North American Energy Access Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Unfortunately, according to the Congressional Budget Office, these drilling measures the Republicans are bringing out on the House floor today, together, would only raise $4.3 billion over 10 years, less than one-tenth of the revenue shortfall needed to fund our highways.

In reality, this bill amounts to little more than a giveaway of our public lands to Big Oil under the guise of funding our Nation's transportation projects, and most estimates are that no new revenue will be produced that is usable for this transportation bill.

Across the United States, oil production is at its highest level in nearly a decade. Natural gas production has reached levels we have never seen before in the United States. Oil production on public lands offshore is higher than it was during each of the last 3 years of the Bush administration.

According to industry analysts, by this summer, there will be nearly 30 percent more floating rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than there were prior to the BP spill. Yet the Republican bill would threaten the tourism and fishing economies of coastal States by allowing drilling off of our beaches in Florida, in California, up and down our east and west coasts, and, as well, in an area extensively used by the military where even Secretary Rumsfeld said ``drilling structures and associated development would be incompatible with military activities'' in this area.

This Congress has not enacted a single safety improvement since the BP spill. The bill would allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, ripping out the heart of the crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System. The Arctic Refuge is America's Serengeti. It is one of the natural wonders of the world, like the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, or the Great Barrier Reef, and it should be protected.

If we allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, it will set a precedent that will allow the oil and gas industry to place a bull's-eye on each of the 540 wildlife refuges across this country. And this legislation would rush to give away 125,000 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to Big Oil for oil shale development. However, there is no commercially viable oil shale technology, and oil shale development could have significant impacts on water quality and quantity in the West if there were a commercially viable technology available, which Shell Oil and the Department of the Interior says does not yet exist.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office has said that the impacts of oil shale development on water could be significant but are unknown. What's more, this provision has been included by the majority, despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says that it would not raise any revenue over the next 10 years to fund our highways. So understand that.

This is a provision which CBO says raises no revenue in the next 10 years, but it's just stuck in here. The oil and gas industry would like to see it, so they just tossed it in. Nothing to do with funding transportation.

And the majority's drilling bills wouldn't even ensure that American natural gas stays here in America to help our consumers. Natural gas prices are six times higher in Asia than they are right here. They are more than three times higher in Europe than they are right here.

Low natural gas prices have been driving the economic recovery of the United States. We have far more natural gas in our country--and it's very low-priced--then we have oil. What the Republican bill will allow to happen is for this natural gas to be exported around the world, and exporting our natural gas would eliminate our competitive edge by driving prices up by as much as 54 percent, according to the Department of Energy.

Not ensuring that the natural gas stays here in the United States ensures that the majority, the Republicans, are imposing a de facto natural gas tax on American agriculture, manufacturing, chemicals, steel, plastics by allowing our gas to be exported.

Here's what T. Boone Pickens says about the idea of exporting American natural gas. Here's what he says:

If we do it, we're truly going to go down as America's

dumbest generation. It's bad public policy to export natural

gas.

Our natural gas is six times cheaper than Asian; it is three times cheaper than European. What are we doing exporting it? We should keep it here for our own farmers, for our own industries, for our own consumers. That's how we begin to put ourselves on a path of energy independence.

I agree with T. Boone Pickens. We should keep our natural gas here. We should not be following the Republican energy plan of drill here, sell there, and pay more. If we sell this natural gas around the world, the Department of Energy says the price is going up 57 percent here because we'll have less of it. That's how supply and demand works.

The same dynamic exists in the Keystone portion of the bill, where Republicans have failed to include any assurances that even a drop of the oil or the fuels will stay in this country.

When I asked the president of TransCanada, the pipeline company from Canada, whether he would be willing to commit to keeping the oil that passes through this pipeline in the United States, he said no. And why? Because the oil companies and the refineries want to export the fuels to the highest bidders around the world, leaving the American people with all of the environmental risk and little or none of the energy or economic benefit.

So drill here, sell there, pay more, that's not the Republican mantra. Drill here, drill now, pay less. Now they've morphed into what the oil and gas industry want, and all of the economic indicators point to the conclusion that our consumers will be harmed by that.

On the question of the totality of the economic benefits for our country, they are simultaneously proposing to kill the tax breaks for the wind industry, which is now creating 85,000 jobs in our country, in the face of the wind industry, saying that they will have to lay off 40,000 people over the next year unless the production tax break for the wind industry stays on the books.

So all of this is basically upside down as an energy policy. My strongest admonition to the Members who are listening to this debate is to vote ``no'' on this Republican proposal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

When the Democrats controlled the Congress in 2009, we passed a bill out here on the House floor that created an advanced energy technology bank that included $75 billion that the nuclear industry could have qualified for, $60 billion for the coal industry for clean coal technology. Although we also built in incentives for wind and for solar and for energy efficiency, we did it all. We gave everyone a running head start. We didn't say ``nothing'' to nuclear. No.

What have the Republicans done over the last year? They passed out here on the floor a bill that zeroed out the money for loan guarantees for wind and solar, but they left in the loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. That's not an all-of-the-above strategy, and you all voted for it unanimously.

No. Here's where we are. This oil-above-all strategy that you have, not all-of-the-above, this is basically at the heart of what this whole debate is all about.

Last year, the oil industry in the United States made $137 billion. This year, they're going to blast right past that $137 billion. Every person watching this debate is looking at the pump right now at $3.50, $4, $4.50 that they're paying, and it's going straight up.

They're going to be reporting profits of upwards of $200 billion. The Republicans continue to keep in the $4 billion-a-year for tax breaks for the oil industry. Over 10 years, that's $40 billion that would pay for the transportation bill.

Subsidizing the oil industry in 2012 to drill for oil is like subsidizing fish to swim or birds to fly; you don't have to do it. The consumer is already doing it at the pump. They're being tipped upside down.

So, there's an easy funding mechanism here. It's just taking away the oil company tax breaks.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

That is the only way that we can substitute the money that stays within that sector.

These guys are going to cut back on the pension plans of Federal retirees in order to pay for a transportation bill when we should be keeping the funding stream within this energy sector because that's why we have cars on the road, in order to use this petroleum.

The oil industry right now is having it both ways. They're getting tax breaks from the taxpayers at the same time that they're taking the other pocket of every American as consumers, and they're taking money out of that pocket as well. That's really at the heart of what this debate is all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on either side.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield myself 1 minute.

Here is the reality. The Republicans need money to build roads, so they want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma has already made clear doesn't have the votes to pass in the Senate. The same thing is true for California and Florida and off the coast of Massachusetts and New Jersey. They want to drill there as well, and it's very clear that the votes aren't there in the Senate to accomplish that goal either. As the gentleman from California just said, the likelihood of finding any revenues from oil shale is at least two decades away, so there are no revenues there.

There is another bill, by the way, that's going to come out here on the floor. And in order to find the revenues, do you know where they're going to drill? They're going to drill into the pensions of FBI agents; they're going to drill into the pensions of the researchers for cancer out of the National Institutes of Health; and they're going to drill into the pensions of the Border Patrol agents, who are protecting us right now down on the Mexico border. That's where they're going to find almost all of the money for this bill--in the pensions of those people.

Is that really the way we want to build the roads of our country?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, just 2 weeks ago, President Obama stood right here in this Chamber; and he said that he was going to propose opening up 75 percent of the oil and gas resources off the coast of the United States. That's a great plan. He doesn't want to drill off the California beaches. He doesn't want to drill off Florida beaches or off the New Jersey or Massachusetts beaches. But the rest of it, he's pretty much saying he's open to. But they're not happy with it over here. The President has a real plan and a plan that can be implemented.

What they are doing is they bring out proposals here that try to build real highways with fake oil revenues that are never going to materialize. So rather than working here in the real world, where the real transportation needs of our country are dealt with with real revenues that are coming in, they talk about oil shale which Shell says is at least another 10 years away. Shell Oil, that is, not some shell collector along the beaches.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

We are talking Shell Oil who says it's 10 years away. Jim Inhofe in the Senate says the votes aren't there to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So that's zero dollars as well. And the likelihood of them drilling off the coast of California or Florida or Massachusetts for oil is zero. So rather than going through this facade of trying to pretend that real highways can be built with fake oil revenues, we should be taking up the offer of President Obama where he says he'll open up 75 percent of all the drilling possibilities off the coastlines of our country. That is what this debate should be all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute at this time.

The Republicans, over the past year, have betrayed their agenda. They have pretty much voted out on the House floor to gut the budget for wind, gut the budget for solar, gut the budget for plug-in hybrid vehicles and, at the same time, kept in the money for the nuclear industry, kept in the tax breaks for the oil industry. So that is pretty much what the debate is all about. It's about the past versus the future.

In our country right now, the American people want to know that we're embracing a future-oriented, technology-oriented, advanced-technology- oriented agenda for our country. That's what all the Republicans keep voting against out here, all of the new technologies that allow us to move on from this fossil-fuel era.

And it would be one thing if they just didn't vote for it, but then they have the temerity to stand up and to say they believe in all of the above. No, they do not. They believe in oil above all because otherwise they would not vote to kill wind and solar out here on the House floor over the last year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I think it would be helpful for both sides to understand what the time situation is for the conclusion of the debate.

Does the gentleman intend to conclude debate with his next speaker?

In that case, I will yield myself the balance of my time so that I can utter the sentences that will need responding to by the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, let's go back a little bit to this issue of natural gas and what this Republican bill calls for--more drilling for natural gas in our country. Okay, we can look at that.

We support natural gas. We think that natural gas is the best story that's happened in our country in the last 10 years. We love natural gas. Democrats love it. It's half the pollutants of coal. It's domestically produced. We have to make sure that when we're extracting it we don't shoot chemicals down into

the surface so that we pollute the water that our children drink, but we think that we can work through those issues if people of good faith are willing to work together.

Otherwise, it's a fantastic story. Why is that? Because natural gas is not a world market. The world market is for oil. If it's $116 a barrel in China, it's $116 a barrel in the U.S. It's a global market. And that's what allows OPEC to hold us hostage, because they control all of that oil coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. They control all that oil so that they can basically hold the rest of the globe's economy hostage. But natural gas, not true.

Here we've seen a 30 percent increase in our natural gas reserves over the last 5 years. What does that mean? Well, in China it's $16. Japan, $16 per million cubic feet of natural gas. What is it in the United States? It's $2.42. So it's six, seven times cheaper in the United States. That means it is cheaper for every manufacturer, cheaper for every retailer, cheaper for every farmer, cheaper for every consumer.

What are the Democrats saying? We love natural gas; let's keep it here. Let's not be setting up terminals all across our country to export the natural gas across the planet with the Department of Energy saying, if we did that, the price of natural gas in the United States would rise 57 percent. How can that be good for consumers? Isn't that our advantage? Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of oil. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Why don't we use that to our advantage? Why don't we use that to inoculate ourselves against what Saudi Arabia of oil does to us by jacking the price of oil up and down? Why don't we become independent of them? Why don't we move to all natural gas vehicles? Why don't we use natural gas in the generation of electricity? Why don't we use natural gas in the production of all of our products? And why don't we use natural gas in the homes of our country, in the factories of our country, in the industries of our country at a price that's six times lower than China and Japan, three times lower than Europe?

That's what we are calling for here, an energy strategy that is all- American. And if we can get to that with this debate today, I think that the American people will be the winners.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the purported benefits of the Keystone pipeline have achieved mythic status. We have been told that this pipeline will lower gas prices, even though TransCanada says gas prices will go up. We've been told tens of thousands will be hired to build it, even though only about 5,000 or 6,000 temporary construction jobs will be created.

And in a particularly egregious descent into Fairyland, we have been told that the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly Middle Eastern or Latin American nations.

Last month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper even said, when you look at the Iranians threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, I think this just illustrates how critical it is that supply for the United States be North American.

But under this bill, the Republican bill, there is no guarantee that even a drop of the tar sands oil and fuels will stay here in this country. They keep saying how great it would be if we had a million barrels of oil coming into the United States from Canada. There's no guarantee in this bill, and that's because many of the refineries where the Keystone crude will be sent plan to re-export the refined fuels.

This is the map of what the oil industry plans on doing with this oil. It comes right through the United States, and then it heads off to Asia, South America, over to Europe. And Valero, one of these refineries, says in its investor presentation that it plans to refine the Canadian crude at the same facility it is building in Port Arthur, Texas, an export zone, because doing so leverages its export logistics.

Our amendment will say this oil coming through this pipeline from Canada stays here in the United States and doesn't head off to China. That's what the amendment is all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Again, could we get a review of the time remaining?

Could you inform me as to who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining minute.

The gentleman from Nebraska says, What's the problem? All the oil's going to stay in the United States. It's not going to China.

That's what will happen if we don't build the pipeline. So they should vote for the Markey amendment because the Markey amendment could only be guilty of redundancy saying all the oil stays here in America.

So if that's your purpose, that's what the Markey amendment says. We'll hold you to your word when we have the vote.

But here's the real plan. TransCanada puts the dirtiest oil on the planet into the brand new pipeline Republicans are giving it; two, TransCanada sends that oil to the gulf coast where it can make billions more than where it currently sells it in the Midwest; three, refineries in the gulf coast re-export it to other countries at world oil prices and don't pay any taxes to the U.S. for doing so; four, Americans get higher gas prices and no increased energy security; five, TransCanada, Hugo Chavez, and the sheiks of Saudi Arabia laugh all the way to the bank.

Please vote ``yes'' for the Markey-Connolly-Cohen-Welch amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

I claim the time of the minority.

I thank the Chairman.

I will say that this amendment marginally improves the bill, but it does not change our fundamental opposition to it. But progress on any front is welcomed, even if we cannot make progress on every front.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

We do not oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in the minority.

I thank the Chair very much.

Mr. Chairman, there's no question that the gentleman from Washington State is correct, and a master of parliamentary rules, having stood up there or sat up there hundreds of hours, so he is an absolute correct dissector of language used here of seeking recognition from the Chair.

So I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, if those are the technical words of art that the gentleman would prefer for me to use.

I thank you.

This amendment would require a study to investigate potential economic impacts from a variety of risks that oil development in the Outer Continental Shelf poses to local tourism and fishing economies in Florida.

Well, we actually had a real-world study for 87 days during the BP spill. As we saw in 2010, with the BP oil spill, oil can wreak havoc on a coastal community, meaning a disaster for tourism and fishing, seafood industries. These disasters can and do happen, putting hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars at stake.

It is important for the public to know the risks associated with allowing oil companies to drill off of our coast. But we should be protecting our beaches in Florida and California and New Jersey and Massachusetts, not just requiring a study of how huge a disaster a spill would be for these States.

We should be protecting the lives and the livelihoods of the people of the gulf by taking the lessons of the BP spill and turning them into new laws. But nearly 2 years after the BP spill began, this Congress has not enacted a single new law to improve the safety of offshore drilling. That is indefensible when the BP Commission found that we have a fatally flawed rate of accidents and fatalities in our country. Compared to the rest of the world, ours is four times higher than that in Europe, that is, the fatalities on our oil rigs. So that's the issue.

We have yet to increase the fines because only we can do that here in Congress. Right now, a lot of these oil companies think it's just the equivalent of a parking ticket. You know, if you could pay a parking ticket for a whole day on the main street of any one of the cities in the United States, you'd pay that $1 parking ticket because it would be cheaper than paying 20 bucks to put it in a garage. And that's what we have right now. We have the equivalent of $1 parking tickets that are assessed against oil companies that despoil the ocean, that result in, because of their faulty safety rules, the highest fatality rate in the world in terms of people who work on oil rigs.

At this point, I have completed my statement, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

If this amendment passes, Mardi Gras will come on the Wednesday before Fat Tuesday this year. That's because the Landry amendment delivers up to $6 billion in a financial King Cake to Louisiana and to the other Gulf States at the expense of the other 46 States in the Union.

In 2006, the Republican Congress passed legislation that will divert $150 billion over the next 60 years from offshore drilling on public lands to the four Gulf Coast States--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. That bill set up what amounts to a new entitlement program for these four States, which will result in a massive transfer of wealth from the Federal Government. This amendment would send $6 billion to these four States on top of that $150 billion they will already be getting.

These oil and gas resources on public lands belong to all of the American people, not just to those of the adjacent States. They are public resources that belong as much to someone living in Kansas, Massachusetts, or Hawaii as they do to someone living in Louisiana or Texas. These are resources that should help every American, not just a select few. The revenue generated from these public resources goes to the Federal Treasury to help pay for Medicare and Medicaid. It helps to pay for our national defense. We can no longer afford to continue this diversion of taxpayer funds to these four States. We need this revenue to reduce our deficit and to get our fiscal house in order.

I had offered an amendment that would have recovered the $150 billion we are going to be sending to these four States, which the majority did not make in order, and now this amendment would take us in the complete opposite direction.

So I commend the gentleman from Louisiana. I can't blame him for trying to get even more Federal money directed to his home State under this program. Yet, if you come from one of the 46 States that is not-- and let me enumerate them again--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or Texas, you would have to be crazy to vote for this amendment, because they're going to take money away from your States, away from your Medicare beneficiaries, away from your contributions to the defense budget. It will be higher in all of those other States because this money is going to be sucked out of the Federal Treasury, as though through a straw, right into the States of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. If you vote for this amendment, you are voting to send that money--$6 billion--directly from your State to the gentleman from Louisiana's State.

I urge all members of the Louisiana delegation to vote against the Markey amendment, and I would give a similar recommendation to the other Members from the other three States. But if you don't come from one of those four States, why would you send $6 billion to those States, money which should be in the Federal Treasury, when it should be used for all of the citizens of our country?

At this point, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3408.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which contains the energy provisions in the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act. This is an action plan to create jobs that will vastly expand American energy production, lower gasoline prices, strengthen our national and economic security, and generate new revenue to help pay for infrastructure, and, Mr. Chairman, all without raising taxes or adding to the deficit.

In this year's State of the Union speech, President Obama proclaimed his support for expanding American energy production with an all-of- the-above energy strategy. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the President's actions while he has been in office have been anything but pro-energy. In fact, his rhetoric--and I don't say this lightly, Mr. Chairman--is 180 degrees from his actions.

Since taking office, this administration has repeatedly blocked U.S. energy production. The offshore drilling moratorium and the Keystone pipeline are just the tip of the iceberg. He has canceled and withdrawn scheduled lease sales, shut off promising areas to new drilling, blocked mining in mineral-rich areas, and issued countless job- destroying regulations.

Mr. Chairman, actions do speak louder than words. The bill we are considering today is an action plan that clearly contrasts President Obama's anti-energy policies with the pro-energy, pro-American jobs policies of Republicans.

While President Obama has closed off new areas for offshore drilling, this bill will open areas known to contain the most oil and natural gas resources in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. As a result, economic analysis has shown that well over 1 million jobs--long-term jobs, long-term American jobs--can be created.

While President Obama opposes energy production in ANWR, this bill will open less than 3 percent of the total area to responsible and safe drilling. That issue has been around a while, Mr. Chairman. ANWR represents the single greatest resource of onshore area production in the United States. This is one of the reasons that way back in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was still President and the Democrats controlled the Congress, they specifically set aside the north slope of ANWR for energy production.

Safe and responsible energy production in ANWR will protect the environment while creating tens of thousands of jobs and providing upwards of 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil per day. By the way, this is more than the U.S. imports daily from Saudi Arabia.

While the President has delayed leases and withdrawn over a million acres in the Rocky Mountains to oil shale development, this bill will set clear rules and require additional oil shale leases to be issued. According to the government estimates, this region may hold--and, Mr. Chairman, this is a significant number. This region may hold more than 1\1/2\ trillion barrels of oil equivalent. That's six times Saudi Arabia's proven reserves and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years. And I'm just

talking about oil shale. Robust oil shale development could also create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and that should be self-evident.

Finally, while the President refused to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, this bill would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to approve it within 30 days. The Keystone XL pipeline will create more than 20,000 American jobs and displace less stable energy imports with millions of barrels of safe and secure North American oil.

Since this President took office, Mr. Chairman, gasoline prices have climbed by 91 percent. Meanwhile, Iran is threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz, which is responsible for transportation of almost 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 20 percent of all oil traded. Prices will only climb higher if we don't take action now to increase our energy independence and develop our own energy resources.

Today, Mr. Chairman, Republicans are moving forward with a plan to create more jobs and create more American energy.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and the former chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe's quote has been thrown around here recently. Let me give another quote by Senator Inhofe:

As I have said, we can make great strides toward increasing

North American energy independence by developing our own

domestic resources. We can do this and support millions of

American jobs, produce affordable energy for consumers, and

reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

He said that in March 2010. I think that's important.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other point. There's been an implication here that it has been the policies of this administration that have increased oil and gas supplies; but if you look at the President's own budget that came out this week, there are two aspects of revenue coming in from oil and gas production. You have the lease sales, and you have the royalties. If you look at the President's own budget that came out just 2 days ago, you will see that this year and in the out-years, money coming in from lease sales decreases. That means that the policy of this administration is not more energy production on public lands. It's less.

He has taken advantage of the situation that's going on on State and private lands and is taking credit for it with what's happened in North Dakota. This plan here puts together a solid footing for American energy production on public lands.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

My intent, Mr. Chairman, is to hold that 1\1/2\ minutes at the end of the overall debate in case the gentleman says something that needs to be responded to.

I reserve my remaining 1\1/2\ minutes until the end of the overall debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is essentially a technical manager's amendment making changes agreed to with the Armed Services Committee in order to ensure that we are fully respecting the needs of our Nation's military.

It adds further protections to those already included through the bill to ensure any production and our Nation's national defense cooperatively coexist in our Nation's offshore areas.

This amendment also includes a slight adjustment to the timing of the leasing of one offshore area off the coast of Alaska. In fact, it moves it back to 2015.

So these have been talked over with the minority. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would totally agree with you. Progress in any way is beneficial. So I appreciate the gentleman's accepting the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, according to the U.S. Census, the State of California's largest import is petroleum. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the State of California's largest import is petroleum. So I guess it's a good thing that private geologists estimate that over 1.6 billion barrels of American-made energy are ready and waiting to be developed from existing infrastructure in southern California.

What does existing infrastructure mean? Well, there are currently about 23 oil and gas platforms located offshore in southern California which account for about 24 million barrels of oil and 47 billion cubic feet of gas annually. The lease sale proposed in this legislation allows drilling from existing platforms or, to put it in another vernacular, those that are already in place. If we are going to have a serious discussion about offshore drilling, it makes perfect sense to drill not only where there is already drilling going on, but from where the platforms already exist, which is why this bill specifically states: ``no new infrastructure.''

We need to drill where there are known resources, and this California lease sale is a commonsense way to limit the drilling footprint while accessing our resources that are known in southern California. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the State of California is already working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on a permit to allow a company to drill from an existing platform in Federal waters into State waters for State resources.

Let me say this: the State of California has entered into the same concept that's embodied in this bill. So let me repeat here one more time. It's Governor Brown's administration that is pursuing drilling off these same platforms closer to the coast.

Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States and U.S. territories from receiving fair and equitable income for drilling that would occur potentially off their shores. This means States like Florida and Virginia will not receive any portion of any revenues for drilling that will occur off their coasts under this bill if this amendment were to be adopted.

The underlying bill is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. That includes the vast resources of southern California. This amendment would lock away significant resources that belong to the American people. It would keep our country shackled to the foreign powers upon whom we rely for oil and gas imports. It would also hinder our Nation's energy security.

This amendment also ignores the soaring gas prices that American families are facing at the pump right now. Many of those families don't have room in their budget to pay hundreds more dollars just to drive to work or drive their kids to school. And by the way, I might add, Mr. Chairman, I think if there is an epitome of an area in the country that does a lot of driving, it's in California.

We need to get America producing energy again. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and vote for the underlying legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate once again--and this is understanding that people in our great country have different views--I certainly understand what happened in southern California some 40 years ago. Listen, that picture is indelibly in everybody's mind. But nobody can argue there have not been advances in oil exploration in this country, and certainly in the OCS. But as a recognition of that, in this bill we didn't say just go anywhere you want to go in southern California. We said go to the existing platforms where you're drilling and existing infrastructure where there has been drilling.

Now, that seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable way to utilize the resources that we have--by the way, in Federal waters, not in State waters, in Federal waters--so that we can make ourselves less dependent on foreign energy.

The last thing I would say is the State of California is pursuing precisely the same thing that's embodied in this underlying bill, only in State waters.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose my good friend's amendment from southern California.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just a point. The issue is not claiming time in the minority or majority. The time is in opposition, and with that in mind, I would rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman's amendment will conduct this economic impact study only for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS Planning Area, as defined in the bill. I understand and appreciate the gentleman's interest in protecting the multiple use of the OCS, and I join him in that interest. For decades, tourism, fishing, and oil and gas drilling have been compatible in the Gulf of Mexico, and there's no reason that the new areas opened up under this bill would not operate in the same way.

While I understand the interests of the gentleman to have this study for those areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, I wish that he could have expanded the study to jobs that could have been created by new drilling and the support that comes with that activity.

While that's not embodied in the gentleman's amendment, I would only have to think that because you're having the study on that, there may be some residual, and I would look forward to that residual potentially also.

So I thank the gentleman and congratulate him for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Outer Continental Shelf and the resources it contains are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and therefore it belongs to all of the people of the United States as a whole. These Federal offshore resources are unlike Federal lands and onshore resources outside the borders of the States. Each individual State controls several miles offshore of their coasts, and that varies State by State. But beyond that point, the Federal lands are owned by the Federal Government and its resources.

This bill, underlying legislation, is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. Federal assessments estimate that the North Atlantic contains nearly two billion barrels of oil and nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of gas. Using modern technology, it's highly likely that the find could be even more than what is estimated.

This amendment, then, would lock away those resources from the American people who, as I mentioned a moment ago, own them.

Not too long ago, the entire OCS was under moratoria. Offshore drilling in this country was prohibited. When the gas skyrocketed past $4 a gallon in 2008, the American people collectively said, No more. The American people cried out and demanded that Congress act, and we did by lifting the moratoria.

In fact, what the American people found out, Mr. Chairman, at that time is that we had tremendous potential resources here that we weren't utilizing. That's why they cried out and said, Okay. Let's end the several moratoria.

Now, this amendment proposes to reverse the will of the American people, to ignore the high cost of gas at the pump, to ignore that prices are again climbing towards $4 a gallon, and to ignore that our Nation's security is strengthened when we get our energy from here in this Nation and not from hostile foreign nations.

The American people want to increase American energy production and jobs, not stifle American energy production. Let's not forget that we are creating American oil and gas that can be refined and used here. Some of the States that want to shut down production off their coasts are the highest consumers of these fuels that they would have shut down.

Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States and U.S. territories from receiving a fair and equitable revenue for drilling that would occur off their shores. That means States like Florida and Virginia and others that would like to participate could not receive a portion of the revenues for drilling that would occur off their States under this bill.

Finally, I would like to say this because we have had a long discussion today in debate, and I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, We love natural gas. I'm not sure if it was said with that same cadence, but the message was there.

Listen, Mr. Chairman, nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lies off the Atlantic Coast. Can you imagine how much easier it is to get that to market than shipping it from someplace else?

So I would urge rejection of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time since I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Two points, Mr. Chairman: first of all, the gentleman suggests that this Congress and this House, led by Republicans, have not done anything as far as safety offshore. I would just remind the gentleman that through the appropriations process there has been a tremendous increase in precisely what the Obama administration was asking for safety. The Obama administration has said essentially that it is safe, although I would argue they should be more aggressive; but they say it's safe to drill. So that argument I don't think really has a great deal of bearing.

But more importantly, I would say this: the port of Boston has a liquid natural gas terminal, and they are importing natural gas from Trinidad and

Yemen, hardly a stable community or country in the Middle East. Right now, right off the coast of Nova Scotia, just north of this area that we're talking about, there is natural gas drilling going on.

So certainly, if we want to be less dependent on foreign oil and foreign energy and we like natural gas, like a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle have talked about, then we should reject this amendment and adopt the underlying bill.

With that, I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The proposal of the gentleman from Louisiana has merit. I commend him for proposing it, and I do urge its adoption.

The goal of revenue sharing in the bill is to allow States the flexibility to use the money they want with their local States. If this is what the gentleman's State wants to use its money for, I have no problem, and I certainly agree with him. In fact, I would emphasize one other point:

Since I've had an opportunity to visit the gentleman's State and to see firsthand what it has done with the initiative, I think that it is a tremendous template for other States, which is precisely why, in the underlying bill, we have the component of revenue sharing. It is for other States to, maybe, emulate what Louisiana has always done.

So I think the gentleman's amendment is certainly compatible with what we're trying to do. It is a good amendment, and I commend the gentleman for that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out, the underlying bill vastly expands the number of States that would be eligible for revenue sharing to far beyond those four States that the ranking member mentioned.

But when our committee held a markup on this legislation 2 weeks ago, I pledged to work with the gentleman from Louisiana and Gulf Members to help bring parity to the differences between the existing revenue sharing currently enjoyed in the four Gulf States and all the other coastal States, which, up until this legislation today, as I mentioned, were not entitled to a share of the revenues from oil and gas production off their shores. Let me repeat that again. Under this legislation,

more States will have an opportunity to share this.

But this amendment seeks to bring existing revenue sharing in the Gulf more in line with the plan that was included in the underlying bill. And I congratulate the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor. I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement have put forward significant regulatory measures governing offshore drilling. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because existing Federal regulations--specifically, 30 CFR 254.26--already require a worst-case discharge scenario in all lease applications, which includes an evaluation of economic resources that may be impacted. So that's in the law already, Mr. Chairman.

So I find it interesting that we have an amendment before us that we are debating on essentially legislation and regulatory issues that are already currently in place.

Let me make another point to hopefully point out the disconnect of what we are talking about because one of the issues that we are talking about here is the creation of American energy, American jobs, American security, less dependence on foreign sources of our energy.

This last January, for example, the State Department expelled the consul general of Venezuela in Miami for plotting a cyberattack on the U.S. Government. And yet here we are, debating an issue that could affect our getting to

be less dependent on foreign energy sources and ignoring what is the obvious. We, obviously, ought to be trying to be less dependent on foreign oil, and yet that debate isn't even going on. We are talking about a debate on an amendment that is simply redundant of current law.

I don't know why we are having this debate, but I think that the redundancy of it here--we always have a worst-case discharge scenario in current law. We simply don't need this.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, since I have the right to close, I will reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, from time to time there shows, really, progress in the course of debate. The gentleman from Florida correctly pointed out that my side of the aisle has some real heartburn on a lot of regulations. I'll be the first to admit that. Apparently he does, too, by his acknowledgement that we have that acknowledgement, and he doesn't want to be governed by regulations. So I think we're making progress, at least in that way, and I congratulate him.

But here's the point. On this specific issue, this Congress has responded, and to their credit, this administration has responded, not probably to the extent that I would like, seeing that the regulatory oversight on potential spills in the gulf or any place in the OCS will be responded to in a timely manner. That was done through the appropriation process by a Republican-led Congress. I congratulate the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations for doing precisely that.

But I will repeat again, in my view, in this particular case this amendment is redundant to what the law, through regulations, already is; and I would urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the Rules for H.R. 7, ``The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012.'' I believe the transportation bill should have been an open rule. This bill is not a comprehensive bill. When Congress spends taxpayer dollars, we are accountable for how it is spent. As written, this measure limits federal government oversight and therefore limits accountability.

I believe, a well-functioning transportation system is critical to the Nation's prosperity. Whether it is by road, aviation, or rail we rely on our transportation system to move people and goods safely. A properly functioning transportation infrastructure will facilitate commerce, attract and retain businesses, and support jobs.

Public transportation benefits the economy in several ways. It helps the right people to get to the right jobs, without wasting otherwise productive hours. It allows employers to tap into various pools of recipients who have no other means of getting to work and it helps customers get to the doors of businesses.

For every dollar we invest in running public transportation systems boosts business sales by another three dollars. A $10 million investment in building public transportation systems creates more than 300 jobs, and the same amount spent on running them creates nearly 600 more.

Part of the challenge of our transportation system is to ensure that everyone is able to benefit. The GAO would study ways to increase access to the underserved and unrepresented communities, as well as, minority communities. This will help to identify areas that we can work to improve. The GAO would further study how to increase the mobility of the disabled.

Public transportation is important to ensure these communities will not only have access to services, businesses, and the community at large, but will also improve their quality of life.

Public involvement needs to encompass the full range of community interests, yet people underserved by transportation often do not participate. We need to find ways to reach the underserved. They not only have greater difficulty getting to jobs, schools, recreation, and shopping than the population at large, but often they are also unaware of transportation proposals that could dramatically change their lives. Many lack experience with public involvement, even though they have important, unspoken issues that should be heard.

Underserved people include those with special cultural, racial, or ethnic characteristics. Cultural differences sometimes hinder full participation in transportation planning and project development.

People with disabilities find access to transportation more difficult and their ability to participate in public involvement efforts more constrained. People with limited resources often lack both access and time to participate. In addition individuals who have not been adequately educated may not be fully aware either of what transportation services are available or of opportunities to help improve them.

These groups are a rich source of ideas that can improve transportation not only for themselves but also for the entire community. Agencies must assume responsibility for reaching out and including them in the decision-making process--which requires strategic thinking and tailoring public involvement efforts to these communities and their needs. Techniques to reach the underserved are grouped here under two headings:

A thorough study of how this bill will impact cost and jobs. As well as a study on how to improve services to the underserved and under- represented will insure that there is accountability for how we are using government resources.

There is much left to be done in the areas of Transportation in our great Nation. I believe this study is a step in the right direction.

Generally, the same transit agencies operate both rail and a bus system, which improves efficiency by ensuring both Systems complement each other.

For example, transit agencies can design bus routes that collect passengers from outlying neighborhoods and deliver them to rail transit stations.

Congress has always allowed transit systems operating both rail and bus lines to receive bus and bus facility grants, recognizing that bus and rail lines work as part of a complete transit network in large metropolitan areas and that federal policy should support local and regional efforts to maximize the efficiency of transit service. H.R. 7 would reverse this longstanding federal policy.

In Houston, TX alone, the City operates 1,300 buses and 7 miles of rail. Denying access to these funds to major metropolitan areas does not make sense. Public transportation benefits the economy in several ways. It helps the right people to get to the right jobs, without wasting otherwise productive hours. It allows employers to tap into various pools of recipients who have no other means of getting to work and it helps customers get to the doors of businesses.

In the case of Houston, the light rail system is vital to increase mobility of Houston, Texas' population which is forecasted to grow by an additional 9.4 million people by 2035, a 38.9 percent increase over the projected 2010 levels. The same can be said for many urban areas across our Nation.

Light rail projects and other transportation investments represent the potential to create thousands of jobs, enhanced mobility, and future economic development for the region.

Public transportation is an investment in the truest sense of the word: An outlay today pays out considerable profit down the road. Nationwide, government invests $15.4 billion in public transportation a year. Public transportation generates upwards of $60 billion in economic benefits. Public transportation boosts state and local tax revenues by at least 4 percent and as much as 16 percent.

Some 30,000 people work directly for the public transportation industry, which creates thousands more jobs indirectly through fields ranging from engineering to construction.

For every dollar we invest in running public transportation systems boosts business sales by another three dollars. A $10 million investment in building public transportation systems creates more than 300 jobs, and the same amount spent on running them creates nearly 600 more.

To be sure, public transportation systems are not cheap to build or run; however, public transportation pays for itself several times over. And if a stronger economy is the destination we seek, public transit is the fastest way to get there. These funds could be used to fix buses, bus shelters, and bus facilities.

With the recent uptick in fuel prices more people are opting to ride the bus. In addition, the bus system also is vital resource for the disable and seniors who rely on these services for transportation. The TE program funds projects that build bus shelters. This would encourage even more people to opt for public transportation. Shelters safeguard passengers against the sun, wind, and rain. Texas has heat waves and many other parts of the country have inclement weather. Funding the building of bus shelters may not be a priority for some, but to the people who are standing waiting for the bus it makes a world of difference.

In addition, bus stops are extremely important for people with disabilities. The inaccessibility of bus stops often represents the weak link in the system and can effectively prevent the use of fixed- route service. This can severely hamper bus ridership by disability community, and thereby limit their mobility. Increasing the accessibility of fixed-route service

under the TE program will decrease paratransit costs.

Since 1983, when the Surface Transportation Assistance Act was signed into law, 2.86 cents in motor fuels taxes has been deposited into the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to provide a dedicated stable source of funding for public transportation programs. H.R. 7 eliminates the Mass Transit Account and dedicates that 2.86 cents to highway programs.

The bill moves transit and other public transportation programs into a new ``Alternative Transportation Fund,'' which would be dependent on appropriations from general revenue. Although the bill makes a one-time transfer of $40 billion into the Alternative Transportation Fund to cover funding for those programs through the life of the bill, there is no guarantee for public transportation funding beyond FY 2016. Such a reality would make it difficult, if not impossible, for transit agencies to develop reliable long-term capital plans, and it would leave the future of the program in doubt.

Public transportation agencies around the country are already struggling to maintain current levels of service and keep the system in a state of good repair. Removing federally guaranteed funding could result in a virtual construction and service freeze, the effects of which would be felt by riders, businesses, contractors, manufacturers and suppliers around the country.

Transit agencies may have to take on more debt in order to finance capital projects, and it could result in increased fares for our constituents.

There is no reason to make such a drastic change in how we finance public transportation. Our amendment would restore the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and the 2.86 cents dedicated funding stream for public transportation programs. It would eliminate the Alternative Trust Fund, make the Highway Trust Fund whole, and allow it to once again fund both highways and mass transit.

Fast Facts

Highway and Transit Bill (Or Surface Transportation Bill) (H.R. 7)--

Impact on Jobs

Cuts 550,000 American Jobs. Cuts investments in highways by $15.8 billion from current levels. We know that every $1 billion invested in infrastructure creates an estimated 34,800 jobs. Cuts Highway Investments in 45 states & DC. Reduces highway investments for all but 5 states (Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts Nebraska, Wyoming), neglecting the need to fix our bridges and roads.

Buy America Loopholes. Continues loopholes that allow surface transportation jobs to be outsourced overseas, and fails to extend Buy America protections to all Federal surface transportation programs.

Unstable Funding. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the GOP bill would bankrupt the Highway trust fund by 2016--creating a $78 billion shortfall over 10 years and jeopardizing critical transportation projects and American jobs. Boehner argue the bill doesn't create jobs. Speaker John A. Boehner made the unusual argument that spending money on highway projects under the bill would not create jobs. ``We are not making the claim that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates jobs.''

Other Transportation Issues

Undermines Safety. Cuts National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grants, allows companies with poor safety records to be exempted from hazardous material safety requirements, delays the deadline for installing new train systems to automatically prevent train collisions and derailments for passenger rail from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2020 and eliminates worker safety for hazmat workers.

Kills Public Transit. Eliminates all of the dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold. The bill stops the highway user fee revenues for transit, so that transit will compete with other priorities in the budget. These provisions are opposed by 600 groups--including National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, American Public Transportation Association, League of Conservation Voters, U.S. Steelworkers, U.S. PIRG, and Chamber of Commerce. The bill also fails to provide flexibility to transit systems to use Federal funds to maintain service and transit worker jobs at times of economic crisis. Mandates Privatization in Public Transit & Highways. Incentivizes transit agencies to contract out their bus services, makes private entities eligible to receive Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants, and mandates private sector participation in local transit planning and for engineering and design services on Federal-aid highway projects.

Jeopardizes Efforts to Make Streets and Roads Safer for Children, Pedestrians, and Bikes. Eliminates efforts to help underwrite local bike paths, bike lanes and pedestrian safety projects, including the Safe Routes to School program. Weakens Environmental, Public Health, and Safety Protections. Includes sweeping changes that undermine local community involvement and environmental protection in transportation project development, such as delegating environmental and safety reviews--including whether they should be conducted--entirely to state highway agencies, imposing arbitrary deadlines for completing or challenging reviews regardless of project size, and waiving environmental reviews for all projects where the Federal share of the costs is less than $10 million or 15 percent of the total project cost regardless of the scope of the project.

Hurts Amtrak. Reduces funding for Amtrak by $308 million, abrogates labor contracts between Amtrak and its food and beverage workers likely costing 2,000 union jobs, and prevents Amtrak from using Federal funds to hire outside counsel to file a lawsuit or defend itself against a passenger rail operator.

Federal Retirement (H.R. 3813)

Cutting Federal Retirement. In an effort to finance the highway bill, the package includes extraneous provisions that take $44 billion out of the pockets of the middle-class--who have already suffered through a pay freeze for 2 years, which contributed approximately $60 billion to deficit reduction. Raising Worker Contributions. Increases the retirement contribution from current federal workers by 1.5 percent. New federal workers would be forced to contribute 3.2 percent more for an annuity that is 40 percent less than existing benefits--with the retirement based on the high five years of salary, instead of the high three years. Changing Benefits Already Earned. Eliminates the annuity supplement payment for federal employees who retire before age 62, throwing into chaos the longstanding retirement plans of middle-class workers who relied on the promise of this benefit and dedicated decades of service to our country. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute has said, ``Benefits already accrued should not be altered. Those benefits have been promised and earned, and the obligation to pay them should be honored.''

Role of Federal Workers. Federal workers support our troops in the battlefield and provide care upon their return, protect our borders, safeguard our food supply, make sure seniors get their Social Security checks, and help hunt down Osama Bin Laden.

Opposition. Opposed by American Federation of Government Employees, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, National Treasury Employees Union, National Federation of Federal Employees, National Association of Government Employees, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and Federal Managers Association.

Further, I believe that more should be done for small businesses owned by women and minorities. It is a shame that the numbers of women and minority owned business competing for these contracts has been decreasing every year. We must reinforce our commitment to women and minority owned business.

The Department of Transportation's DBE program aims to increase participation of small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

Enhanced oversight is critical to ensuring that the objectives of the DBE program are achieved and federal funds are spent appropriately. But the current program lacks a mechanism to enforce that committed spending for DBEs reflects actual spending.

The October 2011 report by GAO highlights both DOT's need for increased oversight and the lack of clarity in determining whether both committed and actual spending are meeting the goals of the DBE program.

Two things need to be addressed to help the DBE program: increased oversight, and the ability to enforce the DBE program requirements.

The program lacks the necessary ``teeth,'' its requirements are often flaunted to the determent of small business owners.

I believe the Secretary of the Department of Transportation should be required to issue regulations providing for strengthening oversight, enforcement, and compliance with DBE spending requirements.

I have offered a bill, H.R. 3710--Deficit Reduction, Job Creation, and Energy Security Act, that I firmly believe will increase jobs, decrease our deficit, and will be great for our economy.

H.R. 3710 will direct the Secretary of Interior to increase the total lease acreage set forth in the proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas leasing program for 2012 2017 by an additional 10 percent. This 10 percent increase shall be known as the Deficit Reduction Acreage. As such, the Secretary shall lease 20 percent of the Deficit Reduction Acreage each year from 2012 2017. All proceeds from the Deficit Reduction Acreage shall be deposited into the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund.

For 15 years after issuance of the first lease or receipt of the first payment coming from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund, all proceeds shall be deposited into an interest bearing account for a period of 2 years. Upon expiration of the 2 year period, these proceeds shall be distributed as follows:

The interest gained during 2 year period shall be placed in the Coastal and Ocean Sustainability and Health Fund (COSH); and

The principle from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund shall be deposited into the US Treasury and applied directly toward Deficit Reduction.

The COSH fund will establish grants for states (Coastal and Disaster Grant Program and a National Grant Program) for addressing coastal and ocean disasters, restoration, protection, and maintenance of coastal areas and oceans, including research and programs in coordination with state and local agencies.

Additionally, the Deficit Reduction and Energy Security Act establishes an Office of Onshore and Offshore Energy Employment and Training, and an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. CBO has estimated that this amendment is outside of the 10 year budgetary window, so there is no score.

I think we must carefully consider the bill that I propose. And again I reiterate the importance of having an open rule for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization to ensure that all Members of this Body have an opportunity to address their concerns with this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which is known as the Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act.

This is primarily about the Keystone pipeline. The Keystone pipeline has been a topic of discussion in America for the last 3 or 4 years. When it came to the attention of Congress that this pipeline, which promises to create tens of thousands of jobs and increase our access to safe and secure supplies of oil, was experiencing an unreasonable level of delay, Congress decided that we needed to step in.

We have, in Keystone pipeline, a company willing to invest $7 billion in private funds at no expense to the taxpayer. That would ultimately bring nearly a million barrels of oil per day from Canada to the U.S.-- additional oil per day.

Even the President's Jobs Council agrees. Their report specifically suggested the pipeline is a win-win-win for job creation, modernizing the Nation's infrastructure, and helping ultimately to lower gasoline prices in America. I would also like to point out that five major labor unions support the building of the Keystone pipeline.

A few years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in San Francisco giving a speech at the Commonwealth Club. In response to a question about Keystone pipeline, whether or not they would issue the permit to build it, Secretary of State Clinton said: We are inclined to do so.

This project has now been studied for over 40 months by seven or eight agencies of the Federal Government. And normally, to build an oil pipeline in America, it takes on the average of 24 months. When the Department of State issued their final environmental impact statement back in August 2011, they concluded that there were not any significant environmental issues. And they also said that when they look at the option of either, one, building a pipeline, or, two, not building a pipeline, that the preferable option was to build the pipeline. And of course the rationale for that is that if you don't build the pipeline and you bring oil in from other countries, you either have to do it by truck or by rail, which certainly emits a lot into the atmosphere.

But despite all of these positive reasons to build this pipeline, President Obama made a blatantly political decision when he said: I don't want to decide until after the Presidential election. And that's when Congress got involved and said we'd like a decision by February of 2012. And the President said: Well, I don't have enough time to study it, so I'm not going to allow it--even though it has been studied for 40 months. This is a 1,700-mile pipeline. The only issue left relates to about 60 miles in the State of Nebraska, and the Governor of Nebraska supports building this pipeline.

So this is a win-win-win situation for the American people, and I would urge my fellow Members to support this legislation to require FERC to make a decision on this pipeline.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we're here today because it's time to decide. President Obama and his administration have made a decision not to decide, even though his own Secretary of State, in their final economic environmental impact statement, made the decision that if you looked at two options--one, build the pipeline, or two, not build the pipeline-- the preferable route was to build the pipeline; 1 million more barrels of oil a day coming to America, ultimately. We're facing ever- increasing gasoline prices.

There's only 60 miles at issue at all in this pipeline out of 1,700. Five major labor unions support this pipeline. There's not one dime of Federal dollars in this pipeline, unlike the millions and billions that this administration have given to wind power and solar power and battery companies--many of which are in bankruptcy, just like Solyndra, which received $538 million from the taxpayers of America. This is a private company willing to put in $7 billion to bring 100,000 more barrels of oil a day, willing to provide 20,000 additional jobs to construct this pipeline.

So I think the decision here is very easy for the American people, and that's what Mr. Terry's legislation does. Since the President won't make a decision, Mr. Terry directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make the decision. We have all of the data necessary. It's the right decision to make.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment.

I do so reluctantly because we all have such great respect for Ms. Eshoo of California. She is a hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and provides great leadership.

But we oppose this amendment for a couple of simple reasons. Number one, this study by the Department of Transportation is going to be made anyway. We're not stopping that at all.

Number two, Keystone will transport a grade of crude oil that has been in our Nation's pipelines for decades. There's nothing really new about this substance. Venezuelan oil has about the same density. Certain Saudi Arabian oils have basically the same density.

Studies by the Canadian Government and private sector engineers in this country have demonstrated that heavy oils and diluted bitumen are not more dangerous or corrosive than regular grades of oil. We have not found any evidence to the contrary of those studies.

The reason that we're opposing this amendment is because this amendment would say you cannot begin this pipeline until this study is completed, and our position is we want this study to go forward. We've waited over 40 months to get the approval to build this pipeline. The American people need this pipeline. America needs this additional oil.

If the study comes back and comes up with significant, or any, safety issues, I can assure you that Congress is ready to act to address those. But there's no indication that there will be a problem.

So for that reason, we feel quite confident that this pipeline should be built. We want the study to go forward, but we want the permit to be issued to build it now, as the Department of State recognized in their final environmental statement back in August of 2011.

I would urge the defeat of the Eshoo amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

First of all, I would like to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is a very hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and provides great leadership, that we reluctantly oppose his amendment.

His amendment is very simple, and it is very direct. It simply says the permit will not be issued until the permit applicant certifies and provides adequate documentation that at least 75 percent of the iron and steel used in the construction of the pipeline is produced in North America, which is a goal that many of us have.

I would like to point out a couple of facts here:

Number one, this is a private company that's putting up $7 billion of its own money;

Number two, in order to keep costs down, it has already acquired all of the steel and iron that it is going to use in this pipeline.

Now, some people will say, well, why in the world would it spend over $2 billion buying this material when they didn't have a permit? Well, they filed this permit 40 months ago, and all of the information coming out from the Secretary of State, the Department of State in their final environmental impact statement would indicate that the pipeline was going to be approved. So they bought this material many months ago to try to keep costs down.

And I will tell you, from the information that we have, 74 percent of the pipe was milled here in North America. In fact, it's milled in four different locations. Not all of them are in North America. The steel comes from seven different sources. Some of it from America and some of it not from America. But the reality is that, if we adopted this amendment, the permit would not be issued because the applicant cannot certify that 75 percent comes from America because it bought this material a long time ago. And, I might add, there's not one dime of taxpayer money in this project.

So our feeling is that, the practical aspect is that, if you would basically stop the building of this pipeline, we would lose all those jobs, we would lose all the additional oil that we would be getting, and we believe that there would be more negatives from it than there would be positives.

And one other comment that I would make is that the American Iron and Steel Institute, which represents many of the companies that Mr. Doyle is concerned about, is supporting our legislation. We have the letter that they support this legislation, and they support building the pipeline.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Five of the major labor unions in America support this legislation because they recognize the additional jobs that will be available to them in the construction of the pipeline. So for that reason, reluctantly, I oppose Mr. Doyle's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I might reiterate once again, this is a private company spending $7 billion of their own money. Before any of this ever became an issue, they acquired this material. They spent over $2 billion acquiring this material. Everybody is talking about jobs. One of the reasons they're offering this amendment is because of jobs. Well, there's nothing we can do about the material that's already been acquired. It's already purchased. So all we would do if we pass this amendment is we would make sure that the permit for this pipeline would not be issued. This material, all this $2 billion worth of steel, would be moved to Canada. They would build the pipeline to the west coast and move all of the oil to China, and they would get the construction jobs. So we would end up with no jobs.

I know the gentleman's intentions are the very best, and we all are concerned about the issue, but there are no taxpayer dollars involved in this. It is a private company. They have already acquired this material. This never became an issue until, I suppose, about a month ago, and the material was even acquired at that point.

So I would respectfully request that Members oppose this amendment. Let's build this pipeline and let's help America be less dependent on foreign oil, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the language that we're discussing at this current time is allowing the Keystone pipeline a path forward. It's based on a bill I introduced back in September, which is H.R. 3548. Keep in mind that the President of the United States killed the Keystone pipeline. We think that was kowtowing to the environmental extremists, some of which may be in the House of Representatives, or represented here today. But the reality is that it was a wrong decision. It is in the best interests of our Nation to have the Keystone pipeline bringing oil from Alberta oil sands into the United States, where it can be refined and used in the United States, offsetting imported oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Keystone pipeline would take these supplies from Canada and use them in the United States, creating tens of thousands of jobs over a 2-year to 2\1/2\ year construction phase with permanent jobs thereafter to maintain the pipeline and its hubs along the 1,700-mile pipeline.

Now, as far as the environmental objections to the project are concerned, I wish more people would have read the administration's own final environmental impact study. It found that not building the Keystone XL would lead to more oil being transported by riskier means, such as tankers, trains, and trucks. For this reason, the administration's folks concluded that the building of the pipeline is environmentally preferable to not building the pipeline and that its route was safe. Then the Nebraska Governor requested that, just for a little bit of Nebraska, that they do a 30- or 40-mile loop. The path was set, except for this little loop.

Now, it would take a long time to dispel all the myths that have been perpetuated by the opponents in the environmental community. But it's worth noting that these are intrastate issues well on their way to being resolved and, in fact, were carved out in the previous bill mentioned by the gentleman from California, but the President ignored the Nebraska exemption giving Nebraska time to work through its change of route for about 40 or 50 miles of the 1,700. He never mentioned that and killed the pipeline.

So we give a pathway forward to TransCanada to re-file its permit with all of the environmental documents that it has gathered over the last 3 years, presented to the administration last year, and give time to Nebraska to resolve their issue.

So, politics of the extreme put us in this position. But let's ask, who benefits from this oil coming into the United States from our partner, Canada, and being refined and used in the United States of America? If we have this, everyone benefits in our Nation. If we don't have this pipeline to displace the oil, who wins? Venezuela, which continues to send us 900,000 barrels per day, and Saudi Arabia. Our reliance just grows for these nations' oil supplies. That's who wins, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is one of those myths that we must try to dispel. I guess if you say it enough times, some people will start believing it. But the reality is, why would you build a pipeline 1,700 miles, branching off to several refineries along the way, to our main refineries in Texas and Louisiana, simply to put it on a boat, send it through South America over to China, when they're already discussing, because the President denied this permit and set off a little bit of an international fury, sending a message to the rest of the world that we're going to kowtow to the environmental extremists as our energy policy in the United States, they are now talking about, or have been for some time, of just building a pipeline straight from the Alberta tar sands up here, all the way to Vancouver coast.

Now, let me just read some of the article, since Prime Minister Stephen Harper went to China last week to court them to buy the oil that the United States just rejected when the President denied the Keystone XL permit.

This is from an article from Ottawa.ctv, referring to the Prime Minister:

He also made a subtle dig at environmentalists who helped

block TransCanada's planned Keystone XL pipeline, which would

have carried Canada's oil to refineries in the United States.

``We uphold our responsibility to put the interests of

Canadians ahead of foreign money and influence that seek to

obstruct development in Canada in favor of energy imported

from other, less stable parts of the world,'' he told the

dinner.

By the way, he was referring to Saudi Arabia, Middle East, and Venezuela where we're getting our oil now and will continue to do so unless this Keystone pipeline is built offsetting up to a million barrels per day.

In Bloomberg on February 10, Harper said he is committed to ``profoundly'' diversifying the country's energy exports that will facilitate construction of new infrastructure needed to ship the country's oil to China.

He's not talking about Keystone pipeline. He's talking about the new one along the west to Vancouver.

The article continues:

Canada, which holds the third largest oil reserves, is

seeking to reduce its reliance on the United States after

President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada Corp.'s $7

billion Keystone XL pipeline to ship Canadian oil to the Gulf

Coast.

``We want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our

energy.''

That's why he went to China because obviously it's not the United States.

Oil and Gas Journal states:

Harper's visit was described as an open warning to

Washington after President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone

pipeline.

``It's not a subtle warning. It's an open warning. Harper

has said Keystone was a

wake-up call,'' said Wenran Jiang, an energy expert at the

University of Alberta.

Now, next, Washington Post:

Chinese state-controlled Sinopec has a stake in a proposed

Canadian pipeline to the Pacific Ocean that would

substantially boost Chinese investment in Alberta oil sands.

From today, February 15, Kinder Morgan pipeline--this is from the Houston Business Journal--the chief of Port Metro Vancouver, the city's port authority, said the port would be willing to undertake the dredging and infrastructure work necessary to allow the bigger ships into the port that could carry crude shipped to the coast from Alberta oil sands.

The reality is if you want this oil to go to China, kill the XL pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, and let this one be built in Canada, which Canada is already preparing to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This amendment just defies logic in the sense that the refined product of gasoline is going to be used in the United States. Now, the fallacy of this amendment here is it says all of the refined products. Well, there's stuff that's left over after the process that we can't even use in the United States that's commonly exported today for decades.

We actually don't use all of the diesel, and we trade with Europe to bring in more gasoline.

So what this amendment is trying to do is, A, start a trade war because it violates all trade rules and regulations. But the reality is it's a misnomer. If you really want this oil to go to China and us to have to continue to import from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, then vote ``yes'' on this amendment because evidently you're more concerned about jobs in China than you are in the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

None of us are smiling over the fact that the President killed the pipeline that would have created 20,000 jobs and that would have provided us a newer level of energy security. This amendment, in essence, is a way of killing this pipeline. Let's be clear about this.

The pipeline is 1,700 miles, and through each State this proposed pipeline would pass, the pipeline company would negotiate with the landowners on the proposed routes. So, if you have one person who objects, then he can ostensibly kill the pipeline. In every State, there is a mechanism in its own State laws that resolves any disputes for a right-of-way. We've heard some language here about taking people's property. This is for use of a property and a right-of-way, a small strip of land, okay? So their rights are protected. The States' rights are protected.

What this amendment would do is to strip the States of their rights here, and it would send them off to an unknown area that has no rights to resolve any disputes. They only need one landowner to kill a 1,700- mile project. The gentleman that the gentleman from Chicago mentioned is one of those people. He belongs to BOLD Nebraska, an organization of environmentalists that wants to kill the pipeline.

At this point, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield so I can answer the question?

The answer to that question would be that each State has set up a due process law----

They don't take. * * *