petroleum reserve, he's used the strategic petroleum reserve as a bailout for his failed policy. he raided 30 million barrels from spro and hasn't replaced it and he took the billions of dollars from that and spent it on unrelated government spending. he's been using it as his personal piggy bank and bailout fund. the president and others like to talk about an all-of-the-above strategy and about energy production never being higher. what they fail to mention, energy production on federal lands is down. president obama's own administration, the energy information agency, confirmed again recently that production this year on federal lands is down 30% just in the gulf of mexico from last year. so they talk about production being higher, it's higher on private lands where they have no control and by the way, to e.p.a. and department of interior and other federal agencies, they're trying to regulate and shut that down

too. while they're praguing about it, they're trying to shut it down. in new orleans today, they had the first lease sale we've had in two years and it shows tremendous interest in exploring for american energy but there's no plan in place. normally off five-year plan in this country. by law the president is supposed to have a five-year plan. after today, there's nothing on the books. for any more future lease sales. in fact the proposal the president has been sitting on shuts off 85% of the areas that were getting ready to be opened up for exploration. that leads to a greater depend sunny middle eastern oil, on foreign countries that don't like us. the president has shipped tens of thousands of energy jobs out of this country, we've tracked rigs that have left the united states and gone to egypt and ghana and brazil. those jobs ought to be here, we ought to be creating those jobs here and seeking energy independence and this bill is a great start, i urge support and yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. this bill sadly is a missed opportunity. it would have been an opportunity to deal with an all-of-the-above and a jobs bill, but it simply is not. we're in a situation where domestic oil production is strong, and what we are looking at -- and currently they're talking about giving out -- encouraging more land to be locked up for the future rather than using the 25 million acres currently authorized for drilling that are not being used by oil companies today. they would allow people to sit on land, paying only $1.50, $ an acre for -- $2 an acre for up to 10 years. now, i think it's wise for us to be able to move forward to

encourage energy production. it would be an opportunity here to deal more aggressively of insenting sustainable energy, clean energy, energy that will be with us for decades to come rather than depleting existing resources and tying up leases in the future. this is an excuse to undermine existing environmental protections. why in heaven's name would we seek to undermine tailpipe emission regulations that are already supported by the auto industry? it makes no sense at all. it is not wise to have language that orders the e.p.a. to consider the cost of a clean energy rule rather than the impact on public health. turning on its headlong standing priorities. i suppose you -- head long standing priorities. i suppose you can diagnosis cancer but say, oh, it's pretty

expensive but let's not say it's lung cancer, let's call it a cough. mr. speaker, it's important for e.p.a. to make the decisions to protect the public health rather than company profits which are exploding in time. this is a missed opportunity. i suggest its rejection. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to inquire how much time my side has remaining. the chair: the gentleman from colorado has 19 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from illinois has 12 minutes remaining. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. speaker. with that i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. canseco. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. canseco: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding time. high energy prices are having a negative impact on our economy and on our family budgets, but don't take my word for it. this is what my constituents have told me firsthand.

there's david from castro, texas, who wrote, quote, as a self-employed carpenter, gas prices are for a large truck cut into my profits. it is madness that the u.s.a. is not oil and gas independent. energy independence is essential for our economy to grow and protect our freedom, closed quote. and another stwend, ray, stated -- constituent, ray, stated, i had to curtail my plans to travel this summer because of the high cost of gasoline. this has cut deeply into my retirement pay and i am spending more time at home because of gasoline prices, closed quote. mr. chairman, this isn't rhetoric from washington insiders but input from working-class americans who are struggling to make ends meet. i urge my colleagues to support the domestic energy and jobs act in order to increase energy production, eliminate red tape

and create jobs. i thank you and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. garamendi: i thank the gentleman for his courtesy. facts are really kind of difficult if you have to deal with them. the gentleman just spoke about a sad case of an individual that wasn't able to go on a trip because of the high price of gasoline. he may want to tell that individual that the oil industry on average over the last several months has exported over 24 million gallons of gasoline a day, 24 million gallons of gasoline a day exported from the united states. maybe that has something to do with the high prices. but a few other facts. as of march 11, march of 2011,

onshore the department of interior offered between twine and -- 2009 and 2011 six million acres of land for leasing. the oil industry only took four million acres. as of that time, march, 2011, 38 million acres of land were under lease. 25 million acres of land were inactive. a full 65% of the available leased land already in the hand of the oil industry was inactive. not being explored, not being produced. 65% unused, inactive. offshore, 37 million acres were under lease. 2.4 million acres were active. 70% not being used.

so why are we here? opening more land. there's a reason for it. there is a reason why the oil industry wants to do it. if they are able to acquire a lease, they put it on their books as an asset. thereby giving the appearance that they have a lot of assets available to them when in fact they have no intention to in the near term, probably next decade or so, actually explore and produce. it is a financial game. it is not a game of producing oil. now, if we really wanted to do something, we would immediately put in place a production tax credit for the wind turbine industry which is languishing now because we are refusing -- republicans in this case -- refusing to put forth a renewal of the production tax so that the wind industry can actually

continue to produce energy for our nation. so what does it mean? there are some 75,000 jobs in the wind industry today. some 17,000 more would immediately go into place if the production tax credit were in this bill and became law. what does it mean if we were to enact my bill, h.r. 487? those wind turbines would be manufactured in the united states and 1,000 more jobs -- could i request another 30 seconds? mr. rush: i yield another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. garamendi: bottom line, this is a play by the oil industry to gather more assets on the balance sheet at the expense of the environment and just as important at the expense of a real above-all energy policy. it's a sad day that we're here debating an energy bill that really doesn't do anything at

all to help us meet the energy needs of this nation. there's nothing in this about renewables. it's unfortunate. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i thank you, mr. speaker. i'd yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from virginia, mr. latta. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 1 1/2 -- i'm sorry -- the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. latta: well, i thank you very much. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding and, mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4480, the domestic energy and jobs act. this bill comes at a critical time as consumers, farmers and small businesses are facing high fuel prices and the president is restricting federal leases from oil production while at the same time considering releasing only from the united states strategic petroleum reserve. i represent an area of the state of ohio that has the largest number of agriculture producers, manufacturing jobs and small businesses. when you look at these numbers,

we have a very high disproportionate hit for my constituents because of high oil prices. and this bill requires all regulations to be subject to a thorough analysis of cost benefits and hurdles to implementation. the gasoline regulations act of 2012, which is part of this bill, would delay regulations that could significantly increase fuel prices on consumers, farmers and small businesses while these regulations are under review. it will also proside some much-needed regulatory relief to refiners who are struggling to stay in business due to the high cost of fuel. reducing the cost of refining oil -- fuel is a great first step, but the key to reducing fuel costs -- i support legislation that would allow increased access to responsible domestic oil production and with that i support the bill.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. speaker. and at this time i would like to recognize the majority whip, our -- the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank freshman cory gardner for bringing this legislation to the floor. mr. speaker, i want to for one moment imagine -- i want to imagine a country of america that doesn't have 40 months of 8% unemployment. i want to imagine america with 3% unemployment. could you imagine a country that had a trade deficit that was shrunk? can you imagine a government that instead of saying they want to raise taxes they

actually cut them? imagine that in a housing crisis, as you're not sitting with foreclosures but you actually need houses to be built, people are flying into the country because there are jobs. i want to imagine when you go down to even work at mcdonald's you're making $15 an hour. a lot of people in this country turn on the news and think that's far fetched. they think that's impossible to dream or even to imagine. but you know what, that's taking place in parts of this country. that's exactly what's happening in north dakota. and why is it happening in north dakota? because they created a state energy policy that's unshackled. there is a team here, mr. speaker, that is called the heat team, the house energy action team. we went across the country from all walks of life, from california to driving electric car in colorado to going into

the fields of north dakota where i went. you know what, i drove past the windmills. i looked at the new technology, extracting in a much more pinpointed method and environmentally friendly that we can get those resources. and what has it done? it has transformed the state from job creation, but more importantly, it has transformed our nation. because, yes, we are importing less today since 1994, but that's only on private lands, not on public lands. the chair: additional 30 seconds. mr. mccarthy: so today on this floor we are debating something that can change america. so no longer will we sit back home and think, one day i can only imagine unemployment low, revenues are high and everybody that wants a job can have one. well, this bill today is about jobs. it's about jobs that not only create an america but it

changes our foreign policy, it creates a new america where we invest today and it makes us energy independent. mr. speaker, i ask all to vote aye and i thank you the gentleman for bringing it to the floor and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the majority leader, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. . mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i rise in support of this legislation before us that will boost domestic energy production, spur job creation and grow the economy. the domestic energy and jobs act opens up more of our domestic energy resources, brings leasing to public lands and does take steps to cut red tape that is

increasing the cost of fuel and blocking energy development. increasing energy production on our nation's public lands and waters can create millions of jobs, boost the economy, lower energy costs and make america more secure. it wasn't too long ago that in energy secure america seemed like an unreachable goal. today, energy security is on the horizon because of innovations that have helped cause our domestic energy supply and have helped increase our supply and create thousands of good-paying jobs along the way. i saw these innovative technologies firsthand when i was out on a deep-sea rig off the coast of louisiana a few weeks ago. with this legislation, we give our nation's energy producers the certainty they need to invest innovations that are essential to american-made energy and american-made jobs. the oil and gas energy is the

lifeblood of so many communities across our nation. but this president's policies have stifled the development of many of our energy's resources. red tape and restrictions coming from the obama administration are keeping america's energy resources under lock and key away from our private sector. as a result of some of these policies, small businesses are feeling the squeeze of high energy costs, families planning their summer vacations are facing historically high gas prices and new jobs are being sidelined. people are wondering when will things get better. they are looking for leadership out of washington and frankly, this administration has not delivered. since the president took office, production on public land has decreased. i welcome the administration's announcement that it is moving forward with a long delayed lease sale in the central gulf

of mexico, it is simply unacceptable that this is the first lease sale the administration has held in the central gulf since 2010. our nation's energy producers have been ready and waiting to put their capital on the line to develop our nation's resources. delaying decisions critical to energy development creates uncertainty and slows job creation. in fact, the obama administration has canceled more lease sales than it has actually held. i think the big question is, why are we doing more? why are we developing more of our nation's outer continental shelf such as that off the coast of virginia, where there is broad, bipartisan consensus in my state supporting such development. after years of watching the president failing to embrace a pro-growth energy policy, the american people do deserve more. the future of our country depends on a true all of the above strategy that promotes

domestic energy production, job creation and economic growth of the by adding certainty to the regulatory process, we can promote domestic energy development in an environmentally sensitive way and can promote economic growth and get americans back to work. these bills, part of the heat team package will bring down higher energy costs that are hurting families, crippling small businesses and then we can spur the creation of thousands of jobs. i thank and salute the house heat energy action team and congressman gardner and congressman upton and congressman lamborn and for putting forward these for harnessing our energy resources and i would like to thank kevin mccarthy and chairman up ton and doc whose -- hastings.

and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: i yield four minutes to our remarkable leader that this congress has ever seen, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i wanted to come up here for that great introduction. i am pleased to follow my friend, the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor. i'm going to have some remarks, but before i get to those remarks, i want to give you some statistics that i know you'll find very interesting and i want you to take them to heart. the energy information reports that energy production from federal lands and waters, was higher, was higher the first three years of the obama administration than the last three year of president bush's administration. in addition, oil imports are at

the lowest they have been since 1997. in 2011, u.s. crude oil production reached its highest level in eight years. increasing by an estimated 110,000 barrels per day over 2010 levels to 5.59 million barrels per day. we now produce more than 50% of the crude oil we use domestically. the u.s., by the way has 1,977 rigs in operation. the rest of the world has 1,471. america has 1,971 rigs in operation. the rest of the world, 1,471. u.s. natural gas production is record breaking. in 2011, 28 1/2 million cubic

feet. in 1973, which was the previous record, it was 24 million cubic feet. but hear this. in 2005 during the bush administration, it was five million less. net imports as a share of total consumption has declined from 2005 where it was 60% in the bush administration to 2011, where it is 47%. the administration has announced that 2012-2017 leasing plan will open up more than 75% of our offshore oil and gas resources. u.s. production from federal lands onshore has surpassed the bush administration. in 2005, it was 649 million barrels. in 2010, 739 million barrels. otherwise known as almost 100

more million barrels. ladies and gentlemen, we understand that we need to produce and use energy in america. mr. speaker, we should be working, however, together to find real solutions to meet our pressing challenges. we ought to pass the long-term highway bill to create thousands of construction jobs. we ought to address the looming deadline when student loan interest rates are set to go up on july 1. we ought to get to work on taxes so we can keep low rates in place for middle-class families and ought to get serious by comprehensive deficit debt reduction before we find ourselves on the edge of a fiscal cliff this year. instead, mr. speaker, once again, we have a solution looking for a problem. our republican friends have called up two bills on the floor this week that make this very clear.

while gas prices have thankfully retreated, the bill would have an extreme drill-only strategy that won't lower gasoline prices. that bill is notable for what it doesn't do, invest in energy resources that creates jobs, and enhance energy security, nor does it make our nation a global leader in energy technology. the second bill we considered yesterday would impose a radical policy on our border areas that would underminimum -- undermine security to our history sites. i ask for an additional one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as i was saying, bring polluting industries bringing our most historic parks, even though our board enforcement officials said

it wasn't necessary. we didn't work on stupid loans, not transportation, but a piece of legislation that they said wasn't necessary. these are not what congress ought to be focusing on this week or next week. let's turn our attention to our most pressing issues, student loans, construction jobs, keeping middle-class taxes low and reducing deficits instead of wasting the american people's time on partisan bills that won't solve any of our real problems. mr. speaker, i'm hopeful that either in the next 24 hours or in the next nine days, we will, in fact, pass a jobs bill that will create jobs and everybody knows that. that's the highway bill. senate's passed the highway bill in a bipartisan fashion with half of the republicans in the united states senate voting for it. and with the very conservative

republican ranking member, and a very liberal chaman -- 20 seconds -- mr. rush: i yield 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: and chairwoman barbara boxer, came together and had the ability to compromise and come to agreement. i tell my friends on the republican side, that's what the american people want us to do. if we do that, it will raise the confidence of our people, of our business community, of our country. and that will be the best thing we can do for our country. come together in a bipartisan fashion as the united states senate did and act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from alabama. the chair: the gentlelady is

recognized. mrs. roby: i rise in support of this bill. oil accounts with 71% directed to fuels that are using transportation. our energy policy is vitally important to our national and economic security. it's especially important to the mother who drives her children to school and a business owner who operates a fleet of business vehicles. when the price of gasoline increases, americans hurt. last year, the price of gasoline increased 81 cents per gallon. i do support an all of the above approach to energy and this includes opening up areas for energy exploration and alternative energy and using more clean and reliable nuclear. the president in his last state of the union stated the same belief but this administration has done nothing to back up that statement. the executive branch is using the strategic petroleum reserve for political purposes, imposing

overburdensome regulations on refineries and placing obstacles for gas and oil production. during this administration, we have seen a drastic decrease of oil production on federally-owned land at a time with high gas prices. from 201010 so 2011, there has been a 14% decrease. the domestic energy and jobs act will unable job creators and increase energy production here at home. the legislation that is before us today will turn the tide on this administration's actions or lack thereof and allow our nation to move forward to our nation's energy production, thereby increasing jobs and bringing us closer to energy independence. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. mr. rush: mr. speaker, how much time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has three minutes remaining and the gentleman from colorado has 11 1/2 minutes.

mr. rush: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: i appreciate the time and i rise in opposition to h.r. 4480. this is a bill that is a giveaway to big oil. if we want to be energy independent we can't drill our way to energy independence but by having alternative green energies that will create jobs and make us independent. we can have wind and solar and we have higher fuel standards for automobiles and that's the best thing we can do is reduce the demand for oil by having higher fuel standards, which we don't have in this bill. the questions about the price of oil and make ourselves energy independent, not going to happen. the other side, my colleagues on the other side, at least some of them, for quite a while, about two, three months ago blamed the rising gasoline prices on president obama. president obama and rising gas prices. gasoline has come down considerably since that time and

has one person had the veer asity, the bipartisanship to say, mr. president, thank you for bringing the price of oil down. no, they haven't because the president hasn't. just like he didn't take the price of oil up. it is political rhetoric to say he caused the prices to go aup -- and there are world markets and demand in china and demand in india and bangkok and those demands have put the price of oil up. the situation in iran with israel have jeopardized and created concerns about the future of oil shipments through the straits of hormuz. because of that, prices went up. that situation has been rectified. this bill is a giveaway to big oil and threatens people's first amendment rights because it says they have to put up a $5,000 bond simply to protest.

it threatens jobs. it threatens the outdoors industry and people to be free from air pollution and threatens hunting and fishing and this is not a good bill for america and to be energy independent we need to find green energy and green jobs. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. conaway: i rise in support of domestic energy and jobs act. i am fortunate to call west texas home. growing up on the basin gives me the perspective. working on a drilling rig in texas drilling miles and miles below the surface of the earth.

it's this pursuit of oil and gas miles below our feet that's reigvig rating people. -- reinvigorating. the work is hard but the outlook can be great, not only for the rough necks but the communities they host -- that host them. our nation relies and pros percent, mr. speaker, on affordable, abundant energy like oil and gas. this bill will ensure not only that we have affordable energy but that americans are put back to work producing it. land is thriving despite the administration's attempt to suffocate it. it will reverse the glacial grace of permitting and regulations designed to slow down production on federal lands. mr. chairman, this bill will do the things that the president's failed stimulus act has failed to do. it will drive investment into american businesses and put americans bark to work just like the oil and gas industry has been doing in the strict i lived -- live in for over 80

years. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i reserve. i intend to close. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: at this time i yield a minute and a half to another minute from texas, mr. flores. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. flores: i rise in support of the domestic energy and jobs act of 2012. every developed economy in the world looks to their own resources as assets to field their economic growth. yet, many folks in washington view our domestic energy resources as a liability. unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats continue to dream up ways to lock up, restrict, tax, or otherwise regulate these assets away from benefiting the american people. this is an issue of critical importance for our economic security, our national security, our energy security and most importantly for the opportunities that we hope to leave for future generations. we desperately need the stability that comes from unlocking access and tapping

into our american resources. the domestic energy and jobs act does just that, by pursuing an all-of-the-above energy plan, that removes unwarranted government roadblocks to domestic energy production and supply. this bill will also help reduce our federal deficits and trade deficits. in the case of the farmer, it helps reduce our federal deficit multiple ways. one, by growing the american economy and american jobs. two, by increasing royalties to the federal treasury and, three, by reducing cost of energy for the american economy. in the case of the latter, increased production of american energy will result in lower oil imports from foreign sources and reduce payments for those imports. thereby keeping more american money at home to rebuild our economy. i urge my colleagues to support the domestic energy and jobs act which would create jobs, grow our economy, reduce our dependence on unstable middle eastern oil, improve our national security and restore the american dream for future

generations. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, my freshman colleague, mr. landry. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. landry: thank you, mr. speaker. here are some facts. an estimated 13 million americans are out of work. the state of colorado's unemployment is 1.8% which correlates with the -- 8.1% which correlates with the nation's unemployment rate. in 1995, the state of north dakota's estimated reserves were 151 million barrels. today, those reserves have been increased to 4.2 billion barrels of oil, but yet -- and so -- but yet today the state of north dakota's unemployment rate is 3%. what do those facts tell us? those facts tell us that

drilling equals jobs, mr. speaker, and it's very simple. in north dakota, they are drilling on private lands, they are driving unemployment rates down. please, if the president wants a jobs plan, it is here, and i urge all members to vote for this bill. thank you. the chair: does the gentleman from illinois continue to reserve? mr. rush: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support for h.r. 4480, a bill that promises to open up more public land to energy development and to streamline burdensome rules and heavy-handed regulations that now thwart new domestic energy development in the united states. the president and the

democratic-led senate continue to obstruct the utilization of america's enormous natural resources. these resources are a god-given asset that has elevated the well-being and prosperity of our people ever since the time of our nation's founding. now, when we need that wealth -- the wealth of those resources more than ever. we suffer the obstructionism of our own government. the president has prevented the construction of the keystone pipeline. the president has shut down oil and gas production offshore, and most recently, this administration and perhaps most heinously, this administration has moved with plans to add onerous rules and regulations on a new emerging technology. the efforts of this administration are mind-boggling because there is no evidence that this technology has done any harm to our people and there is ample

evidence that this technology would produce significant economic growth, thus jobs, and i am referring to, of course, fracking which is clearly been targeting by the president's -- by the president and by his environmental gestapo friends. while we are talking today and trying to determine whether or not we are going to be using more resources, gasoline prices are changing the lifestyle of the american people. we're talking about people who are paying $3.50 a gallon, and in my state, $4 a gallon. why are we allowing our people, 13 million people of which are currently out of work and suffering under these conditions, why are we adding such cost for them to bear? what we need, mr. president -- mr. chairman and, mr. speaker, is we need to make sure we move forward as this bill will do to make sure --

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rohrabacher: to make sure we are fulfilling our commitment to the american people to do everything we can to make sure that they will live in prosperity and freedom and hope for a better life for their children. this has always been tied to the utilization of the natural resources and this bill will ensure that our people will ben frit from those gifts that god -- benefits from those gifts that god gave us underneath our land. the chair: the gentleman from illinois continue to reserve? mr. rush: yes. the chair: i yield to another freshman, mr. gosar from arizona -- mr. gardner: i yield to another freshman, mr. gosar from arizona. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: over 13 million americans are still without work. our constituents are counting us -- on us to take action.

the republican-led house has been leading the way with solutions to our country's energy problems. the bill before us today, the domestic energy and jobs act, is just another part of that agenda. it will remove government roadblocks and bureaucratic red tape that hinder onshore oil, natural gas and renewable energy production and will facilitate job creation. this act truly embraces all of the above approach that our country so desperately needs. a country is only as strong as its people. henry ford ii once said, what's right about america is that although we have a mess of problems, we have great capacity, intellect and resources to do something about them. let's use that capacity to address our country's energy crisis and put people back to work. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the domestic energy and jobs act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: mr. speaker, continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado.

mr. gardner: thank you, mr. speaker. and i am prepared to close -- i have no further speakers on my side. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i -- the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman has one minute to consume. mr. rush: thank you, mr. speaker. there is widespread opposition to the republican's oil-behalf- -- oil-above-all bill. the statement of administration policy says the administration strongly opposes h.r. 4480 which would undermine the nation's energy security, roll back policies that support the continued growth of safe and responsible energy productions in the united states, discourage environmental analysis and federal

decisionmaking. and indeed progress on important clean air act rules to protect the lives of american families. if the president were presented with h.r. 4480, his senior advisor would say that he veto the bill. numerous public health organizations oppose this bill, including the academy -- american academy of pediatrics and various others. mr. speaker, this bill is nonsensical. this is the most anti-environmental bill in the history of our nation. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. speaker. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from colorado has four minutes remaining. mr. gardner: i thank the speaker and thank you for your

patience during this debate. 64,805 jobs. 6 ,805 jobs, -- 64,805 jobs. $14.9 billion in annual economic impact. that's the number of jobs, the number of economic impact that we would have seen today but if not for the backlog of b.l.m. projects over the past few years. there are 22 proposed projects in the western united states that would create nearly 121,000 jobs. over the past few years, we have cienegas prices increase -- we have seen gas prices increase draw matcally. -- draw matcally. -- dramatically. even a flood can be lowered by a foot the next day but it's still a flood.

our constituents who are paying $60, $70 to fill up with a tank of gas to trife their families to school -- drive their families to school, to put food on the table, to get to work, cannot afford high energy prices year after year. this bill, this package of bills presents us with an opportunity to create jobs, to build on american energy independence, to make sure that we are doing the one thing that we set out to do and that is to improve the economic chances of this country. our competitiveness and the lives of our constituents. but they can't do it with gas prices exceeding $3, $4. what's next? because here we are again. the policies presented in this bill will allow us to cut through red tape. to increase exploration on our

great land in the western united states, across this country, in an environmentally responsible fashion. it will allow us to make sure when we access the strategic petroleum reserve, because of a spry problem, that we're also addressing a long-term supply fix instead of just quick fix politics. . we have an opportunity when it comes to the regulations that drive up the price of gasoline and they have a real impact -- we have heard testimony from e.p.a. administrators who say it will increase the price of gasoline. to stop and take a look-before-we-leap to make sure we are analyzing and understand the impact on our constituents who continue to suffer. the best way to improve our economy is to make sure that we are unleashing every sector of our economy and yes, that means

renewable energy. this bill includes renewable energy and takes a four-year look at renewable energy on public lands. to take advantage of our opportunity with solar on federal lands, with wind on federal lands. but we will not by while our constituents pay thousands of dollars a year, mr. moran: each year to put fuel in the tank, competing with the food on the table. mr. speaker, this bill presents us with a great chance to increase our energy supply and create american jobs and make sure we understand the full ramifications of regulations, drawdown of the strafeegic petroleum reserve before we act. and i think it's important that we send one strong message to our constituents that we have heard you, we have heard you loud and clear and we are are to do everything we can improve our

economy, bring down the cost of energy and create jobs and our congress will do our job when we pass this legislation. i urge passage of h.r. 4480. and i thank you for your time tonight and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the chair: the gentleman from washington controls 30 minutes and he is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the legislation that we are debating and considering today is a clear all of the above plan to increst american energy production, to lower gasoline prices and reduce our dependence on unstable foreign energy. but more than anything else, mr. chairman, this is a bill about creating jobs. the domestic energy and jobs act creates good-paying permanent jobs that will put people back to work and help grow our economy. the only thing that the obama administration has been more hostile to than american job creation, mr. chairman, is american energy production. but frankly, that shouldn't surprise anyone because the two

do go hand in hand. president obama talks -- likes to talk about an all of the above energy plan, but in reality it is a nothing from america energy plan. this administration has consistently said no to new american energy production while forcing hard-working american taxpayers to spend over $1 million a minute on foreign energy. president obama doesn't want to drill for oil in utah. perhaps he would rather get it from venezuela. he doesn't want to drill for natural gas in new mexico, perhaps he would rather get it from yemen. president obama doesn't want to develop our oil shale in colorado. perhaps he would rather get oil from opec. president obama doesn't want to import oil from our friends in canada by approving the keystone pipeline. perhaps he would rather input oil from countries that aren't our friends in the middle east.

and finally, president obama doesn't want to drill off american coasts, but doesn't seem to mind castro drilling 60 miles from america and doesn't seem to mind giving brazil billions of dollars to help them drill off their coasts and promise to be their best customer. the american people need to understand that this administration has taken this country in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to developing our vast energy resources. while president obama has been digging the united states into massive fiscal deficits, he has also gotten -- america into an energy deficit on federal lands from which it could take years to recover. energy production on federal lands is one of our best opportunities for job creation and energy security, but time and again, that production has been blocked or delayed by this

administration. under this administration from 2010 and 2011, oil production on federal lands fell by 14%. and natural gas production on these same lands fell by 11%. now, mr. chairman, this is in stark contrast to the oil and natural gas production on state and private lands, because that production has boomed. american energy equals american jobs. it's a simple formula for job creation and economic growth, but clearly is one that this administration doesn't seem to understand. maybe that's because he doesn't know how desperate americans are for jobs. just a few weeks ago with unemployment above 8% and 23 million americans looking for work, our president told the american people that the private sector is doing, quote, just fine, end quote. if you don't know what the

problem is, how can you possibly know how to fix it? mr. chairman ks in summary, this is the same president that that is issued the fewest amount of leases since 1984. he talks about an all of the above energy plan but blocks the ability to produce more oil and natural gas and coal and specifically doing so on public lands. for president obama, the all of the above is just a political convenient slogan, but for house republicans, it is a real job-creating energy policy. i urge my colleagues to vote for the domestic energy and jobs act and make us less dependent on foreign sources and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts controls 30 minutes and is recognized. mr. markey: i yield myself such

time -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: my colleagues, the short title of this bill, the domestic energy and jobs act spells out the word d-e-j-a. but what we are seeing here is not just day gentleman view but -- day jew view but this is a -- javu and look ahead into what the romney administration would do if elected and had a g.o.p. house and senate to fully implement the oil companies' legislative agenda and block all efforts to help clean energy. there has been a lot of discussion of the dream act

recently, but the bill we have before us is the big oil dream act. this package represents everything big oil could ever possibly dream up to drill on our public lands and roll back public health protections. as the world gathers in rio right now to try to head off catastrophic global warming from the burning of fossil fuels, here we are in the house of representatives looking for ways to give more benefits to fossil few energies. and as american wind and solar companies look to hire more american workers, here we are in the g.o.p.-controlled house where the republican leadership refused to make my amendment in order to establish national goals for wind and solar, clean energy, energy efficiency. they won't even allow that debate to take place on the floor of the house of

representatives during what they say is the big energy debate for america. can you agine,t's 2012 and are having the big debate on energy future in our country and the words wind and solar aren' going to be on the house floor and being debated. by the way, did i throw in biomass, geothermal, energy efficiency? they won't allow the words to be spoken. there is a gag order here. a big gag order by the republicans. no debating that. and then they have the tem rench ity and call it an all of the above plan without wind, solar, without geothermal, plug-in hybrids or energy efficiency, because they have a gag order. they prohibit any debating of those issues on the house floor. and yet, here they are saying it

is an all of the above energy bill. great. great. so fair. fair and square. a real debate. let all the members decide our energy future. but before the end of this year, the republicans are allowing the tax break for the wind industry to expire. and what are they doing? they are actually going to continue the $4 billion a year that exxon mobil and chevron get. that's fair, huh? a gag order without mentioning wind and solar out here, $4 billion for the oil industry. and by the way, let's look what is going on in oil production in the united states. did you hear the news? it's now in an 18-year high. obama, drill, baby, drill. obama, what a great job, 18-year high under barack obama. way better than george bush.

way better. you have to go back to almost the time that a kid who is graduating from high school has no memory of. it's 18 years ago. last time there was this much oil drilling in the united states. federal, state, private lands. but if you listen to the republicans, they say not enough breaks to exxon mobil. no. no. no. we have to give them more. this poor be leaguered companies. and they are at an 18-year peak in oil production in the united states and you know who is beating them up? wind and solar, geothermal, biomass, plug-in hybrids. very scary things to the republicans, so scary that because they control the speakership and the rules committee, we aren't allowed to

debate wind and solar. they are prohibiting it today. a prohibition on the discussion of wind and solar. when i asked for an amendment in place that we could gite to have a national renewable electricity standard setting goals what our country should have in wind and solar by the year 2020? you know what they said? we are gagging you. you can't have that debate on the house floor. you can't raise the words wind and solar and yet they are saying it's all of the above. all of the above that exxon and shell and bp want. and you know with wind and solar are on the exxon and bp list? they forgot to put it on their list. and it is going to be called an all of the above energy future. well, let me tell you something,

the american people deserve a lot better. they really do have a real sense that america has to be the leader in these new energy technologies. and president obama has done his best, or else we wouldn't be at an 18-year high. by the way, there are more oil rigs drilling in the united states for oil today -- are you ready for this -- than all of the other countries in the world combined. barack obama, drill, baby, drill. you are doing the job. more oil rigs in the united states drilling in the united states than rest of the world combined. you will listen to the republicans, exxon, chevron and bp are reporting the largest profit. and what does exxon mobil and bp

expect? they will expect to be a gag be applied out here on the floor so we cannot wind and solar or debate wind and solar and energy efficiency and we are supposed to listen to them and say they have an all of the above strategy when we know their entire strategy is oil above all, as a matter of fact, to exclude all else, as a matter of fact, exclude all else. they passed a rule prohibiting us from debating wind and solar, from debating the future, from unleashing this technological revolution. why is that the case? i'll tell you why it's the case. because in the last five years, there has been 45,000 new gheag watts of wind installed here in the -- new mega watts of wind installs here in the united

states. in this year, there will be 4,000 new mega watts of solar installed in the united states. do you know who hates that? exxonmobil hates that. shell, b.p. they hate it. peabody cole, they hate it. they see this new clean energy future unfolding and out here on the floor of the house, as we debate the big energy bill here of 2012, i'm prohibited, i am prohibited as the senior democrat from bringing out an amendment that talks about wind and solar, that talks about geothermal and biomass that talks about energy efficiency. i'm not allowed to bring it out here. so this is not an auspicious day for the united states congress and if there was any kernel of truth about obama and his incredible work here lifting us to an 18-year high

in total oil production in the united states, by the way, since bush left, since he left, we have dropped from being 57% dependent on imported oil down to 45% dependent on imported oil. did bush do that? no. did bush's father do that? no. barack obama did that, ladies and gentlemen. what barack obama is saying, in addition to the dramatic decline in the amount of oil that we import, from the mideast, i would also like to add wind and solar -- solar and geothermal and efficiency and they say, oh, no, it's already going too fast. this dependence thing is already happening much too fast for us. and by the way, this revolution in wind and solar and gee e-- and geothermal, people might start driving cars that are all electric and depend on

electricity from wind and solar, so they don't have to go to a gas station. they're afraid that what is going to happen to them is what happened to the typewriters. in 20 year, we went from everyone using a typewriter to every using a computer. people so to look in a history book to find what a typewriter looks like, and it only took 20 years. they see this wind and solar revolution happen so fast, they're afraid in 2030, a kid won't even know how to fill up a car with gasoline because they'll be plugging in the car at home with solar and wind-generated energy. that's what they're most afraid of and that's what this debate is all about and that's why there's a fag on the democrats, why we're not allowed to talk about wind and solar and geothermal and biomass and energy efficiency. oh, i'm sorry, we're allowed to talk about it, we're just not

allowed to have an amendment on the floor. we're not allowed to put everyone on record where they stand on those issues. we're not allowed to do that. you cannot have an amendment out here -- out here on the floor. this is the full extent of our ability to help those industries, those competitive industry the microsofts and googles of the energy industry. that's what this debate is all about. at this point, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born, author of one of the provisions of this bill. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamborn: i rise in support of the domestic energy and jobs act this energy package will unlock some of the vast

resources this country has been blessed with, create stable jobs to put americans back to work and ensure america's energy security for the future. while president obama believes the private sector is doing fine with an unemployment rate of over 8% and 23 million americans looking for work, more americans on food stamps than ever before, the u.s. bureau of labor statistics tells us far too many americans are not doing fine. private sector oil and gas are booming, our federal lands are left behind. rather than encouraging and implementing policies to create jobs for americans, the democrats and the obama administration unfortunately support anti-energy, job-destroying policies and refused to act on or have reversed policies that would have created jobs for americans and allowed for the development of american-made energy. the strategic energy production act of 2012 takes the steps necessary to increase production of american-made

energy and creates stable jobs for americans. the planned lease permit provisions for the natural resources committee in this legislation requires the administration to create a definitive all-of-the-above four-year production plan to ensure american production of conventional and, yes, renewable energy, to meet our energy needs. while the administration has been unwilling to make land available for energy production, this legislation requires they annually lease land for on-shore development to ensure the energy production process moves forward. it also streamlines the permitting process to ensure the expeditious and timely permitting of approvals. the legislation also ensures that understaffed and underfunded b.l.m. field offices receive the funding they need to keep up with their work loads. in addition to these reforms, this legislation opens one of our most promising areas for energy production, the national petroleum reserve alaska which

would expand american energy production and support current energy jobs for alaska. finally this legislation brings oil and natural gas leasing into the 21st century by allowing the b.l.m. the authority to conduct internet lease sales. this legislation will take huge strides in securing our energy -- our nation's energy future. it will lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil and create good-paying jobs for americans across the country. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support the domestic energy and jobs act. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield four minutes to the gentleman from new york state, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. tonko: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 4480, which i heard my good friend and colleague from

massachusetts, representative markey, refer to as the deja preview act. any student of history will tell you congress wasn't designed to be efficient but deliberately celebrating that design of congress with yet another partisan, short-sighted piece of legislation that moves united states energy policy backwards is truly disappointing. h r. 4480 leave ours energy policy stuck somewhere in the 1950's. while other nations are making serious investments to diversify their energy supplies, support new clean energy businesses and become less to dependent on traditional fossil fuel, we are marching in place. h r. 4480, with its gag order on renewables and energy efficiency, is another missed opportunity and a waste of time. h.r. 4480 is nothing more than a wish lisfor big oil

companies at a time when these companies are making record profits on the backs of america's taxpayers and her middle class. our energy crisis isn't that we need to drill for more oil. in fact, we're actually quite good at it as we saw in representative markey's presentation this bill will only make us more dependent on oil on the open market while making record profits on the backs of the middle class. the answer to the energy crisis is to diversify our supply, support new clean energy businesses, become less dependent on fossil fuel, to focus on the demand side of the energy equation as much as we do our supply side. while we consider this bill, policies that would provide modest assistance to companies that are working on solar, wind, fuel cells, combined heat

and power, geothermal to name a few are languishing in committee. these are the technologies that will take us into the future. a bold future. true, they are not yet ready to provide all the energy we need, but that is all the more reason for us to help them move forward aggressively. jobs in the industries i have mentioned, good-paying jobs, are at risk due to our failure to renew the production tax credit, the 1603 program and the research and development tax credit. we are stifling job growth and innovation with this act. eventually traditional fossil fuels will run out. already the human health and environmental costs of extracting and using these fuels have risen. tremendously. we choose to ignore this at our peril or at least at the peril of the next generation and generations to come.

over the past 40 year the clean air act has shown we can have clean air and a vibrant economy. since 1970, air pollution has decreased by more than 0% while the economy had grown by more than 200%. but this bill is likely to eliminate jobs while making the air we breathe more toxic but that doesn't seem to matter to the majority in the house. it does so by eliminating standards for clear vehicles -- cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuel, likely costing nearly 25,000 jobs a career for -- a year for three years. yet more backward motion. the public lands policy put forward today and in yesterday's legislation is an insult to the previous generation's -- generations whose foresight and concerns for future generations granting us a rich inheritance of natural resources in our wildlife ref refuges, h r. 4480

drastically alters -- the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, author of one of the provisions in the bill. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman hastings, for yielding me time as well. america has always had a competitive advantage as a nation. it's been the entrepreneurialship, the hard working the innovation of the american people. we've also always had a different advantage as well. affordable energy in this country. we see that now in peril. 1979, jimmy carter challenged this nation to move to energy self-sufficiency. decade after decade, it has not

been addressed. this piece of legislation is to move america fully into the 21st century. to be able to secure for us and for our children this land of liberty, opportunity, and growth. it cooks -- it comes with american energy. you know, the ranking member from massachusetts, i have good news for you. when you read the actual legislation that's put forward, it states in my portion of the bill, the planning for american energy act of 2012, page 16, line 16, calling on the secretary of interior to develop a plan for american energy. what does it say? creating the best estimate, based upon commercial and scientific data, of the expected increase in mega watts for electricity production from each of the following sources.

wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, and geothermal energy, produced on federal lands. the very thing you asked for. it's in the bill. we have an opportunity to be able to create an american energy future in this case. -- in this nation. to be abe to secure for our children the birth right that many of us grew up believing was an american birth right, the right to be able to live that american dream. to be able to put americans back to work. the planning for american energy act of 2012, my portion of this bill, speaks to that commonsense, all-of-the-above proposal we all seek, wind, thermal, gee -- wind, solar, geothermal, using the wind resources, the natural gas, the oil, that we find on american

soil. when we see what is happening right now in the mideast, when we see at the gas pump prices doubled from just three short years ago, when we talk to senior citizens on fixed incomes, who are finding out when they turn on the light switch their bill is increased, is it time, is it appropriate for us to seek an american energy solution? the time has come, the day has arrived. rather than encouraging energy off of our shores -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tipton: rather than encouraging energy development off our shores as the president has done with his $2 billion loan garen toe -- guarantee to brazil to develop their energy resources, if we're going to make those type of investments, would it not be better for us to develop american energy on american soil to put americans back to work and create

american energy certainty? that day has come, the time is now, this is is a -- this is a good piece of legislation for american security and american jobs. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman from colorado. what the republicans are saying is they want a study for four years of wind and solar. a study? it is very season in florida and windy out in the west. there have been 35 new megawatts of wind. and there are going to be 4,000 megawatts of solar installed in the united states just this year.

maybe the -- i do not yield -- maybe the republicans should study the studies that are already out there and look over and ask the coal industry what their thinking when they have dropped from 51% down to 36% of all electrical generation in the last five years. maybe they are looking at wind and solar. maybe you can call them. you don't have to wait four years. what we want to do is give the wind and solar energy to continue their revolution. i would like to yield five minutes, if i may, to the gentleman from new jersey, ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. holt holt i thank my -- mr. holt: i thank my friend from massachusetts and i thank him for laying out the shortcomings of this legislation the oil

above all legislation. it really is nothing but a big giveaway to big oil. the only jobs it will create will be in the board rooms and the executive offices of the big oil companies because since 2005, even as exxon mobil, chevron, bp and shell have made over 650 billion in profits, need i repeat that, $650 billion, they eliminated more than 11,000 jobs, u.s. jobs, american jobs. and this is even while wind and solar were creating 50,000 jobs. yes, there is a mismatch here. the bill before us presented by the republicans says we'll study to see how much solar and wind

energy might come from these lands in the future. instead of saying, let's get these energy sources of the 21st century rolling in these lands. not a plan of what we might get, the markey amendment would have set standards for what we would get. now, the republicans have a long record of protecting tax breaks for big oil while cutting clean energy initiatives. that's what we see here. but what i wanted to talk about is the damage that would be done under this legislation. health officials today here in washington are warning people here to avoid the heat and stay indoors. i don't think they had in mind that we stay indoors to pass

legislation that chokes off public health protections, that modifies the clean air act to make it ineffective, and yet, that's what this bill does. by rejecting clean energy and pushing only for more fossil fuels to blanket the world with heat-trapping pollution, the republican majority is essentially turning off the world's air conditioner and turning on the heater. you know, there is a reason that the term fossil fuels apply -- the term applies. actually two reasons. one is these are derived from old plants that have dekayed deep in the earth and produce petroleum. but there is another reason, fossil means archaic. fossil means out of date. fossil does not mean 21 the the thest sent -- 21 century and yet

that's where this legislation is taking us, in the wrong direction. and in the wrong direction with regard to environmental protection. in the wake of the deepwater horizon disaster, we shouldn't be playing games with safety and the environment. the spill exposed a woefully inadequate environmental review process that was done prior to the oil and gas leasing. the environmental review done prior to the bp spill was so sloppy that response plans talked about protecting wall russes. obviously, -- walruses, they were using old alaska pages. tourism is the lifeblood and as the economy is struggling to

recover, we can't risk the kind of environmental damage that derails economic progress in these areas. we should understand the risks of drilling, and we should strengthen the protections, not weaken them. furthermore, there will be damage done to the whole leasing process. and for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are so worried that putting some real standards, some expecting good performance from oil companies would somehow interfere with their production, let me point out some good news. today, the interior department announced -- they announced the results of an oil and gas lease sale in the gulf of mexico. now according to the interior department -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. holt: is there remaining time? mr. markey: how much time is remaining. the chair: the gentleman has 8 1/2 minutes. mr. markey: i yield an additional minute to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: according to the interior department, today's leases that were bid on today, which has some leased standards apply that require shorter lease terms, the very things that the folks on the other side of the aisle hearsay would be killers, would stop the drilling, even with these new conditions for offshore drilling, a record-setting lease sale bringing in $11.7 billion, and they're saying what works here offshore won't work on the land that we're talking about in this legislation. now, i'll tell what's a killer

in this. a killer is the relaxing of the public health and environmental standards in the legislation. that is literally a killer. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from alaska or two minutes to the gentleman from alaska, a state that has tremendous resources. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i support this legislation. title 6's legislation is a good step forward in alaska and i listened to the two previous speakers. wind power, you could take and cover every acre of the united states, including the parks and refuges and put solar panels on them and only produce 20% of the

consumption of energy we use that. no park, no refuges, all solar panels. it has to be transported to a battery that are made in china. that's what this is all about. it's nonsense. the idea wind is going to solve the problem and solar is going to solve the problem, that's nonsense, because in reality, fossil fuels to this day is the only fuel that can move an object and moves your car, moves your truck, moves your plane, moves your train and moves the ship that brings product to and from the united states. you aren't going to do it with a beaney on your head or solar panels that cover every acre in the united states because we are collecting the power of the sun down here. that is the bottom of the pier my. we aren't collecting from the source. you want to be far, collect it up there and beam it down to a

point where we can create electricity. this is a good bill. because, ladies and gentlemen, keep in mind, and mr. tipton said it right, in his bill, we have action on wind and solar and low it won't work and we know it won't work. we need fossil fuel now and we need to produce another source of energy that doesn't come and doesn't need electrical batteries to run a car. going to plug a car in? nonsense, it won't happen. you need to produce energy from some other source that creates electricity. you are against nuclear and hydro power. and you would like to grow our way into new power by using corn, a food for energy and that is absolutely nonsense. shame on you to say it is not a good bill. nonsense. it is a good bill. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: could i ask how much

is remaining on the majority side? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 17 1/2 minutes -- i'm sorry, the gentleman from washington has 17 1/2 minutes. mr. markey: i'm going to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 7 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, a member of the natural resources committee, mr. duncan. mr. duncan: i thank the chairman. there can be no national security without energy security. let that sink in. there can be no national security without energy security. and house republicans support a truly all of the above energy policy of the not one put forth by the obama administration and house democrats, which basically is an all the above except for x, y and z policy which blows

through american's hard-earned tax dollars chasing phantom alternatives. all of the above means opening up federal lands for energy production and exploration and puts americans to work. americans need to look to one western state to see a -- what america can be. that state is north dakota. when you get off the plane in north dakota, they give you a job whether you need one or not. zero unemployment rate. energy-driven economy. what this nation could be if we pursue an energy-driven economy. drilling on federal lands could be a reality. drilling on the outer continental shelf could be a reality if we open up resources in production like the folks in

north dakota have done. energy policy works. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i want to continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to another member of the natural resources, the gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in support of h.r. 4480. this important legislation begins to put in place a true all of the above energy plan, a type of plan that has been missing since this president came into office in 2009. this legislation will expand oil, gas and renewable energy development on federal lands to help increase the supply of energy and lower energy prices for consumers. it will give relief to drivers that are paying high prices at the pump. every month from very costly

e.p.a. regulations that are scheduled to go into place. this legislation also contains a bill that i introduced, the b.l.m. live internet auctions act. this bill is supported by my friends on the opposite side of the aisle here and even the administration. the b.l.m. live internet auctions act will bring the lease auction program into the 21st century by allowing b.l.m. to conduct online leases just like the private sector has been doing for over 10 years. we hear a lot about an all of the above energy policy. the president even talked about an all of the above energy policy in the state of the union. i'm convinced that what the president means by an all of the above energy policy is anything above the ground because it seems like he doesn't want us going after our own natural resources. if we had an energy policy that

said, look, we are going to draw a line in the sand and over the next 10 years we will be energy independent and go after the trillions of barrels of oil that we already own and harvest the volumes of natural gas and oil that we own and continue to mine and harvest coal and use it environmentally soundly and expand our nuclear footprint and we'll even look at wind and solar and find out where those renewable energy sources fit into an overall scheme, but we aren't going to sit on the sidelines and be be holden for their energy. if we had that that said to the regulatory agencies like the e.p.a. and the department of interior, starting today you become partners in progress. if you got a national security

or public health or public safety reason for saying no, then say no. but don't let no be the final answer. i think the american people have an expectation that their elected officials and the bureaucracies that are sent here to manage the american system are partners in progress, not barriers to progress. so i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 4480 the domestic energy and jobs act. i certainly do and i urge them, too, as well and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: i would like to thank you, mr. markey, and mr. hastings as well for the time. my friends on the other side of the aisle keep using the

mantra, all of the above. all of the above. i think they should name it oil above all. oil above all would be a better name because it's clear that this bill is really just a wish list and a check off for the big oil industry. it weakens public health protections. it forces arbitrary giveaways on public land. it puts energy drilling ahead of all uses of federal land. this is not a long-term strategy solution. it is an oil above all strategy. the oil, gas, and coal industry are already getting billions in corporate welfare. while they're making record profits. how much of the american taxpayers' money do they need? they will receive at least $110 billion in subsidies over the next 10 years. these subsidies have been won by decades of lobbying.

in 2011, the oil, gas, and coal industry spent $167 million lobbying. but in comparison to the return on their investment, $167 million is small. because they got subsidies to $110 billion. so it's a luke -- it's lucrative for them to do so thafmente don't need our help, mr. speaker. in 2011, just last year, the big five oil companies made $137 billion in profits. that's good by any measure. why in the world would an industry that makes $137 billion in profits need the help of the american people with these tax breaks that the republican majority wasn't -- majority won't even agree to get rid of. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. ellison: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves, the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, dr. gingrey a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: i thank the chairman for yielding. the previous speaker, the gentleman from minnesota, it sounds like his policy on his side of the aisle is no oil, no matter what. this is a very good bill. if it becomes law, h.r. 4480, the domestic energy and jobs act will put people back to work. it will be a great, giant step toward creating energy independence for this country and yes, indeed, my colleagues, it will bring down the price of gasoline at the pump, which has actually doubled in three and a half years under president obama's watch.

as a member of the energy and commerce committee, let me focus on one specific titetholve legislation, the strategic energy production act. the strategic petroleum reserve that we have in this country is about 700 million barrels of oil. mr. chairman, that reserve is there for a situation of a domestic crisis, not a political crisis. 700 million barrels of oil, we use 20 million barrels of oil a day in this country. and if you assume that 60% of it buzz domestically produced and we had to import eight million barrels of oil a day, then think about how many days have we truly had a crisis in these countries like opec cut us off completely from what we import? then that reserve would last

about 90 days. a three-month period of time. and yet president obama wants to take that reserve and use it for political purposes. this title of the bill, mr. chairman, just simply says that for every ounce of oil that he takes out of the strategic reserve, we would increase that same amount on federal lands. of course he has cut that production. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman. this is an porn point mitigating circumstance colleagues. what this president has done is cut the production on federal lands, on federal lands, by 11% on his watch. let's pass this bill so that we do create jobs, we put people back to work, we become independent in this country and not dependent on nations that hate us. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i would like to continue to reserve at this time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. row. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: i rise today in support of h.r. 4480, the average american family buys 1,100 gallons of gasoline per year. if the price of gasoline fell just $1 from its current level of $3.49, of families would save $1,100 a year. today, in this body, we have an opportunity to work together and do what's right for the future of this country. the domestic energy and jobs act will help ease the pain at the pump, create jobs and push this country toward energy independence. this commonsense legislation

would put several costly and potentially burdensome e.p.a. regulations on hold while an analysis of the potential cost and rules is done. to me it's unthinkable we wouldn't ask agencies to consider the impact of a regulation on jobs and the economy, particularly at a time of such economic uncertainty. to boost our energy production, the domestic energy and jobs act would require the secretary of the interior to act on oil and natural gas lease applications and open up new reserves in alaska this legislation would restrict the strategic petroleum reserve from being tapped unless the administration develops a plan to allow more leases, to explore for adecisional sources of oil. let me put this in perspective right here. as a young army officer in korea, 1973 and 1974, there was an oil embargo, if you done remember. we cut off the -- opec cut off oil production and sending it to the u.s. we only got heat three hours a

day, we had to keep the heat for our tanks and aircraft to protect this nation. so it is one of strategic importance and energy is a very important source of that. to obtain energy independence, it's not only a key component to domestic recovery, it's also an issue of national security, as i just mentioned. the coming energy independence is -- becoming energy independent is far too important to continue to put politics above people. i encourage my colleagues to join in supporting the domestic energy and jobs act and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: may i ask again that we review the majority and minority are in time remaining in debate. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 5 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from washington has 8 1/2 minutes. mr. markey: i would yield myself one minute at this time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for

one minute. mr. markey: thank you. i'd like to review once again the republican all-of-the-above plan. one, light, sweet crude oil. two, sour high sulfur oil. three, heavy oil. four tar sands oil. five, oil shale. and oh, just to mix it up, a little natural gas. what they forgot was, of course, wind, solar, and geothermal and biomass and they won't even allow us to have an amendment out here on the floor in order to have a debate over it. but that oil above all ageneral ta you have, it's very comprehensive and i give you a lot of credit for figuring out every single way we can help all the oil companies in the united states at the expense of all the renewable energy industries. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from

mississippi, mr. nunnelee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of the domestic energy and jobs act. america has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources under our feet, off our shores. we have the largest coal reserves in the world. new technologies are making it possible to unlock vast new reserves of oil and natural gas. we need to be doing everything possible to safely and responsibly develop those natural resources because doing so will create good, high-paying jobs. and it will improve national security by reducing dependence on energy from unstable regions of the world. higher gas prices are a cruel tax. they're a cruel tax on hardworking men and women that are trying to find a way to get back and forth to work. higher gas prices are a cruel

tax oseniors on fixed income. this administration is full of people pushing a radical environmental agenda that's hostile to energy development. they believe the solution is to force the price of traditional energy supplies to skyrocket so that alternative green energy becomes artificially competitive. alternative energy should be a part of the mix but the reality is that fossil fuels will be the main source of our energy for at least the next two generations. it's a fantasy to suggest otherwise. we do support an all-of-the-above strategy but that also includes an all-of-the-below strategy. we support developing those resources below our feet and off our shores. that's why i'm proud to support the american energy and jobs act. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from

massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. markey: you know, i hate giving all the bad news to the republicans but i'll give you some more bad news you hate to hear it but i'll give it to you anyway. in 2011, in terms of new electrical generation in the united states, 33% came from natural gas, 29% from wind, 20% from coal and 8% from solar. got that again? wind and solar were about 37% of all new electrical generating capacity in the united states in 2011. row guys want to study it, you want to have more information about this technology. in that study, you should throw a few other thing a single device from which you can talk to your family, send emails and watch videos. that's a concept some people have, you might want to study that as well. no, we already have that. sending a man to the moon and returning them safety to the earth, i guess that's something

we already did. how about studying the possibility of mapping the entire human gee noem so we can have an idea of what that material that humanity is made out of -- oh, i think we've already done that. maybe many other thins we can throw into that solar and wind study that we also don't need to have studied that you can also throw in there as part of your technological and scientific phobia that refuses to have you admit that things are already happening. something else you're refusing to admit that happened? duringuss s thet wn, down 2001, 2008. you know what happened once obama took over? up, up, up. up. so much oil drilling that it's all the rigs in the world combined not matching what obama has done in terms of total oil rigs out there and we

are now at an 18-year high in oil. i know -- maybe you should study this, this is hard for you to understand, i'veeard the members out here saying there's a jihad against oil that is being waged by the obama administration, it just doesn't match any of the evidence. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i advise my very good friend from massachusetts that i'm prepared to close if he is prepared to close. mr. markey: can you tell me how much time is remaining, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. markey: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. markey: let me just say this, i know it's not anything observed by the republicans, but the price of gasoline has

dropped for the last 11 weeks in a row ever since the president threatened to use the strategic petroleum reserve because it was never about supply and demand but about fear and greed, what wall street was doing in manipulating the price of oil and the commodity futures marketplace. it was about the fear people had of war in iran breaking out. but what's the response from the republicans? well, they have a brilliant amendment inside of their bill. what they say here is that if, god forbid, the ayotolla ever attacked the united states, a middle eastern war broke out and the president used the strategic petroleum reserve, you know what their bill says, we, if the republican bill passes today, would have to sell to exxon

mobil and the other big oil companies 200 million acres of federal lands for exxon mobil and the other big oil companies to drill on. understand that? the ayotolla attacks us and there is a war in the middle east, who would we have to pay the ransome too? how nonsensical is that? that is an absolutely crazy idea that the oil companies become the beneficiaries of a middle eastern conflict. they get the public lands of the united states, 200 million acres that we have to sell them simultaneously, a trigger that occurs inside their legislation. this is crazy set of concepts where we can't have an amendment on wind, solar, geothermal,

biomass, plug-in hybrids, the technology. and as a penalty, the country to use the strategic petroleum reserve as a weapon of our national security against opec, that if the president uses it, we have to sell 200 million acres of american land to the oil companies so it can even drill for bargain basement prices in the country. this bill is the absolutely wrong recipe for our country as we head into the 21 century and i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from washington has seven minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. chairman, it is hard to know

where i start as i close the debate on this portion of the bill because there has been so much information out there and so much information that frankly -- i won't say it's untrue, but it's not exactly accurate. let me start with the idea that the price of gasoline has dropped with this administration. in january of 2009, the average price of gasoline in this country was $1.82 a gallon. what is magic about january, 2009? well, that was the month that the president was inaugurated. and the price of gasoline was $1.82 a gallon. today, today, the average price of gasoline is $3.48. if your mathis such that the price of gasoline drops when it starts at $1.82 and ends at $

3.48, you have fuzzy math, but that's what we keep hearing. furthermore, we have heard, oh, i don't know how many members spoke, but i dare say every one on the other side said this is a giveaway to oil and gas. if they didn't say it, they implied it, trying to get the message across. i wondered when i heard the debate here that there is no reference to renewables, that they read the bill. i'm convinced they did not read the bill, mr. chairman. and let me tell you why. because when we talk about renewables, we are talking about federal lands. and we say that the secretary -- and i'm reading from page 15, title 3, section 44, paragraph three, it says, and i quote, the secretary shall determine a domestic strategic production

objective for the development of energy resources from federal onshore lands. that's the directive. so, we said well, on page 16, we make reference to renewable energy. and they said, it's just a study. what do you mean it's just a study? well, if you read, mr. chairman, we are asking for a study for the estimates of what? on subsection a, it's oil and natural gas. what? we are asking for a study on oil and natural gas on federal lands. b, now, it's for -- c, i should say here, talks about critical minerals and goes on to renewables. in other words, the point i'm making, mr. chairman, and this is very important, if this is a giveaway to oil and gas companies and not helping renewables, then why is the precise same language for the

production of energy -- for the type of production of energy on federal lands? you can't have it both ways. so i think, mr. chairman, that this is a very good bill, because we are focusing on where the greatest resources we have in this country on federal land. that's where the greatest potential resources are. this bill is aimed at those resources. that's why this bill is so important. let's set production goals on all energy development, and that means all of the above. that means above ground and below ground. that's what we are attempting to do. but to suggest that this is a giveaway when the same language applies to all energy production, frankly is inaccurate. so with that, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. with that, i yield back 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 for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an orange bill for the purpose of amendment under the amendment in the amendment of the nature of a substitute considered the rules text. that amendment is in the amendment of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-540. each such amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debating specified in the time of the report equally controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be

subject for demand of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 112- 40. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-540, offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the national petroleum reserve alaska was specifically designated as a petroleum reserve back in 1923 as a place we could develop our resources

for energy and national security. title 6 of this bill will ensure that production can occur on np rmp a by requiring an annual lease sale and ensure the right-of-way for a plan to allow for the transportation of the product out of npra. in addition to making technical corrections, this amendment aims to accomplish two goals for facilitating development. first, it would require at the request of the state of alaska up to two additional right-of -way s and this would provide approved rights of way in and out of this area. secoly, it would repeal the designation of the coal delivery as an aquatic resource. this was used by the anti-agency e.p.a. to stop energy development on this area.

while the president touts his energy record and speaks of his support for leasing in energy development in the npra and fails to mention that due to red tape from his administration, the people of alaska have waited year and years for approval to build a bridge across the colville river, but what you did hear is the e.p.a. paid no attention to the colville until after conoco phillips filed an application for the bridge and shortly after that application, e.p.a. declared it was an aquatic resource of national of national importance and stopped the production for nearly a decade before approval of this simple bridge and pipeline. what the obama administration says and what the administration does to promote energy development in alaska are entirely two different things.

those two things that i

more markey: i yield myself the balance of my time. i don't have a problem debating this issue, but i think it should be done in an appropriate way.

it overturns an e.p.a. decision of some significance. and i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: just briefly, there are technical amendments in here which i acknowledge and which the gentleman did acknowledge but there are two substantive changes and the gentleman acknowledged both of those. i want to repeat, he talked about the issue of the colleville river was aquatic resource of national importance. he was basing this on a reason why we should oppose, why we should not adopt this amendment. i just want to point out again, i made this observation in my remarks, the colleville river was not designated this until after, i want to say this gep, very slowly, sometimes you don't hear things in this echo chamber, after conoco wanted to develop the npra.

when they developed npra, they had to have access across the river but, oh, the e.p.a. said, wait a minute, all of a sudden, this might be a good time to make that change. that's pure politics, mr. chairman. i will say this, i was up in alaska last year. i stood right at the spot where they wanted to build a river across the colleville river. the river there is not very large and to suggest that it fall into that category and we should not adopt this amendment flies in the face of common sense. with that, i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the amendment is not ageed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-540 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentleman from colorado, mr. poe ligs, and a -- mr. polis and a member opposed each will control tive finns. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: my amendment would provide a buffer between schools and oil drillers using

fracking. according to the oil and gas contact commission, fracking occurs in more than 90% of oil and gas wells in the united states. advances in unconventional oil and gas extraction have led to an increase in fracking near where people live, work and play. that means increased ex-pe sure to toxic chemicals as well as the noise and nuisance of heavy truck traffic. a recent report by the colorado school of public health indicated that residents livingless than half a mile from wells were at greater risk of acute and chronic health problems than those who lived farther away including exposure to benzene a known carcinogen, at a level five times higher than the federal standard. given this risk and the need for more information, we should

err on the side of caution, particularly when it comes to children. we need additional studies but given what we know, frankly, it's time to afpblgt we already set some basic standards where we know pollutants may put children at risk. as an example, in my district at colorado, commercial diesel vehicles are prohibited from idling for more than five minutes within 500 feet from the school. fracking operation mace be 100 pete from -- feet from a home and 150 feet from a public area. we found 26 schools that have drilling wells operational emitting toxic gases within 1,000 feet of schools. in erie, colorado, i met with homeowners and parents increasingly concerned about the impacts of fracking on their hell and their children's health. we should be listening to their voices and not just the demands of energy countries. we need to find a reasonable compromise to address the concerns of families in erie and across america.

i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. hinchey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hinchey: i rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment which would prohibit hydraulic fracturing on public lands from taking place within 1,000 feet of our schools. this major industrial activity has significant public health risks and has no business being near our kids. hydraulically fractured wells emit huge quantities of smog forming chemicals, hazardous air pollutants like benzene and methane. these cause serious health problems. this past march, the colorado school of public health released a report based on three years monitoring that found higher cancer, respiratory and neurological health risks among people living closest to drilling

sites. they found volatile organic chemicals to be five times the level at which emissions are considered potentially harmful to public health, according to e.p.a.'s hazard index. the medical society of new york has recently urged caution with expanded drilling because of concerns about health impacts and data collected by the national oceanic and atmospheric administration has shown increased ground level ozone and other pollution vulls of fracking. but the risks go beyond just air quality. in april, 2010, there was major blowout in pennsylvania, hydraulic fracturing well site. gas spewed 17 feet in the air for 17 hours. these kinds of blowouts happen far too often. we need to keep it away from

our kids. it shouldn't be done near our schools. i urge support for the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i ask my colleagues to ask themselves, would they want their kids to be 300 feet, 500 feet, every day from a fracking site? 300 feet is the size of one football field. fracking is scientifically dumonted at producing air pollution. we know the level of air pollution that is promoted and it is measured. advances in technology make reasonable accommodations possible. directional drilling means we can locate wells miles from schools and still extract the oil and natural gas resource we need and make sure that our children remain healthy. i'm hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this commonsense amendment that will protect public health, ensure the safe development of natural gas and

promote domestic energy production. i urge a yes vote on theament and urge my colleagues to join me in keeping our children safe and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: this amendment would really restrict the ability to produce energy on federal lands and i think, quite frankly, it is purely a political amendment. rather than allow existing environmental protections and reviews to ensure that we have safe drilling operations, this amendment seeks to use an arbitrary standard that frankly is more of a scare tactic than good science. it would actually harm school districts, principally those in the intermountain west, that take advantage of their large

landholder status to lease their lands for energy development. in addition, it would infringe on the ability of native american tribes to manage their lands and resources. it's bad policy, particularly for tribal land trying to develop their energy resources, this will restrict their ability to do that. now, we've heard the other side talk about why we need to do this and the implication is that we need to do this to protect drinking water at our children's schools that may become contaminated from hydraulic fracturing. mr. chairman, i want to say this very emphatically. this misinformation of contamination is based on absolutely no science or factual evidence. as a matter of fact, to put an exclamation point on that, earlier this week, the

gentleman's -- the gentleman who is offering this amendment, his governor, governor of colorado who i might add, is a democrat, was quoted as saying, i'll -- i'll say the whole quote here and i'll say it as slowly as i can so everybody can understand what the governor said, i quote, there have been tens and thousands of wells in colorado and we can't find anywhere in colorado a single example of the process of fracking that has polluted ground water and -- end quote. i didn't say this i am quoting the governor of the gentleman who offered the amendment. his state. so mr. chairman, i just have to say, i believe this is a clinically -- a politically motivated amendment and it frankly does not even deserve debate on that. so i urge rejection of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number three will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quick -- mr. quigley: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: amendment furm four

pinted in house report 1 1246540, offered by mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. quigley: the largest -- two years ago the largest oil spill in the history passed -- happened in the gulf coast. we had commissions and swore we would learn. have we? i fear the answer is no. i'm not the only one. the panel that investigated the explosion gave the obama administration a b, the bill that stands before us today seeks to increase domestic oil and gas production and reduce regulation of the energy industry. i said it again and -- i've said it before and i'll say it again, sometime this is place feels like groundhog day and i am bill murray. in the spirit of deja vu, i am offering an amendment that mirrors legislation i introduced in the 111th congress as a response to the

b.p. oil catastrophe. it would reconfigure the existing presumption that extraction comes first and conservation comes second it would change the outer continental shelf policy and mandate precaution from a derivative that may imply that protection of the environment is secondary to expeditious development, declares that maintenance and restoration of coastal environment is of primary importance. makes clear that o.c.s. lesioning, exploration and development will be authorized in limbed air yass of the ocean only when science shows the initiatives can proceed with minimal risk to the health of ocean ecosystems, protects important ecological areas by requiring the secretary to consider geographical, geological and ecological characteristics of the areas. finally it requires specific precautions for areas with

particular physical or environmental characterizations from o.c.s. leasing. one of the chairmen stated, across the board, we are disappointed with congress' lack of action. two years have passed since the explosion on the deepwater horizon killed 11 workers and congress has yet to enact one piece of leg to make drilling safer. end quote. let us do one thing to keep our public safe and to spur economic development through conservation and the creation of green jobs. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the zpwrelt washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mips. mr. hastings: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: developing our nation's outer continental shelf is all about achieving a balance. the federal agencies involved have to balance the needs of

the coastal community and the environment while also providing for safe energy production. this is how you preserve the multiple use aspect that we have for federal land management and i endorse that concept. fortunately for the gentleman, the author of this amendment, the purpose of his amendment is already the law of the land. no leasing occurs in the outer continental shelf without extensive environmental assessment. i'll give you an example. the bureau of ocean energy management conducts an environmental impact statement or e.i.s. before leasing in any area. then another e.i.s. put a specific lease sale area. and then another environmental assessment must be conducted before a company can even begin development. so with that process that you

have to go through, i can only conclude, i can only conclude that this amendment is offered not about it's really about stopping offshore energy production. and of course if we do that, obviously what does that do to american energy jobs? so i think that the gentleman, like i said earlier, fortunately all these protections exist, if indeed we're going to have energy production. i don't think we need this amendment and i urge my colleagues to reject it and with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. >> having respectfully heard the argument i would stand on the statements we have made and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. we had a discussion on this very issue in the energy and commerce committee.

and we made very clear that the language dealing with the strategic petroleum reserve did not affect existing land management policies or management policies. those policies are in place to protect our resources. so, again, this -- we actually adopted a amendment by chairman dingell, mr. dingell, the chairman emeritus, to make sure that we restated that this does not change or affect our federal land management policies. mr. gardner: we made that clear in energy and commerce provisions of this bill as well ass and with that i yield the remaining time to the gentleman from washington. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the gentleman i understood yielded back. i do not object if he has unanimous consent to close on his side and i'll close on my side. >> i close. the chair: the gentleman yields? without objection. mr. hastings: the gentleman has time or not? >> i yield back. the chair: the gentleman has yielded back. mr. hastings: with that, then, mr. chairman, the arguments have been made. i urge rejection of this

amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question is 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. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-540 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia.

mr. mckinley: mr. speaker, you understand this legislation congress creates a transportation-fueled regulatory committee with the secretary of energy chairing the committee. my amendment is simple. it will require the secretary and the committee during their deliberation to consult and receive input from the national energy technology laboratory. we should make sure that the committee, committee established under this legislation, consults with our nation's fossil energy laboratory. it is our only government laboratory dedicated to domestic energy sources. it's only fitting that we make sure we are included, that they are included in this process. it works on over 270 projects

across this country. it provided over 450 projects in 2011. nearly 400 private sector projects and over 100 not-for profit laboratories. their work in 2011 alone provided over 2,000 projects, 89,000 jobs, and over $18 billion in total funding in every state, in every congressional district. the research and development into our transportation fuel sector began back in 1918. they work in conjunction with academia and the private industry to develop horizontal drilling in our nation's natural gas fields. some say secretary chu being the chairman of this committee will consult with his own fossil

energy team. maybe that's true. but this is the same secretary of energy who has worked with president obama to slash our fossil energy research budget by 40% over each of the last two years. this is the same secretary of energy who should be promoting coal, oil and gas. but instead makes derogatory comments such as coal is my worst nightmare. well, we can do here today is ensure that the transportation fuels committee and the secretary consult with our government's fossil energy experts. if you support having input from government, private sector and academia experts, then support of this amendment would be appreciated.

mr. speaker, i also thank chairman upton for his support of this and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i rise to seek to control the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: this amendment highlights, mr. speaker, the absurdity of title 2 of the republican bill. the bill will create a new government bureaucracy to conduct an unrealistic and burdensome study of several clean air rules, none of which have even been proposed. this is a fundamentally flawed approach. the scope and timing of the new government committee's analysis simply are not feasible. the bill requires new interagency -- a new interagency committee to estimate a host of cumulative impacts of multiple unrelated potential rules.

the committee is supposed to estimate impadgets on gasoline prices -- impacts on gasoline prices, capital investments, projected maintenance and operation of new equipment, refinery capacity, employment at the national, state and regional levels, other cumulative costs and benefits and even the overall global economic competitiveness of the united states. since none of the rules that are supposed to be analyzed have even been proposed, this complex analysis required by the bill would be full of guess work and assumptions. it's unclear how this new government bureaucracy could estimate the level of pollution control that may be required, predict compliance options or assess the specified affects. given all of the uncertainties and guest work inherent in such an analysis, it's unclear how the committee could proan economic analysis of the rules

with any measure of credibility. the e.p.a. assistant administrator testified, quote, it is unclear how the new committee would analyze rules that have not yet been proposed or how the public could comment on that analysis in an informed way, end quote. she also noted that such analysis would be redundant and a waste of government resources. given the extensive analysis e.p.a. already completes as part of the rule making process and the interagency review conducted by o.m.b.. the bill provides an unrealistic deadline as well for completing this report. doesn't create any additional job in the private sector, all it will do is desderot taxpayers' money to create another government committee in order to provide it with the hopeless task of conducting a host of complex analysis that probably could not be completed with any credibility, even if the necessary data did exist and

the committee had years to work. so the whole thing is a pointless waste of taxpayers' money, required by the bill. mr. mckinley's amendment adds some additional consultation to that already absurd requirement. the department of energy is already represented on this new government committee the republicans want to establish. in fact, the secretary of energy chairs the committee. mr. mckinley's amendment adds a requirement that the committee consult with part of the department of energy. this adds another layer of unnecessary consultation on an already unwieldy process. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and no on the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time as well and urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-540 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. speaker. by the way i'm just a little happy. right now i just got a text from my grandson, just won his baseball game tonight. 15-14. so it's a tournament he's playing in, so be nice over there now. thank you. mr. speaker, once again i'd like to reference the transportation

fuels regulatory committee created by h.r. 4480. my amendment will look at the analysis that the committee will develop. one of the problems our oil and gas industry faces is the vast ideologically motivated regulations they must endure. however, other nations do not seem to impose such overburdensome policies and regulations thrust upon them. instead countries in the middle east and asia promote their oil and gas industries and work to make it easier for these countries to get their gas products to market. this amendment would require the committee to conduct an analysis of other nations' regulations, policies and enforcements or lack thereof of their oil and gas industries. saudi arabia, china and india do not overwhelm their oil and gas industries with excessive

regulations. they help them to thrive. this committee needs to look at what these other nations are doing to grow, stabilize and sustain their oim and gas industries and ultimately -- oil and gas industries and ultimately compare it to what we're doing here in the united states. we ought to help our industry and make this amendment -- maybe this amendment can help to show how we can improve and stop hindering development of our natural resources. ultimately i offer this amendment because we are supposed to be a nation leading by example over the rest of the world. with this economy and millions of people unemployed or underemployed we really ought to be saying to our regulators, just because you can doesn't mean you should. just

mr. speaker, again, i wish to thank chairman uptop for his support of theme and the opportunity to offer it here. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: i seek time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the chair: i rise in opposition to thement -- mr. waxman: i rise in opposition to this amendment. in the previous amendment we discussed title 2 of the regulations act that creates a new government committee to do the impossible, conduct an analysis of e.p.a. air quality rules that have not yet been proposed using data that does not exist. the interagency committee cannot possibly provide a critical -- a credible assessment of the impact of these potential rules on energy prices. it woult require too much guesswork. moreover, the energy

information administration told committee staff that it does not have the capability to conduct the analysis required by this title. it would have to devote significant new staff to complete the analysis. c.b.o. estimates that the gasoline regulations act would cost $3 million to implement. that's $3 million to produce a report that will not be reliable, credible, or valuable to anyone. mr. mckinley's amendment would make this report even less credible by significantly expanding its scope. his amendnt would require that this new interagency committee examine, and i'm going to quote this, any other matters affecting the growth, stability, and sustainability of the nation's oil and gas industries, particularly relative to that of other nations, end quote. this language suggests that the new committee will have to take

into account events and regulations in other countries as well as our own. that is going to shoot the price tag well above $3 million. for example, would a new interagency committee have to examine labor law? what about oil company business practices in the amazon or the concerns of indidgenuss communities in canada's tar sands? will the committee have to take into account the health of hugo chavez and the potential impact on venezuela's oil prices? political upheaval in the mideast has a profound impact on the oil market, will the new committee have to dell intoove that. if the committee was serious about examining other matters affecting the stability and sustainability, then they would have to look at a whole pandora's box of issue here's in the united states. for example, shouldn't the committee have to examine what congress is doing to give coal a competitive advantage over

natural gas by weakening air pollution laws and blocking action on climate change. -- climate change? the c.e.o. of chesapeake energy has been in the news lately for some questionable business decisions that helped put the nation's second largest natural gas company on the brink of bankruptcy. surely the new interagency committee would have to examine that issue as part of this inquiry into matters relevant to the sustainability of the oil and gas industry. all of this is to say that mr. mckinley's amendment is extremely broad, would make a deeply flawed report even less reliable and credible if that's even possible. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. 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 gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number seven printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: i seek recognition to offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-540, offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. the chair: mr. chairman -- mr. waxman: mr. chairman, title 2 of this bill blocks e.p.a.

from implementing new rules until after a new government bureaucracy produces a new analysis of these and other e.p.a. actions but it's a fool's errands because they're required to conduct an impossible analysis of rules that haven't even been proposed, using data that doesn't exist. the bill would block e.p.a. from issuing new tier 3 standards for motor vehicles and fuels to reduce harmful tail pipe emissions that cause smog and deadly particle pollution. smog pollution can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks and premature death. the bill would block the e.p.a. from issuing long overdue rules to require refineries to use modern technology to reduce their emissions of toxic air pluenttants. the pollutants cause cancer, birth defects, neurological damage and other series health problems. the bill would also block e.p.a. from issuing rules

necessary for states and localities to implement the 2008 ozone standard this would leave the outdated 1997 ozone standard in place. even the bush administration thought this standard was too weak. in addition the bill would block e.p.a. from updating the ozone standard to reflect the best available science on the health effects of breathing dirty air. during the legislative hearing on this bill, chairman whitfield stated, quote, it is not the intent of this legislation to roll back any existing health protections. that claim is laughable for a bill that radically changes the clean air act by barring e.p.a. from setting air quality goals based on what science tells us is safe to breathe. but if republicans want to claim that this bill is not an attack on the clean air act and public health, there should be no objection to my amendment. my amendment simply states that not withstanding the bill's

provisions, notwithstanding all that's in many bill, the e.p.a. administrator cannot delay implementing any of the rules targeted by the bill, if the air pollution that would be controlled by those rules causes serious harm to human health, including asthma attacks and other respiratory disease, heart attacks, cancer, birth defects, brain damage, or premature death. this is a simple choice between oil industry profits and americans' health. top five oil companies are making $137 billion in profits last year, they can afford to clean up their pollution. instead this bill would make americans pick up the tab for the oil companies and would make americans pay that tab with their health and even their lives. the air quality protections blocked by this bill are especially important for the most vulnerable among us, our babies, kids, old people.

oil refineries are among the largest emitters of toxic air pollution but they are often located near where people live. but this bill would indefinitely delay e.p.a.'s ability to require oil refineries to clean up pollution such as benzene, which causes cancer and contributes to birth defects and developmental harm in babies. republicans argue these bills would only be delayed for a while. but many of these rules have already been delayed for far too long. and the republicans claim assumes the interagency committee can actually complete the impossible study required by this bill. even if that were possible, there would still be no deadlines for these new rules as the bill eliminates existing deadlines and sets no new ones. americans rely on the environmental protection agency to hold polluters responsible for cleaning up their pollution.

it's just common sense. if you stop the e.p.a. from doing its job, public health will suffer. it's time to come clean. if you want to pass a bill to stop e.p.a. from doing its job and allow polluters to pollute with impunity, be honest with the american people. tell them you think that we've gone -- we've done enough to reduce air pollution. and you want to stop any further efforts to clean up air pollution. but don't pretend that this get out of jail free card for oil industry polluters won't hurt the health of americans, especially our children and the elderly. if on the other hand you don't want to block efforts to clean up air pollution that is contributing to asthma attacks, heart attacks, lung disease, cancer, birth defects, neurological damage and premature death, then support my amendment. my amendment will make it perfectly leer that e.p.a. can continue to clean up air pollution that causes serious health effects. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: we heard a lot of powerful words, ban, bar, block. but this bill does not ban, bar, or block these regulations. nothing prevents, nothing bans, bars or blocks e.p.a. from developing rules on their current schedule or bans, bars or blocks them from protecting public health as the law requires them to do system of it's known as the e.p.a. is unlikely to finalize these rules prior to the completion of the study. we've already got tremendous protections in current law, stringent regulations just issued in the past few months but i think we ought to take a look, to understand what impact regulations are going to have on the cost of people's energy.

we -- our colleague mentioned picking up the tab. i'll tell you who else is picking up the tab. people in poverty are picking up the tab of increasing energy costs, making it more and more difficult for them to make ends meet. picking up the tab of rising gas prices. costing 50 -- costing $50, $60, $07 a tank, that's who is picking up the tab. our constituents who are trying to lift themselves up and out of poverty, have been difficulty trying to make end meet because of rising energy prices. because this congress refuses to enact legislation that says, hey, let's look before we leap and understand the impact this is going to have, understand the impact these regulations are going to have on the price of gasoline. again, the purpose of the bill is to require a study. nothing, nothing in this bill relieves the administrator of the e.p.a. from the responsibility to issue rules required by the clean air act or any other legal obligation. nothing in this bill changes

the e.p.a.'s obligation to protect the public health. nothing in this bill prevents the e.p.a. from developing and proposing new regulations, taking public comments or preparing a final rule a process that typically requires at least a year. in fact, it would be highly unlikely as i said before that they could even both propose and finalize this rule before the study was finished. our colleague also mentioned that we don't know enough information about proposed regulations to study them, well, e.p.a.'s own action development process, their own internal ways that the e.p.a. works, their own internal action development process, requires the analysis of a regulation start early in the rule development. and so they're already talking about what impact these have, including the president's own executive orders that require agencies to perform analysis and consider the cumulative effects of it.

this is an unnecessary amendment. our colleague mentioned that some of the most toxic emitters of air pollution, there's a lot of people around the country that believe the most toxic emitters of air pollution is congress. and in this case, some of those arguments have been used in the bill. on this amendment. and i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this eafment i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. the gentleman from california's time has expired. mr. gardner feather if his time has expired, hyde be happy to yield. mr. waxman: there's a standard for automobiles that will reduce sulfur and other emissions, e.p.a. says it will contribute a penny per gallon for gasoline. that's the kind of rule that would be stopped under the existing bill. there's an enormous health impact. for a penny a gallon gasoline, when we talk about people in poverty, they can afford a

penny a gallon and the oil companies can afford to absorb a penny a gallon, especially with all the health and lives that can be enhanced by removing some of these very dangerous chemicals. mr. gardner: reclaiming my time. i'm not in a position to tell constituents who may find it tough to make ends meet that it's ok if we increase your cost of gasoline by a penny here, a penny there, a couple of pennies. mr. waxman: but you claim that it's going to increase many, many dollars. mr. gavered for the: we know that a penny a gallon can p a significant burden, meaning as much as $4 million of people for every single penny in the cost of gasoline. this does not stop the e.p.a. from developing rues on the current schedule. it says look before you leap. that's why i object to the amendment. mr. waxman: will the gentleman yields on that last point? the chair: the gentleman from

colorado yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. waxman: i request a recorded vote. the chair: purr superintendent to clause 6 of -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-540

offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. mr. connolly: mr. chairman, throughout the 112th congress, the republican leadership has invested a staggering amount of time and effort in gutting our nation's clean water and air productions. as of this month this house has voted 247 times in support of anti-environmental bills, amendments and riders including 77 votes devoted to dismantling the clean air act alone. as we debate yet another bill that seeks to gut the public health and welfare protections provided by that act, and as we witness democratic attempts to protect public health get defeated time and again on party line votes, one is attempted to cynically dismiss h.r. 4480 as the republican leadership's latest offering to their good

friends in big oil. however this bill contains an interesting provision that gave me pause, frankly, since it seems to hint that disagreements over protecting public health while setting national ambient air quality standards may actually stem from fundamental philosophical differences between the two parties. one provision in particular begs for clarification since it's not every day that republicans starkly disagree with justice scalia in regard to statutory interpretation as they do in section 206 of this bill. as written, that section would amend, section 109-d of the clean air act, to require the administrator of the e.p.a. to take feasibility and cost into consideration when prescribing air quality standards that are requisite to protect public health. now, i'm aware that the author of this provision believes that this language merely clarifies

supposed ambiguity in the act, going so far as to assert during the may 17 markup and i quote, the only reason costs are not being considered in setting standards there today is because the supreme court said the language was am big. mr. chairman, i must -- ambiguous. mr. chairman, i must disagree with that interpretation since justice scalia's interpretation was anything but ambiguous. to quote justice scalia, in the unanimous opinion in wittman v. american trucking ink, in regarding cost to protect public health he said, and i quote, the cost factor is both so indirectly related to public health and so full of potential by canceling the conclusions gone that it would have been mentioned in sections 108 and 109 had congress meant it to be

considered. even more to the point, the very first sentence in justice scalia's opinion says, section 109-b does not permit thed a -- the costs in setting national ambient air quality standards. and would seem to put aside any ambiguity. that brings us to my simple amendment. since justice scalia's opinion was crystal clear, the costs cannot be considered when setting those standards to protect public health, i couldn't figure out why my republican colleagues were so committed to forcing the administrator to take those very facters in account. but then it dawned on me that since the clean air act actually never defines the term public health, perhaps there's some confusion concerning who or what comprises the public. after all, if one believes that corporations are people, then the term public health would obviously have a different meaning to that individual compared to my own or justice scalias. thus my simple amendment would clarify the term public health in the clean air act only as it pertains to the health of people

and not corporations or other nonliving entities and it's a simple fix to clear any confusion. and restate congressional intent. by adopting this amendment, mr. chairman, congress can reaffirm the principle that corporations are not people and ensure the lack of definition for the term public health and the clean air act does not cause any confusion, particularly for certain individuals who may be under the misguided impression that corporations are indeed people. i urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. again i believe this amendment is unnecessary, talking about ambiguities when it comes to the determination of cost. we're simply saying we ought to have the issue of cost brought

into this. when determining public health appeared in the first federal clean air legislation in 1955, its ordinary meaning was the health of the community. in the american trucking decision, as you pointed out, the supreme court affirmed that the definition of public health is the health of the public. and does not refer to the health of nonliving entities. the clean air act requires that ambient air quality standards be established to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. nothing, nothing in h.r. 4480 changes the deaf nillings of -- definition of public health. let me say that again. nothing in h.r. 4480 changes the definition of public health in the clean air act or any obligations. doesn't change any obligations to set such human health based standards. and so i would urge a no vote on this amendment. with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

mr. connolly: mr. chairman. on that i -- the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. green: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-540 offered by mr. gene green of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to support my amendment. i'd like to vote for this bill but it goes way too far. mr. chairman, i represent five large refineries and 20-plus

chemical plants. i'm very sensitive to the regulatory compliance can mean to a company's economic success. but for over 40 years the clean air act has required the environmental protection agency to set the level of each ambient air quality standard based on what is necessary to protect public health. they do this because e.p.a.'s job is health, not economic impact it's. again, for over 40 years, republicans and democrats have agreed to this principle which was passed on a bipartisan basis in the 1970's and signed into law by a republican president and unanimously upheld by the u.s. supreme court in 2001. this amendment would strike section 206 of the bill which would require e.p.a. to consider industry costs when determining what level of air pollution is safe. economic and compliance costs are already considered several times throughout the regulatory process which is why section 206 is not necessary. the e.p.a. conducts regulatory impact analysis for a range of emission standards when they proposed the standard, then they do a second regulatory impact

analysis when they choose the final standard before it's sent to the office of management and budget for review. the regulatory process works. last september the office of management and budget did not allow e.p.a. to move forward with a revised ozone mox standard because it felt it caused that compliance would be too high for regulated industries at this point and our economic recovery. to use a texas saying, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. section 206 is a policy ride that are undermines 40 years of bipartisan agreement and i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. gardner: mr. chairman, to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. i have great respect for my colleague from texas. we've worked on a couple of pieces of legislation together over the year and a half that i've been on the committee had, the honor of serving with him on the energy and commerce committee. but i also must rise again to oppose the amendment from our

colleague from texas. once again, this bill, nothing in the gas regulations act, stops the e.p.a. from developing rules on their current schedule. it dus doesn't -- nothing in this prevents the e.p.a. from protecting the public health and the environment as the law requires them to do. but as we talked in the previous amendment, consideration of the cost and feasibility of these major rules is elsewhere throughout the law and it is warranted because in this case failure to consider them, those costs, would hurt jobs. could hurt jobs and the economy. we need to know. in fact, costs are required in other parts of the clean air act and e.p.a. must consider costs in the context of setting new source performance standards, program, the automobile emissions standards, aircraft emission standards, fuel additives and reformulated gasoline standards. ands also a matter that you have to consider costs when setting future drinking water standards in the safe drinking water act. and if you go back and harkin back last year, when president

obama decided that he was going to withdraw his last ozone rule, one of the comments that he made when he was withdrawing that ozone rule, which we argued would have greatly imperiled our economy, here's a quote from president obama. i have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. and so when the president's talking about the clean air act, he recognized the importance of taking a look at our economic uncertainty and the economic uncertainty of his last ozone rule. and so i appreciate our colleague's amendment but certainly have to oppose it this time and urge the rest of our colleagues to oppose the amendment as well and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleague from colorado because the system does work.

even the president used economics. but that's the president's job. not the e.p.a. and i'd like to yield two minutes to our ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: thank you for yielding to mesm the clean air act was adopted in 1970, signed by president nixon. changes were made in 1990. signed by president george h.w. bush. the heart of the clean air act has been that e.p.a. relies on the best science possible to determine what level of pollution is harmful for people to breathe. they decide what is safe. and e.p.a. sets a quality standard. this is the standard to protect public health. then they take into consideration at the state and local level the costs of how to achieve that. they may give more time, they may do it in different ways. but the section 206 of the bill would end this commonsense approach, the main part of the

clean air act, because it would make cost a factor in what is supposed to be a scientific decision about how much pollution is safe for a child to breathe. in setting a public health standard, it would give as -- to give as much weight to a polluter's the company cftc ant as to a scientist. this is like going to your doctor, asking for a diagnosis and he wants to tell you what your diagnosis is based on the cost of treatment. you want to know what's most important for your health. that's required of e.p.a. you'll hear over and over again, republican says, week of done well in reducing pollution, and we have, because of the clean air act that's based on setting a standard to protect health and then allowing costs to determine how to achieve that standard. but not setting the goal based on costs that could be wildly out of sync with the reality of

what it would take and how much to spend to achieve that health-based standard. this is a very, very radical provision in the bill. i want to commend my colleague, mr. green, for seeking to strike it. it would be consistent with the law as we've always known it, not to go back and change it as this bill would do. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. again, to repeat, to reiterate, to restate this point. nothing in this bill, nothing in this bill changes the e.p.a.'s obligation to protect the public health with an adequate safety margin. nothing changes the obligation to protect the public health. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas has one minute. 1 1/2 minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. chairman. i yield myself the balance of my