h.r. 2021 to create jobs, to create opportunities for energy security in this country. and i want to remind my colleagues that these permits, the rights to explore have already been leased. already been leased. paid for. i ask for -- that members consider this bill and i ask for a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. rush: madam speaker, i want to first of all say that this bill will not create jobs. this bill is not mentioned creating -- has not mentioned creating jobs. if the drilling is to create jobs, those jobs would be created without it running this bill or not.

this bill's supporters also claim that it will lower gasoline prices, that it will reduce the budget deficit and that it will cut unemployment. well, they might have said it will cure the common cold as well. this bill is a solution in search of a problem. this bill was written by shell for shell to address its frustration with a permitting process in alaska, frustration that it was responsible for, shell itself. e.p.a. has said on many occasions that it is working overtime to finalize shell's permits by the end of this

summer. this bill won't go to emerging markets for emerging consumers not one milisecond faster. shell told the energy and commerce committee that it won't be able to produce oil from its arctic operations for at least 10 years. at least another decade. even if this bill increased the rate of offshore production, more drilling is unlikely to affect oil prices. can i have one more minute? mr. waxman: 30 more seconds. mr. rush: in 2009 the energy information administration looked at the difference between allowing four offshore drilling

and restricting offshore drilling. they found there would be no impact on gasoline prices in 2020 and only a slight impact by 2030 with gas prices falling by a mere three cents a gallon. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: madam chair, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has five minutes remaining and the gentleman from california has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: at this time i would like to -- would the gentleman like to go? i would like -- i would let the gentleman go at this time. mr. waxman: i didn't hear the times that you said. the chair: the gentleman from california has 4 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from kentucky has five minutes. mr. waxman: ok. does the gentleman from kentucky wish for us to complete our time and then are you prepared to -- mr. whitfield: i have one additional speaker and then i'd like to close on my side. mr. waxman: i'm going to close

on my side so why don't you yield. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield to mr. scalise, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you. i thank the gentleman from kentucky for yielding. i rise in strong support of the jobs and energy permitting act of 2011. you want to talk about a jobs bill, you want to talk about a bill that will actually allow us to decrease our dependence on middle eastern oil, this is it. now, some of my colleagues on the other side say, oh, it's going to take 10 years to get that oil. the reason it's going to take 10 years is because for the last four years they've been trying to get their permit to go and drill where there's known oil and known reserves and the e.p.a.'s been combining with these radical environmentalist groups to block them. and so what they're saying is, those people don't want the energy in america, they want to go to places like brazil, they want to go to egypt, they want to go to some of these other middle eastern countries, many of whom don't like us, and get the oil there, but when we find known reserves in america, they are using our own federal

regulators to block american energy. and so what we're say something let's pass a piece of legislation that's here on the floor now that's going to allow us to utilize our own american energy. you know this one find alone up in alaska, this one known reserve right here that we have the ability to put online would bring in a million barrels of oil a day. that's american energy. that's not oil that's going to be imported on tankers where 75% of your spills occur from middle eastern countries where the billions of dollars we're sending them are going to countries who don't like us. that's american jobs, over 50,000 jobs that can be created by getting these bureaucratic hurdles out of the way. they have to follow all the rules, they have to play by the rules but you can't keep using these bureaucratic agencies, combining up with radical environmentalist groups who don't want any american energy to be used to block production of american energy. that's what this bill does. it creates american jobs, it allows us to say, ok, a million barrels a day, we no longer have

to import from middle eastern countries. so anybody that pays lip service and says they want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, if they oppose this bill, then they're supporting foreign oil because this bill says a million less barrels of oil we have to bring in from these other countries because we've got it in america. we want to bring in our own oil, we want to create american jobs and we want to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. this is how you do it. this is how you put more oil through that alaskan pipeline which is getting ready to dry up because they won't let them explore for energy in america. let's explore for energy and create jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i just want to take issue with the statements that have been made over and over again that this drilling in alaska by shell oil will relieve our dependence on foreign oil. let's look at the facts. this country consumes 25% of the world's oil. all the oil reserves in the united states amounts to 2%.

we are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more oil. we don't have enough oil to produce to satisfy our demand. now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't produce more domestic oil. and i want us to produce more domestic oil. the gentleman from louisiana said, let's play by the rules. and not let these radical environmentalist groups stop the permit. well, i don't even know what he's talking about. he may not know what he's talking about when he talks about radical environmental -- environmental groups. there's no radical or other environmental groups that are opposing this drilling in alaska. the people who are seeking the permit have put it in, pulled it back and they've spent this additional time keeping e.p.a. from acting on the permit. now, there's been talk about this environmental appeals board that it's not in the clean air act.

well, the clean air act provides that the administrator shall set up an energy board to review the environmental issues. play by the rules? the republican want to repeal the rules. they don't want this appeals board, which has been in creation since the president george h.w. bush which has worked well. they don't want them to review the application. they want to change the rules. now, let me tell you what it does in california, and my colleagues from california, democratic and republican, you don't know what your districts are going to be yet, so pay attention because our state is going to be hurt. according to state of california, which opposes this bill, in addition to increasing pollution this legislation preempts local control and review. the bill short-circuit california's existing effective delegated permitting process, greatly increasing the

likelihood of litigation and pushes all to washington, d.c., putting a substantial burden on state and local governments and disenfranchises the local shareholders -- stakeholders. now, we hear so much from the republican side of the aisle. why should we have washington make the decisions? instead, what they're trying to do is keep california from making its own decisions. well, what does california have to do with drilling off the coast of alaska? nothing. in this bill they drafted it in a way that california and delaware and virginia and other states from taking charge of what is now within their purview. let's let shell get a permit under the regular procedures. if they need some help in clarifying ambiguity we're glad to work on it, but republicans want to repeal the laws that protect the public interest and environmental protection just to give shell a special break. it's not going to reduce our

dependence on foreign oil. we won't even see that oil for another decade. it's a giveaway to shell oil and they're using this as an excuse to repeal protections for other areas to control their own pollution sources. so i would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. it is a power grab. the bureaucrats, the radical bureaucrats on the republican side have come up with this bill and they're trying to impose it on the whole country to help the oil companies. i don't think that it's worthy of our support, and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. waxman: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. whitfield: the gentleman in his statement noted that we consume 25% of the world's oil but we possess only 2% of the oil's reserves and that's precisely why we're trying to pass this bill because only resources can only be counted as proven reserves if they've been fully explored. and we have not had the opportunity to fully explore. and so why should we continue to be dependent on foreign oil when we have not been able to even explore because we have a bureaucratic agency at e.p.a. the purpose of which is to deny the opportunity to fully explore? this is modest legislation. it simply clarifies that if you have a ship that ship is going to be created as a mobile source. if you have a drilling platform, that's going to be treated as a stationary source. if you're drilling, we're going to look at the air quality

impact onshore, not offshore, and then we're just going to ask the e.p.a. appeals board for exploratory permits only, nothing else, and then make a decision within six months after the completed application is there. i think that this graph adequately demonstrates what our problem is in america. this is the transalaska pipeline. in 1985 we were moving 2,100,000 barrels a day through that pipeline. today we're down below 600,000 barrels a day. so if we have the reserve, the american people are simply asking us to restore some balance in these federal agencies. we must protect the environment, but we also want an opportunity to explore and use our own oil resources, and

we have reason to believe that they are abundant. so i want to thank mr. gardner for his leadership on this issue, and i would urge everyone in this body, just like we had five democrats in committee voted for this bill, i think it's imperative for the american people that we do so and i would urge that we adopt h.r. 2021. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered as read for amendment under the five-minute rule. no amendment to the bill is in order except those printed in part a of house report 112-111. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment,

shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-111. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. speier: thank you, madam 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 112-111 offered by ms. speer of california. -- ms. speier of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 316, the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. speier: thank you. i rise today in support of my amendment which strikes section 2 from the bill. section 2 of this bill would amend the clean air act to force emissions from any

offshore source to be measured only at the corresponding onshore location. yes, you heard me correctly. the bill demonstrates willful ignorance of the fact that pollution is also harmful over water, not just on land. this dirty air loophole is so big you can float a deep-water hor -- deepwater horizon through it. i know our philosophy is different here. the fact is even if we produced every drop of recoverable oil offshore today it would only last us for three years at our current consumption rate. then, we'd be right back where we started from without having reduced our demand on oil except we'd be about billions of dollars poorer after guysing the oil companies to turn the rest of offshore u.s.a. into the gulf of mexico. that does not sound like a deficit-coming up nexting, jobs creating proposal to me. h.r. 2021 purports to simply

reduce the time it takes to get a permit to drill, but it also gives big oil a free pass to properly account for the toxic pollution it produces on the outer continental shelf. it moves the geographic point where emissions are measured from offshore near the drilling location to an onshore point many miles away. this change would clearly weaken public health protection for oil workers. are we interested in them? fishermen, are we interested in them? recreational boaters. not to mention all those who do business and make a living in our coastal communities. apparently it's the old out of sight out of mind approach. what you can't see won't hurt you. after the b.p. oil spill just last year, such an approach should be dismissed as reckless. one year ago today, oil was gushing into the gulf and toxic emissions were streaming into the air. but if this bill passes, the same level of clean air act

protections that gulf oil workers, fishermen and coastal residents to fight on for b.p. for damages would no longer apply for them in the gulf or anywhere else. let's be clear, this bill, the rules don't apply to shell. shell wants to drill in the arctic ocean off alaska without monitoring at the source. i get it. we all get it, but that isn't prudent, that isn't fair, that isn't safe. here are the facts this bill would cover up. shell's plans to drill for oil in the arctic would dump as much particulate matter into the air as over 825,000 cars traveling 12,000 miles and much co-2 as the annual household emissions of 21,000 people and more than 1,000 tons of no-2, a knox pollutant that causes respiratory illness. this is according to shell's

own permit application. pollution may be emitted from the rigs offshore but the effects are felt miles away. by native populations with vibrant fishing communities by the coast. if shell or any other oil wants to do business in the outer continental shelf, they need to have rules set forth by the clean air act. that is fundamental. they have succeeded to get congress to grant them exemptions from the rules at the expense of public health and the environment. in fact, by creating this loophole, h.r. 2021 would actually further complicate the permitting process and increase expenses for all parties involved. the california air resources board which receives oil and gas permits in my state testified on this point in committee. this bill, they said, would require more time and expense to properly model onshore

impacts. it may have the gentleman is recognizeded costs to deploy onshore monitoring network and obtain data to sufficiently establish a baseline. costes that would passed on to the applicants. this bill will fail on both counts. while doing real harm to air quality in california and many of the 20 other coastal states. it will certainly achieve the goal of increasing oil company profits at the costs of everyone else. i respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and oppose this dirty air loophole, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. does the gentleman from kentucky rise in opposition to the amendment? mr. whitfield: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you, madam chair. i do rise in opposition to this amendment. i would like to quote from lisa jackson, who was talking explicitly about the permitted issue here, and she said, i believe that the analysis clearly showed that there is no

public health concern here. and that's why e.p.a. on three separate occasions approved this air quality permit but on the appeal process it was denied by the environmental appeals board. now, if you look at the legislative history of the clean air act, it is very clear in that legislative history that as it pertains to outer continental shelf sources, they were concerned about the impact onshore and the ability of onshore to obtain and maintain their clean air national ambient national air quality standards. so all this legislation does is to clarify that point. we're not changing the air quality standards. we're not changing the way they monitor stationary sources. we're not changing the way they

monitor mobile sources. we're simply clarifying that the legislative history, that was the intent, and the full range of environmental protections are still in play. so i believe that this amendment is not necessary. we already have adequate monitoring in place, and -- how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: 1 1/2 minutes. i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes in opposition to the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado -- the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. gardner: i thank you, madam chair, and thank the gentleman from kentucky. the issue that we're discussing here was actually brought up in debate at the time in the conference committee the very title we are discussing. i'll read from the conference committee report. o.c.s. air pollution is contributing to air quality

standards in some coastal regions. we're dealing with onshore debate -- the debate is on onshore. the debate at the time was on onshore regulations, on coastal regulations. in addition, the testimony before the energy and commerce committee focused on this language in the regulations dealing with a rational relationship to the air quality standards and the requirement of the program and that the rule is not used for the purpose of preventing exploration and development of the o.c.s. going directly, directly to the interpretation that the focus on o.c.s. requirements as the regulations themselves state is onshore. that the onshore air quality represents a rational relationship between o.c.s. sources and attaining and maintaining air quality standards. this was the conversation, the debate took place during the very conference committee about coastal regions, about onshore regulations. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has 15 seconds remaining. mr. whitfield: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- the gentlewoman from california. ms. speier: may i request a roll call, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 112-111. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: i rise to offer an amendment to the bill. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 112-111 offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 316, 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 chair. you know, in the past i've made the statement regarding offshore drilling as native floridian that i will be the last person standing opposed. but it would seem to me that there is ever-mounting evidence that republicans are willing to expand offshore drilling regardless of cost to the environment. this particular iteration of what i described as a near criminal energy policy takes the form of selling out hardworking americans' rights to breathe clean air. in particular this bill excludes shell oil's icebreaker ships in the arctic from regulation under the clean air act. shell has and will continue to argue that since its icebreakers are regulated under title 2 of

the clean air act, the vessels don't also need to be regulated under title 1. yet the fact is that shell's ships would not be regulated under title 2 due to the fact that they are foreign flag and predate the effective date of the regulations. shell is asking congress and republicans are apliging -- are abliging to -- are obliging to create a legal loophole so that shell, their company, can pollute with inpunity and to not be bothered by complying with environmental regulations designed to minimize our desecration of earth. this loophole would create a dream scenario for shell and the rest of the oil industry currently taking in record profits as gas prices soar for the average american family. for its 2010 drilling operations it was not the amount of emissions from the drill ship itself that triggered the

application of the clean air act regulations to shell's operations, but the emissions from shell's icebreakers. the exploration drilling, as has been noticed, appropriated by shell would put on relief particulate matter well in excess of 800,000 cars traveling 12,000 miles. these kind of support vessels are responsible for up to 98% of the air pollution from drilling outfits and republicans are asking congress, close our eyes to this matter. madam chair, mr. chair now, my amendment would bring the oil companys' dream world crushing down around them, my amendment eliminates the loophole created in this bill, giving the e.p.a. the authority to regulate the support vessels and the emission sources that they are. i was in the rules committee, i heard this argument about five years and shell and i also heard

my colleague, mr. rush, clearly explain that shell filled out applications that were not fully filled out and then when they were sent back at some point they even pulled their application before sending it back in complete. now, you can't have it both ways, but more important, i would ask every speaker that speaks in favor of this measure, tell the american public today how much is this going to reduce the cost of gasoline today, tomorrow or next week or next year. the fact is the labor secretary did something today about the next generation of jobs. she announced grants for different segments of this country in the amount of $38 million in grants for green jobs, innovation fund program. that's where our head needs to

be, our heart may still be in the need to use fossil fuels, but this measure isn't going to make one whiff of a difference with reference to the cost of gas. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition? >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank mr. chairman for the time. you know, this amendment mixes dish rise in opposition to the amendment. it mixes two basic concepts of stationary title 1 issues and mobile title 2 sources. mr. gardner: what we're talking about here is something akin to requiring the employee of a factory to overhaul his engine simply because he parks next to the factory. it's requiring a re-engining of service vessels simply because they happen to be in the area of a stationary source. and so basically what we're talking about in the bill is saying that once a drilling ship becomes -- starts to drill,

that's what it becomes -- that's when it becomes stationary. to require the vessels that service that drill ship to require them to be stationary would be like requiring the u.p.s. truck to fall under the same regulations as the factory that it's delivering to. or treating a emissions testing facility like it has wheels and ought to be moving around to everybody else because it's testing the emissions of a stationary source. and so i rise to oppose this amendment, again, because of issues it's trying to deal with mixing stationary and mobile sources. the issue of foreign flag ships is dealt with international law, under our treaties that we have in this country. it's dealt with the treaty, if we want to increase those regulations on u.s. vessels, congress can do that. hour to -- however to increase regulations on service vessels

only because they were hired to service an o.c.s. vehicle make noes sense. and it was said in debate earlier too that i believe it was said, we are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more oil. and i guess that argument means the same thing as we're not going to have more food by producing more food. we're not going to have more appliances in this country by producing more appliances. the arguments that we've heard in this bill are offpoint, offsubject and simply on claims that don't make any sense. so when it comes to this particular amendment, this particular amendment, delivery trucks aren't regulated as stationary sources nor should the service vessels. to a stationary source, the drilling ship as will be considered once this legislation becomes law. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time on this debate? the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time and ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

all time having expired, the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes appear to have it. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i ask for a record vote. the chair: at that, pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment on the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 112-111. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: mr. speaker, 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 11-111 offered by -- 12 112-111 offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 316, the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, and a member opposed will each control five minutes of this debate. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker.

oil companies of course benefit from significant subsidies. this amendment would require that applicant oil companies for permits to drill would disclose as part of their application the taxpayer-provided subsidies that they enjoy. and they would make that specific as to the leases for which they're seeking permission to drill. now, we've had a long debate, mr. speaker, in this body about the wisdom of subsidies to oil companies and we have a strong contingent in this body that favors those subsidies, making arguments that it's good for the economy, good for producing energy and beneficial to the taxpayer. we have many in this body, myself among them, who believe that these subsidies are too rich and are unnecessary. when oil company profits are a trillion dollars in the past year, when the price of oil has been hovering between $95 and

$113 per barrel, when the companies have enjoyed record profits this year, the question arises by me and by many as to whether or not it makes sense to ask the taxpayers to reach into their pockets and to provide subsidies to a mature industry, an important industry, but a mature industry in a very profitable -- and a very profitable industry with a very high-priced product where they can generate and are succeeding in generating significant profits for that industry. this is not about whether they're doing good or they're doing bad. i mean, we have oil companies that are doing their job. but it is about whether taxpayers should be at the very minimum made explicitly aware as to how much it is their being asked to subsidize oil companies when they seek these leases. you know, one of the challenges we have that has been a major

point by the new majority is that we have a budget deficit and we've got to control spending, spending is both on the direct appropriations side and on what's called here, the tax expenditure side, i think our constituents would know that as tax breaks. why not take every action that we can when it comes to spending and it comes to tax breaks, to mobilize the awareness to the american people so they know what it is we're spending their money on, whether it's for spending program or a tax break subsidy? so this is about disclosure. it's about unleashing the power of knowledge, making it available to the american people so that they can tell their representatives, you know, we think that subsidies a-- that subsidy's a pretty good idea or we don't need to be shelling out money for that subsidy, we want to go in a new direction. so, mr. speaker, my amendment is about empowering the democratic

objectives of this country and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition? >> i seek time to rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker, thank you for giving me time to speak. i rise in opposition to the welch amendment, in strong support of h.r. 2021rk the jobs and energy permitting act -- 2021, the jobs and energy permitting act, a piece of legislation that would create jobs in america and american energy for american consumers. the welch amendment says that it requires a company applying for a permit to provide, quote, oil subsidies data on -- quote oil subsidies provided by the federal government. this is an absolute red herring. there's no definition of oil subsidies that's intentional. to the gentleman from who proffered this amendment, he's an attorney, he ought to know better. i don't know what oil subsidy he's referring. section 199, manufacturing deduction, which goes to all

businesses, whether they produce oil or otherwise, so long as they're engaged in manufacturing. maybe he's remembering -- referring to the writing off of intangible drilling costs and claiming tax credits for employeing american workers, if those qualify as american government giveaways that should absolutely be something that i would think that he would support. these folks are paying royalty taxes and giving great revenue to the united states treasury. this piece of legislation whoa without this amendment will create many jobs and revenue for the united states treasury. look, what mr. welch is really interested in, mr. chairman, what this amendment really does is it attempts to punish oil companies for producing american energy and american jobs. this piece of legislation, 2021, will do just that and this amendment attempts to stop it. if there were subsidies that applied only to the oil industry or specifically benefited folks who purchased traditional oil and petroleum, i'd be the first to rise and say, you're right, that's a subsidy, we ought get rid of it but that's not what

this amendment attempts to do. rather this amendment attempts to stop a piece of legislation that will create energy, will lower the supply or excuse me, lower the price of gasoline for american consumers, will again add jobs all over our country and once again provide american energy so that american consumers may benefit. i'd like to urge all of my colleagues to oppose the welch amendment and support the underlying jobs and energy permitting act. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from has two minutes remain -- the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. welch: all right, i would just say this to my colleague, you and i disagree obviously on the subsidies. we don't disagree that the oil industry does provide a good jobs to a lot of american families and a product that we need to keep our economy going. but there's a reasonable basis for disagreement about whether a particular subsidy has outlived

its useful life. it is real money out of the pocket of the taxpayer and while the suggestion is made that it would be tough to figure out what these subsidies are, these companies that enjoy these subsidies have accountants who scower the tax code to make certain that every legally available subsidy is one that they in fact do take. they actually owe that due diligence and that effort to their shareholders, to make certain that they get maximum value for the shareholders and that includes paying not a nickel more in taxes than they're legally required to pay by the rules this house of representatives sets. this is not about whether you're for or against the tax subsidies as they exist, we disagree on that but it is about saying to the taxpayer, when the company is filling out the application, after they do

their tax filings, which they do every year, they can specify what the benefit is they are getting courtesy of the united states taxpayer. that's really what this is about. what's the problem with letting people know how their money is being spent? i yield back. the chair: all time having expired in this debate the question is occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. welch: mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause of of rule 18, further proceedings an the amendment of the gentleman from vermont will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 112-111. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report part a of house report 112-111, offered by mr. keating of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. keating: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman veck niced. mr. keating: i rise to support my amendment to h.r. 2021. soaring gas prices, soaring oil prices, oil companies have revealed record profits, the top five multinational oil companies earned over $1 trillion in the past decade in a district where jobs and

commerce depends on a coastal, marine and tourism economy, i have constituents that are paying up to $4 -- up to $4.50 a gallon. these firms, these oirl firms, these conglomerates are eating up our constituents' paychecks. where is it going? only a small portion, some estimates are 7%, go back into our country to search for alternatives to oil. rather, oil companies are providing bonuses for stockholders and bonuses to company executives, a pat on the back for high prices at the pump. remember that up to 90 noveget tax subsidy money given to executives and companies by taxpayers went to buybacks for preferred stock purchases. my amendment would provide transparency for the u.s. taxpayer. the amendment requires that all

completed permit applications include data on executive bonuses distributed by the applicant company in the most recent quarter. in maye, i offered a similar amendment to house -- to h.r. 1231, that required the secretary to make available to the public data on executive bonus for any company that is given a drilling lease and it received, at that time, 186 votes. we have an opportunity now to successfully pass this amendment and the time is now to hold the largest oil companies accountable. i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment in order to provide transparency to the american taxpayer. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from colorado. >> i rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. gardner: once again, we are faced with a question of whether we want to foe couns

the issues this bill is intended to address, the issue of job recreeation, the issue of energy security, whether or not we are going to take advantage of the resources we have in our own back yard, american energy for the american people. this amendment presents once again one more distraction from the very purpose of this bill. the amendment is a distraction for our colleagues, i understand their opposition that they want to oppose the bill but i believe we ought to oppose the bill on its merits, that if they want to vote no on the bill, vote no on the bill if they want to be constructive, introduce amendments to change the bill. but to offer distractions, there's no need for this amendment for a -- from a practical perspective. if a person wants to know the amount of bonuses paid to oil

company executives, that information is available. i don't believe we require bonus disclosure when environmental groups apply for grants. i don't believe we require disclosure when a staffer helps out on a particular piece of legislation when we introduce the bill that we have disclosure on a bonus to a staffer. again, this is a red herring on a bill that focuses on jobs and job creation. with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: how much time is remaining. the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. keating: thank you. groups that depend on tourism and in my drirkt they don't have shareholders they don't have the beneficiaries of this. the purpose of the amendment is to find out who really benefits. if you represent a district like mine, there's a great risk in this. a risk in jobs a risk in

commerce, a risk that is irreparable, a risk that is one that should be taken very seriously and if what is taking that very seriously, one has to look at who, indeed, is benefiting by this? and it's clear, given some of the other alternatives that are there right now that the people at the pump are not benefiting by this. the people in my district that are depending on jobs that could be risked as a result of failures in this drilling have a great deal to risk. it is not a red herring. in fact, if you're going apply any kind of fish analogies, another important industry in my area, the fishing industry is assuming this risk as well who is benefiting by this risk? the purpose of this amendment is to tell the public who indeed benefits by it. this is about profits and the profits go to those executives

and they're not there for the people in my district bearing all the risk of the district. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. keating: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: who benefits from this bill? the american people benefit from this bill. it was made clear the west coast could import less oil because of development of this. testimony was received that it could reduce the price of gasoline before the house energy and commerce committee when we create more supplies, particularly for areas along the west coast because of the presence of these reserves. so the american people are the beneficiaries of increased american production. the chair: does the gentleman yield back?

mr. gardner: i yield back. the chair: all time having expired, 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 gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be post-pobed -- postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in part a of house report 112-111. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 112-111, offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 316, the gentleman from illinois and a member

opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rush: this amendment would strengthen this by ill -- this bill by ensuring we maintain an opportunity for state and community input even as we seek to streamline the permitting process as this bill attempts to do. my amendment would simply allow the e.p.a. administrator to provide additional 30-day extensions if the administrator determines that such time is necessary to provide adequate time for public participation and sufficient involvement by affected states. mr. speaker, input by those most affected by drilling is a

vital and necessary part of the permitting process. there was a time not too long ago, when my republican colleagues valued local participation and states' rights. and now that they are in the majority, these same -- this same majority is attempting to strip away the power of states, the power of local communities, to even participate in the decisions that will affect them the most. as a representative of the people, i do not believe it makes sense for us to legislate away the ability of our citizens to comment on drilling decisions that will impact their health, impact their livelihood, impact their well

being. and i don't think that our constituents would buy into the argument put forth by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they must make it easier for all companies to -- for oil companies to drill and also take away the public's ability to comment and even while they say this is for the public's own benefit. it's ludicrous. they have said this is a bill about the problems shell oil has faced in trying to drill off the coast of alaska. in fact, this legislation will impact every state on the pacific coast.

mr. speaker, the states of california and delaware testified before the commerce committee they have grave concerns about the impact of this bill on their ability to protect their area from air pollution. it is imperative that the states and local community that will be most offended -- affected participate in the process of awarding oil permits and this amendment will ensure that adequate time is given for that purpose. i don't mean that we should ever sacrifice the american public -- interests of the american public in order to expedite the interests of the oil companies.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves his time. who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from kentucky. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment and claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i've had the opportunity to serve many years with the gentleman from illinois who is the ranking member of this subcommittee and i have a great deal of respect and admiration for him. mr. whitfield: but i would point out to him that this legislation does not in any way curtail, stop, impose the opportunity for anyone to express opposition or comment about a permit. we do not in any way change the comment periods that e.p.a. has to determine if they're going to issue in this case an exploratory permit. we do not in any way change the

national environmental policy act that provides four additional opportunities for communities, local, state, individuals, environmental groups to comment on an exploration permit. there is today five opportunities for people to comment about air permits, after this bill is passed there will still be five opportunities for entities to comment. today individuals and entities can file a lawsuit against the e.p.a. and their actions, after this bill is passed they can still file a lawsuit. this bill -- this amendment basically extends -- gives the e.p.a. administrator the opportunity to grant 30-day extensions on final agency action as the administrator deems it necessary. but it's not limited to one

30-day period, two 30-day periods or three 30-day periods. in fact, it could go on and that's the whole reason we have the bill here today. because i don't care what company it is out there trying to explore, to determine if the oil is there, if you cannot even get an administrative decision as in the case of point it's taken four or five years and there's still no decision, you can never get to the court systems. so this bill is a commonsense bill that provides some balance, some checkpoints at e.p.a. so that we have the maximum opportunity to explore, to determine how much oil we have off the coast of alaska. and i might say in the hearings alaska government authorities came up and pleaded for us to do something to help get a decision from the e.p.a.

so i would oppose this amendment and would keep the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: may i inquire as to how much time i have remaining. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has one minute remaining. mr. rush: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let us not be bamboozled by this argument that my friends on the other side is trying to perpetuate on the american people. there is one problem with this bill, well, there's actually two problems with this bill. one problem is that it gives the e.p.a. and state permitting authorities just six months, six lousy months to finalize a permit for offshore exploratory drilling which is not enough

time to perform an adequate technical review while allowing for adequate public participation. number two, it preempts the state's authority, it preempts the right of the state of california, the state of $and other states -- the state of $and other states to impose more -- the state of delaware and other states to impose more stringent controls on offshore drilling operations. mr. speaker, this amendment attempts to cure a very serious problem with this bill and with that i yield back the balance of my time and ask for -- i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has two minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: i yield myself two minutes. to close this debate, i would

simply say that we think six months is totally adequate to make some decisions about air quality permits. for exploratory purposes only. and i would remind everyone here that e.p.a. had a 60-day comment period for its utility regulation, it was a 1,000-page regulation imposed by e.p.a.'s on estimate $10 billion on the american people and increased electricity costs if it goes into effect by 4% or 5%. and they did that in 60 days. certainly the six months that we give in this bill for an air quality permit for drilling purposes alone is adequate and i

would respectfully request that we oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. rush: mr. speaker, with that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 112-111. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 112-111 offered by mr. quigley of illinois.

the chair: pursuant to -- mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois and a gentleman opposed will each control five minutes of this debate. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 2021, a bill that curtails the e.p.a.'s authority under the clean air act to regulate air pollution from offshore oil drilling and to limit the public's participation in decisions that directly affect our health. my amendment strikes the text which strips the ability of the environmental appeals board to remand or deny the issuance of clean air act permits for offshore energy exploration and extraction. quite simply, this amendment allows the e.a.b. to operate as it does today, saving taxpayer dollars and keeping unnecessary litigation out of the courts and in a place where unbiased and apolitical judges can make sound decisions with input from local constituencies who are most

affected. it's worth noting that the e.a.b. was established under george h.w. bush, created in recognition of increasing levels of appeals from permit decisions and civil penalty decisions. further, three of the four sitting judges were appointed by republican administrations. the judges who sit on the e.a.b. are not political appointees, they are critical e.p.a. officials whose terms do not end at the end of an administration. the board takes approximately five months on the average from the time of petition is filed to receive and review briefs, hold oral arguments and render a comprehensive written decision and a prevention of significant deterioration air permit case. federal court review would likely take at least three or four times as long. only four of the board's 100-plus air permit decisions have ever been appealed to a

federal court and none of the board's air permit decisions has ever been overturned. the e.a.b. is cost effective and efficient and has been proven to be the fastest, cheapest way to achieve a final permit. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment, to allow the e.a.b. to continue to serve -- to protect the public health, to deep un-- keep unnecessary lawsuits from the court system and to take into account local community input. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has reserved the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado, for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and so my colleagues can understand what this bill is about. mr. gardner: this does not repeal the ability of the environmental appeals board to hear issues relating to production. production permits. this simply addresses the issue at hand of whether or not the

environmental appeals board can be used as a stalling period for exploratory permits. let me say that again. exploratory permits are for a very limited duration. we're talking an activity that may last 30 days to 45 days. unfortunately what's happened, the e.a.b., which is by all accounts litigation with judges in robes in washington, d.c., that are appointed lifetime bureaucrats, unaccountable, created by the administration, the e.a.b. would still be able to hear appeals related to production. they will not be a part or allowed to delay exploratory permits. why? because we believe exploratory -- exploration of our resources is important. that it should not be delayed for five years.

in the time that it's taken to reach this point, 400 wells have been drilled by the lessee around the world. that's job creation, but certainly not in the united states. that's energy production but certainly not in the united states. this bill presents a solution, an up or down, yes or no answer to a permit within six months, without going to the e.a.b. for a ping pong delay back and forth e.p.a.-e.a.b. delay after delay and says, we're going to focus on an issue of national importance. developing our resources, getting exploration performed so that we can indeed make sure that we are heading down the path toward energy security. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, the numbers speak for

themselves. what we're talking about with this legislation is really just two permits that folks were concerned about. the reality of the matter is the average is five months. now, i understand we're talking about just exploration, but we'd like to get this right. and not have amnesia about what happens when we get this wrong. because that's not just job killing, it's ecosystem killing, it destroys an entire region. there's a lot at stake here. these aren't unaccountable people, they're appointed by administrations, created by a republican administration, three of the four appointed by republican administrations, it is in fact a sense the executive branch and while the executive can't do all of this, it's delegated to appropriate authorities to make sound apolitical decisions that effect communities not just for months or years but conceivably for

generations -- affect communities to the just for months or years but conceivably for generations. this is a simple amendment to deal with a critical problem and i encourage my colleagues to support and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. i guess i'm getting confused by some of the arguments i'm hearing against this bill. because i hear that six months isn't enough time even though the average permitting time is five months, some will say. i hear that this is only dealing with two permits, although i hear that california, delaware, massachusetts are at risk with this legislation. and i will again, i hear the argument that some say this is ecosystem destroying. let me read a quote from the administrator of the e.p.a., lisa jackson, the administrator of the e.p.a. testifying before the united states senate. i believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no public health concern here. i believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no public health concern here.

the assistant administrator of the e.p.a. did not rebut this testimony that was given by the administrator herself before the energy and -- before lisa jackson gave it before the senate, she didn't refute it before the energy and commerce committee. the argument seemed to be confusing and grasping for straws. this is about energy security, about economic opportunity and making sure that we can deliver energy that's produced right here in the united states. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has yielded back his time. does the gentleman from colorado yield back? mr. gardner: i yield back. the chair: all time having expired in this debate, the question occurs on the adoption of the amendment by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be

postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 112-111. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 112-111 offered by ms. eshoo of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 316, the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, and a member opposed will each control five minutes of this debate. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: this bill, h.r. -- condition in-- contains an extraordinary provision, it says that any appeal can only

be heard by a washington court of appeals. this is a change to previous laws. over 40 years ago, when congress adopted the clean air act, an established venue for judicial review, congress made a sensible decision that decision was that local and regional e.p.a. actions would be reviewed in the u.s. court of appeals for the appropriate circuit. nationally applicable actions would be reviewed in the d.c. circuit court of appeals. this distinction has worked well for the past 40 years. now if a major new industrial source will have significant local air pollution impacts, nearby communities will want to weigh in. local businesses will want to ensure that a new source doesn't force more stringent cleanup requirements for

existing sources. state and local authorities will have views and the industrial source itself may disagree with the e.p.a.'s decision. all of these stake holders may want to appeal e.p.a.'s decision. under the clean air act they can do so. in the nearest court of appeals. without traveling to washington, d.c. for permits issued by states or localities, the decision is reviewed by state courts. but this bill creates a new regime for exploration permits. in fact, under this bill, even foreign exploration permit issued by a state or local permitting agency, all appeals would have to go to the federal court here in washington, d.c. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to criticize centralized government, bash washington, d.c., washington, d.c. lawyers,

they extol the virtues of local control and cite the 10th amendment but this legislation centralizes control in washington, d.c. in fact, it's a boon for washington, d.c. lawyers. this provision makes it far more difficult for regular folks to appeal a decision that can directly affect them. it took one of our energy and commerce committee witnesses from the north slope of alaska 16 hours to travel to washington, d.c. at a cost of at least $1,000 for that ticket. this provision forces state and local authorities to fly to washington, d.c. to defend a challenged permit decision. that's a huge burden in terms of money and particularly so in these tough economic times. so the premise of this bill is that the oil industry needs faster permit decisions. moving review from one federal circuit court to another does

not expedite permit decisions. and the committee that i'm part of received no testimony identifying any actual problems with review in the relevant circuit courts. so i encourage members to support this amendment which would preserve local control, which would preserve community participation, and really speaks to some fiscal common sense. and with that, i will yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman has yielded back her time. the gentleman from kentucky. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment, claiming time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman,

our friend's amendment makes a lot of sense, a couple of issues i'd like to point out about it, under her proposal, you would appeal the decision of e.p.a. at the local district court, wherever the project might be, let's say california, so you go through that appeals process through the u.s. district court. and then if you don't like that decision, you have to go to the u.s. circuit court of appeals. well, today if our bill did not pass, anyone could appeal a decision of the environmental protection agency to the environmental appeals board, which is located in washington, d.c. so today, any appeals to that board has to come to washington, d.c. and it really is a judicial hearing. there are lawyers, there are judges, there is evidence, and

so today that's the case. our bill simply says that in order to curtail the length of time it takes to receive, or to even get a decision for an exploratory permit only, nothing else, we're not changing any other aspect of this, of the e.p.a. or clean air act, we're simply saying for this one purpose, we want a decision within six months. yes, or no. so that the administrative decisions are exhausted. and then once the decision is made by e.p.a., any party can go to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. they don't even have to go to that extra layer at the federal court, go right to the district court of appeals.

here in washington, d.c. so this legislation does not in any way change the venue. as i said if we did nothing, as it is today if they appeal to the environmental board, they come to washington, d.c. to have the hearing. so i am sympathetic to her desire, not require them to come to washington, but that's the way the law is today. i reserve the blaps of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserved his time. the gentlewoman from california has yielded back her time. does the gentleman from kentucky yield back as well? the gentlewoman has yielded back her time. mr. whitfield: i yield back my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the adoption of the amendment of the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion -- the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 112-111. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-111, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 316, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, and a member opposed will each control five minutes of the debate. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized.

mrs. capps: this amendment i'm offering with representatives carney and castor addresses several concern we was thabt bill, the harmful impact on state programs that are working to issue permits while working to protect air quality, last month the energy and power subcommittee heard testimony from officials of the states of delaware and california. both expressed serious concerns about the impact of this bill on local air quality. the delaware department of natural resources has this to say about the legislation, and i quote, the constraints placed ons' rights and authorities will -- placed on states' rights and authorities will adversely affect us -- our ability to protect from the harmful effects of pollution. it also could, and this is a quote, have far-reaching and unintended consequences on public health. california and its local air districts in some cases require

emission control that go beyond federal law. that's to address our unique pollution problem. for example, emissions from commercial harbor craft and ocean-going vessels represent the largest source of smog-forming air pollution in the entire santa barbara county. these account for over 40% of our local air pollution. in response, the california air resources board helped them into attainment with ozone and particular pick tissue particulate matters. this would nullify some of these state requirements. it would prevent our -- it's very critical to our local air quality and to public health that emissions from these marine vessels and offshore drilling are stoumingt common sense regulations and that is

why this simple amendment is before us today. it says that if a state with delegated authority wants to act more -- enact more stringent air quality protections for offshore drilling it can continue to do so. mr. chairman, this is about giving flexibility to our local air quality districts so that they can apply the technologies that work best for them. they've been doing so for 20 years. so they can continue their work protecting our air quality and the health of our community. it says, this amendment, that a one-size-fits-all approach that comes from washington politicians and giant multinational oil companies is the wrong approach. i urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment. it's common sense. it will allow state and local air districts to continue to do their job to protect the air quality of coastal communities like the central coast of california, nothing more and

nothing less. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. gardner: i seek recognition in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. gardner: i thank the gentlelady for being part of this debate today. we had this amendment or similar amendments in committee. as i mentioned, we've had two separate committee hearings on this particular piece of legislation. we had a markup where a number of amendments were offered. a tremendous amount of debate took place and i believe debate took place on this very amendment. up with of the concerns i have with this amendment is the practical impact it would have in what could best be described as a as a rule canization in the regulation of federal waters, creating a patchwork quilt, so to speak, of regulations as it applies to the federal areas and the

o.c.s. the amendment allowing states to promulgate any regulation for the o.c.s. as long as it can be deemed no less stringent. this will result in chaotic regulation of federal waters, many of which macon flict with interstate commerce. perhaps even more important is the dramatic expansion of state jurisdiction this amendment would have. this is also an issue that was discussed back and forth during the committee during our markup, whether or not, both at the subcommittee level and the full committee level, whether or not this would create challenges for the expansion of state jurisdiction. the current law only allows for the delegation of exact authorities of the administrator. the exact authorities of the administrator, not the flexibility to create the state's own laws to implement the act. i think that's one of the distinctions that we have walked over during this debate. it's also important to

recognize that the federal o.c.s. is different from on shore state borders. where states do have this type of flexibility in setting their state implementation plans. we talked in committee once again about the submerged lands act and outer continental shelf lands act, they were enacted for this very reason, to federalize and provide harmony in the offshore. state regulations will be used, i believe, unfortunately, by those who would try to obstruct and stop domestic energy pruck. the policy of this bill, of the jobs and energy permitting act, is to provide a clear process so that resources can be explored and i'm afraid this amendment would cause the opposite. the jobs and energy permitting act is a bill that was brought forward because of sig cabot