Gulf Coast Restoration Act

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, following last year's BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, one would think that a foundational and critical element of any bill related to offshore deepwater oil drilling would be to improve our safety and environmental safeguards based on the lessons that we learned the hard way from a horrific national tragedy, costing jobs and reducing health and damaging the environment.

While H.R. 1229 does include a provision that states that the Secretary shall not issue a permit without ensuring that the proposed drilling operation meets critical safety system requirements and oil spill response and containment requirements, it fails to make mention of and omits requiring the Secretary to ensure that critical environmental and economic laws are adhered to, a prolific problem leading up to the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Mr. Chairman, for years an ongoing problem in issuing permits for offshore drilling has been the Department of the Interior's failure to follow requirements set out under our Nation's foundational environmental protection laws and fisheries laws. These laws, like the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Act, protect wildlife as well as fisheries and beaches that sustain the gulf's fishing and tourism industries.

In the gulf region, the number of jobs dependent on tourism and fishing is five times the number of jobs related to the oil and gas industry.

While reforms within the Obama administration are moving in the right direction, the fact is that this bill, in its current form, leaves out a major chunk of what should be included in any safety or oversight review that we require of the Secretary, and I'm grateful for the rule for allowing a full discussion and vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, a May 2010 New York Times article, entitled, ``U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits,'' outlines the roots of this problem in detail. The article clearly explains how the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Department of the Interior's drilling permit agency is required to get permits for drilling where it might harm endangered species and marine animals.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is partially responsible for protecting endangered species and marine mammals. It said on repeated occasions that drilling in the gulf does affect these animals. That's simply science. The records show that permits for hundreds of wells, including the BP disaster well itself, were granted without getting the permits required under existing Federal law.

Federal records show that NOAA instructed the minerals agency that continued drilling in the gulf was actually harming wildlife and needed to get permits in compliance with Federal law; but, sadly, those permits were never sought.

With regard to the National Environmental Protection Act, the government has time and time again performed cursory environmental assessments, failed to integrate NEPA analyses with related Federal statutes, and even exempted entire projects from NEPA review, including the Macondo well. In the past, the only way to ensure permits have complied with NEPA has unfortunately been through lawsuits. My amendment would require these assurances from the Secretary before the permit is issued.

[From the New York Times, May 13, 2010]

U.S. Said To Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

(By Ian Urbina)

Washington.--The federal Minerals Management Service gave

permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill

in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits

from another agency that assesses threats to endangered

species--and despite strong warnings from that agency about

the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.

Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the

well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on

April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands of

barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day.

The Minerals Management Service, or M.M.S., also routinely

overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised

concerns about the safety and the environmental impact of

certain drilling proposals in the gulf and in Alaska,

according to a half-dozen current and former agency

scientists.

Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by

agency officials to change the findings of their internal

studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to

occur or if wildlife might be harmed.

Under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal

Protection Act, the Minerals Management Service is required

to get permits to allow drilling where it might harm

endangered species or marine mammals.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or

NOAA, is partly responsible for protecting endangered species

and marine mammals. It has said on repeated occasions that

drilling in the gulf affects these animals, but the minerals

agency since January 2009 has approved at least three huge

lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 drilling

plans. Agency records also show that permission for those

projects and plans was granted without getting the permits

required under federal law.

``M.M.S. has given up any pretense of regulating the

offshore oil industry,'' said Kieran Suckling, director of

the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental

advocacy group in Tucson, which filed notice of intent to sue

the agency over its noncompliance with federal law concerning

endangered species. ``The agency seems to think its mission

is to help the oil industry evade environmental laws.''

Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department,

said her agency had full consultations with NOAA about

endangered species in the gulf. But she declined to respond

to additional questions about whether her agency had obtained

the relevant permits.

Federal records indicate that these consultations ended

with NOAA instructing the minerals agency that continued

drilling in the gulf was harming endangered marine mammals

and that the agency needed to get permits to be in compliance

with federal law.

Responding to the accusations that agency scientists were

being silenced, Ms. Barkoff added, ``Under the previous

administration, there was a pattern of suppressing science in

decisions, and we are working very hard to change the culture

and empower scientists in the Department of the Interior.''

On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans

to reorganize the

minerals agency to improve its regulatory role by separating

safety oversight from the division that collects royalties

from oil and gas companies. But that reorganization is not

likely to have any bearing on how and whether the agency

seeks required permits from other agencies like NOAA.

Criticism of the minerals agency has grown in recent days

as more information has emerged about how it handled drilling

in the gulf.

In a letter from September 2009, obtained by The New York

Times, NOAA accused the minerals agency of a pattern of

understating the likelihood and potential consequences of a

major spill in the gulf and understating the frequency of

spills that have already occurred there.

The letter accuses the agency of highlighting the safety of

offshore oil drilling operations while overlooking more

recent evidence to the contrary. The data used by the agency

to justify its approval of drilling operations in the gulf

play down the fact that spills have been increasing and

understate the ``risks and impacts of accidental spills,''

the letter states. NOAA declined several requests for

comment.

The accusation that the minerals agency has ignored risks

is also being levied by scientists working for the agency.

Managers at the agency have routinely overruled staff

scientists whose findings highlight the environmental risks

of drilling, according to a half-dozen current or former

agency scientists.

The scientists, none of whom wanted to be quoted by name

for fear of reprisals by the agency or by those in the

industry, said they had repeatedly had their scientific

findings changed to indicate no environmental impact or had

their calculations of spill risks downgraded.

``You simply are not allowed to conclude that the drilling

will have an impact,'' said one scientist who has worked for

the minerals agency for more than a decade. ``If you find

the risks of a spill are high or you conclude that a

certain species will be affected, your report gets

disappeared in a desk drawer and they find another

scientist to redo it or they rewrite it for you.''

Another biologist who left the agency in 2005 after more

than five years said that agency officials went out of their

way to accommodate the oil and gas industry.

He said, for example, that seismic activity from drilling

can have a devastating effect on mammals and fish, but that

agency officials rarely enforced the regulations meant to

limit those effects.

He also said the agency routinely ceded to the drilling

companies the responsibility for monitoring species that live

or spawn near the drilling projects.

``What I observed was M.M.S. was trying to undermine the

monitoring and mitigation requirements that would be imposed

on the industry,'' he said.

Aside from allowing BP and other companies to drill in the

gulf without getting the required permits from NOAA, the

minerals agency has also given BP and other drilling

companies in the gulf blanket exemptions from having to

provide environmental impact statements.

Much as BP's drilling plan asserted that there was no

chance of an oil spill, the company also claimed in federal

documents that its drilling would not have any adverse effect

on endangered species.

The gulf is known for its biodiversity. Various endangered

species are found in the area where the Deepwater Horizon was

drilling, including sperm whales, blue whales and fin whales.

In some instances, the minerals agency has indeed sought

and received permits in the gulf to harm certain endangered

species like green and loggerhead sea turtles. But the agency

has not received these permits for endangered species like

the sperm and humpback whales, which are more common in the

areas where drilling occurs and thus are more likely to be

affected.

Tensions between scientists and managers at the agency

erupted in one case last year involving a rig in the gulf

called the BP Atlantis. An agency scientist complained to his

bosses of catastrophic safety and environmental violations.

The scientist said these complaints were ignored, so he took

his concerns to higher officials at the Interior Department.

``The purpose of this letter is to restate in writing our

concern that the BP Atlantis project presently poses a threat

of serious, immediate, potentially irreparable and

catastrophic harm to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and its

marine environment, and to summarize how BP's conduct has

violated federal law and regulations,'' David L. Perry, a

lawyer acting on behalf of Kenneth Abbott, a BP contractor,

wrote in a letter to officials at the Interior Department

that was dated May 27.

The letter added: ``From our conversation on the phone, we

understand that M.M.S. is already aware that undersea

manifolds have been leaking and that major flow lines must

already be replaced. Failure of this critical undersea

equipment has potentially catastrophic environmental

consequences.''

Almost two months before the Deepwater Horizon exploded,

Representative Raul M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, sent a

letter to the agency raising concerns about the BP Atlantis

and questioning its oversight of the rig.

After the disaster, Mr. Salazar said he would delay

granting any new oil drilling permits.

But the minerals agency has issued at least five final

approval permits to new drilling projects in the gulf since

last week, records show.

Despite being shown records indicating otherwise, Ms.

Barkoff said her agency had granted no new permits since Mr.

Salazar made his announcement.

Other agencies besides NOAA have begun criticizing the

minerals agency.

At a public hearing in Louisiana this week, a joint panel

of Coast Guard and Minerals Management Service officials

investigating the explosion grilled minerals agency officials

for allowing the offshore drilling industry to be essentially

``self-certified,'' as Capt. Hung Nguyen of the Coast Guard,

a co-chairman of the investigation, put it.

In addition to the minerals agency and the Coast Guard, the

Deepwater Horizon was overseen by the Marshall Islands, the

``flag of convenience'' under which it was registered.

No one from the Marshall Islands ever inspected the rig.

The nongovernmental organizations that did were paid by the

rig's operator, in this case Transocean.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this underlying legislation's very basic safety review provision simply doesn't address the broad swath of problems that need to be addressed by any serious offshore drilling bill. My amendment is a simple way of ensuring that the many shortcomings are at least considered by the Secretary, as articulated in Federal law, and are discussed during this debate.

Unfortunately, this bill does not take into account the lessons our country learned from the terrible BP Deepwater disaster. In addition to accepting my amendment, I certainly hope that the committee will address these problems with even stronger language in any future work it does on this bill or on the issue of offshore drilling in general with regard to safety and the environment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1229 would impose an artificial and arbitrary 30-day deadline, with up to two 15-day extensions, for a total of 60 maximum days for Interior Department action on drilling permit applications. If at the end of the 30- to 60-day period Interior has not acted by approving or disapproving the permit, the permit is ``deemed'' approved automatically even if the environmental and safety review processes haven't been completed. If the Secretary decides that the agency hasn't had enough time to approve the permit, then his only choice is to deny the permit, undoubtedly leading to additional lawsuits from companies.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation doesn't get to the root of the problem. We all know through the numerous hearings last year that one of the fundamental causes of the BP spill was a lack of not only enough inspectors but a lack of inspectors with high levels of expertise and engineering knowledge. You wouldn't referee a game by doing away with the rules because the referee didn't know them; you'd get a better referee.

If the Department isn't going to be given enough resources and expertise to do the job right and on time, the Department shouldn't be forced to do the job too fast. We should be working to make government more efficient and more effective. My amendment addresses the root of this issue by lifting the arbitrary timeline requirements if the Department isn't given the necessary resources it needs to properly process applications expeditiously. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. Chair, instead of taking this opportunity to correct the fundamental problems underlying the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, this bill simply moves to cut any last semblance of oversight or safeguards our country has placed on the inherently risky process of offshore deepwater oil drilling.

H.R. 1229 would impose an artificial and arbitrary 30-day deadline, with up to two 15-day extensions, for a total of 60 days maximum, for Interior Department action on drilling permit applications. If at the end of that 30- to 60-day period Interior has not acted by approving or disapproving the permit, the permit is ``deemed'' approved automatically even if the environmental and safety reviews have not been completed.

This is the exact wrong legislative response to the BP disaster. Rather than acting to make off-shore drilling safer and smarter, the underlying bill would make drilling faster and more reckless. Under this bill, we could actually have less rigorous oversight and review of offshore drilling than we had before the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

By imposing an artificial and arbitrary deadline, the bill heavily biases the permitting process toward approval, placing undue burdens on reviewers to accelerate the process regardless of safety and environmental concerns.

If the Secretary decides that the agency hasn't had enough time to approve the permit, then his only choice is to deny the permit undoubtedly leading to additional lawsuits from companies and the unrelenting onslaught of industry and Republican criticism. This bill is simply a catch 22 for the Department to either risk another disaster, or open up the Department even more to the vitriolic and false claims from industry and the Majority party of being anti- business or anti domestic energy--not that the facts have kept that misinformation from being spread in the past.

Mr. Chair, this legislation doesn't get to the root of the problem. We all know through the numerous hearings last year that one of the fundamental causes of the BP spill was a lack of not only enough inspectors, but a lack of inspectors with high levels of expertise and engineering knowledge. Prior to the spill, the few inspectors the government did have simply had to take the oil companies' word that everything was in order.

I'm sure we all remember when the big five oil companies were caught pointing the finger of blame squarely at BP in a hearing last year, only to have it disclosed moments later that every one of their spill response documents and other application material was not only identical, but included completely inaccurate information, listing for example walruses as a critical species for the Gulf of Mexico and citing as an emergency contact a professor from Florida Atlantic University, who had long since passed away.

We shouldn't have to take a company's word for it when there is so much at stake. We should ensure that the watchdogs have the tools they need to verify that everything is done properly. This is what my amendment aims to do. Congress shouldn't set an arbitrary timeline if Congress doesn't give the Department enough resources they need to properly do their job within that timeline.

In fact, the recommendations of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon spill contain an entire section on ``The Need for Adequate Funding for Safety Oversight and Environmental Review,'' which lists a number of policy options letting the oil companies, not the American people, foot the bill. Sadly, the underlying legislation includes none of them.

Mr. Chair, you wouldn't referee a game by doing away with the rules because the referee didn't know them; you'd get a better referee.

The fact is that the regulators been grossly underfunded and understaffed in the past. With the Continuing Resolution's partial step toward reversing the ``shameful'' and years-long underfunding of offshore oversight, it was only half of what's needed to do the job right. The Director of the agency that oversees permitting, Michael Bromwich, just last month said: ``That is less than we need, but it is a significant sum, especially in a constrained budget environment where the funding of most other agencies is being cut. We desperately need more environmental scientists and more personnel to do environmental analysis. We desperately need more personnel to help us with the permitting process and much more.''

If the Department isn't going to be given enough resources and expertise to do the job right, then the Department shouldn't be forced to do the job fast. Instead of creating unnecessary catch 22's for government, we should be working to make government more efficient and more effective. My amendment addresses the root of this issue by lifting the arbitrary timeline requirements if the Department isn't given the necessary resources it needs to properly process applications.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, what if I came to the floor today and said I have a new law I want to introduce, and here is what it says: If you stop motorists across America, anywhere across America--for speeding, reckless driving, driving under the influence--you can not only arrest that motorist, you can arrest the child in the backseat. You can tell that child in the backseat, maybe 2 years old or 5 years old, you have to pay a price because your parent broke the law. People would laugh me out of the Senate Chamber. That is not right. That is not the way we handle justice in America. You do not impose a penalty on children because of the wrongdoing of their parents.

Keep that in mind for a moment because I want to tell you a story, a story that goes back 10 years in Chicago, IL, when a Korean-American woman called my office in Chicago and said, I have a problem. Actually, I have a good thing to tell you, she said. My daughter, who is graduating from high school, is an accomplished concert pianist. She has gone through the Merit Music Program in Chicago, a wonderful program that allows kids--not from the wealthy families but kids from families of lower income groups--a chance to own musical instruments or take musical lessons and see if they thrive--and they do; 100 percent of them go to college.

Her daughter was one of them, a concert pianist graduating from high school, and her mom said: She has been accepted at the Julliard School of Music in New York. We cannot believe it. She said: I run a dry cleaner and my daughter is going to the best music school in America, and the Manhattan Conservatory of Music has also accepted her. She sat down and she was filling out the application, and she came to the box which said nationality, citizenship, and she said: USA, right? And her mom said: You know, we brought you here when you were 2 years old, from Korea, and we never filed any papers. So I don't know what to call you at this point, I don't know what your legal status is. Your brother and sister were born here and they are American citizens. The mom said, I am a naturalized citizen but we never filed any paperwork for you. I don't know what to tell you. They called my office. We checked the law. Do you know what the law said? The law said that young girl had to leave the city of Chicago and America for 10 years--10 years--and then apply to come back in. You see, her mother did not file the papers, and at age 2 she became undocumented and illegal.

That is not right. It is no more just than to arrest the child in the backseat for the speeding parent. But it was happening right before our eyes. We started looking at it, and said the only way to deal with this is to change the law, and here is what we said. If you came to the United States as a child under the age of 16--as a child; if you finished high school; and if you had no problems, no significant criminal record--we will give you two chances to become a legal person in America. First chance: Enlist in our military. If you are willing to risk your life for this country, you deserve a chance to be a citizen. Second: Finish at least 2 years of college. Not a lot of kids do that, but if you finish 2 years of college we will give you a chance to be legal. We called it the DREAM Act. For 10 years I have been standing on the Senate floor trying to pass the DREAM Act.

Time and again we have had a majority vote here. The last time I think there were 55, if not 53, Senators. But because it is controversial, someone objected and we needed 60 votes and we failed.

When I first introduced this bill, I would stand up in the Hispanic neighborhoods of Chicago and I would talk about it. A lot of people would listen intently. Then I would leave and go outside to my car to leave and, without fail, usually in the dark of night, there would be a young person standing by my car and that person would say to me: Senator Durbin, I am one of those kids. Can you do something to help me? Can you pass the DREAM Act? Many of them with tears rolling down their cheeks, and they would tell me their stories, how they had no future, no place to go. They couldn't go to college. If they graduated from college, and some of them had, they could not become engineers or doctors or lawyers or what they wanted to be. They were without a country.

Time has changed that approach. These young people no longer stand in tears in the darkness. They filled the galleries last December when we voted on this. They were all over the galleries with caps and gowns like graduates, and signs that said, ``I am a DREAMer.'' They waited and watched, and the bill failed.

It broke my heart, and many of them left in tears. But they are standing up to tell their stories now and some of them are brave enough to stand up and let America know who they are and why they should have a chance. I think they deserve a chance.

Let me tell you right off the bat I have a conflict of interest on this bill. I guess Senators in this time of ethical considerations should confess and make public their conflict of interest. See, my mother was an immigrant to this country. She would have been a DREAMer in her day. She was brought in at the age of 2 from Lithuania 100 years ago. It was only after she was married and had two children that she became a naturalized American citizen. I have a naturalization certificate upstairs in my office. I am very proud of it. She passed on. She saw me sworn into the Senate and passed on a few months after that.

As her son, first-generation American, son of an immigrant, I stand here as a Member of the Senate, a privilege which barely 2,000 Americans have ever had. It says a lot about my family but it says a lot about America that I had my chance; the fact that my mother came here at the age of 2, perhaps under suspicious circumstances, and was given a chance to become an American citizen, raised a family, worked hard, sent her kids to school, and saw one of them actually end up with a full-time government job as a U.S. Senator.

That is why when I hear this debate across America on immigration I wonder who these people are who are talking about how evil and negative it is to have immigrants in our country. I just left an historic ceremony a couple of hours ago. It was at the hall in the new Visitor Center, Emancipation Hall. I could not believe my eyes. It was a special Congressional Gold Medal honoring those Japanese Americans who served in World War II. What astounded me was the number who showed up. These are men who have to be in their eighties and nineties, who came there to be honored with this Congressional Gold Medal, people of Japanese ancestry, whose parents and relatives were often sent to interment camps, and asked for the chance to risk their lives and serve America in World War II and ended up being some of our most heroic warriors.

I looked at that audience and I wondered if some of the critics of immigration would criticize these men and their families, men who had literally risked their lives--some lost their lives--many of whom were seriously injured.

I am honored serving with so many great people in this Senate, but none

more than Danny Inouye, who is in my estimation a true American hero, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service in the 442nd, and a man who still comes and leads the Senate as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Here was a person who was frowned on and even being spit on for being Japanese at a time when Pearl Harbor was still fresh in the minds of many people. But he said: ``Sign me up, hand me a uniform, give me a gun and I will die for this country.'' He risked his life like thousands of others and I am glad this honor was given today. But it is a constant reminder that we are a nation of immigrants, we are a diverse nation, and it is in that diversity we find our strength. We come from so many different corners of the world and we come to America to call it home. These children are in that same position.

When I see the argument being made in Arizona and Alabama, the anti- immigrant argument being made, I am thinking to myself they are ignoring the reality. The reality is the diversity of our Nation is its strength, the fact that we come from so many different places, drawn and driven to this great country for the opportunity it offers. The Arizona law that was passed last year requires police officers to check the immigration status of any individual if they have ``reasonable suspicion'' that he or she may be undocumented. Under this law, any undocumented immigrant can be arrested and charged with a State crime solely on the basis of their immigration status, if they did nothing wrong. It is a crime for a legal immigrant to fail to carry documents proving their legal status at all times in the State of Arizona.

It doesn't sound right to me in this Nation of immigrants. Last year it was Arizona. This year it is Alabama. Arizona Gov. Robert Bentley recently signed H.R. 56, Alabama's immigration law that requires police officers to check immigration status of any individual they suspect is undocumented. Any undocumented immigrant can be arrested and charged with a State crime. Legal immigrants must carry documents proving their legal status at all times.

It is wrong to criminalize people based solely on their immigration status. That is not the way we treat immigrants in our country and that is not the way our criminal justice system should work. It is not right to make criminals of people who go to work each day, cook our food, clean our hotel rooms, and care for our children and parents. It is not right to make criminals of those who worship with us in our churches, synagogues, and mosques, and send their children to school with our own kids.

I think about this and I think about what a blind eye some of the backers of these laws have when they walk into a restaurant in a major city and don't look up and notice who is cooking, who is cleaning the dishes, who is taking care of their parents at the nursing homes, who cut the grass at the golf course. Many of these people are undocumented. We know it but we are not calling for them to leave. They are serving us, right? No, with these laws we are condemning those in similar status.

Here is the reality. Criminalizing immigrants will not help combat illegal immigration. Law enforcement does not have the time or resources to become the immigration office of America. That is why the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the Arizona law. It makes it more difficult for them to keep people safe--not easier, more difficult. Immigrants will be much less likely to cooperate with police who can arrest them on the spot.

Alabama's law goes even further. Most contracts with undocumented immigrants are declared null and void, including, for example, rental agreements and child support agreements. Schools have to check the immigration status of every student and parent and report that information to the State. Schools are authorized to report students and parents they believe to be undocumented to the Federal Government.

I am concerned about the use of our schools in enforcing immigration laws. The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is constitutional to provide elementary education to children and not discriminate based on their immigration status. The Education Department of our Federal Government has warned States, including Alabama, not to use education as a device to exclude those students who are otherwise eligible to be taught.

It is good to tell these stories. It is good to speak to these issues. But what I found over the years--and I am sorry it has been years; I wish we had passed this long ago--the best way to tell the story of the DREAM Act is to tell the story of the DREAMers. Let me tell you a couple at this moment.

The first is about Amanda Uruchurtu. Here is Amanda. She is a pretty young woman. She was brought to the United States at the age of 10. She lives in Tuscaloosa, AL. When Amanda first arrived here she did not speak a word of English. She sent me a letter about what it was like, and here is what she said:

I remember how frustrating it was in school because I had

no clue what was going on, but I told myself that all the

frustration and fear should be blocked and I should

concentrate on learning English. . . . Some made fun of the

way I talked but that helped because it made me work even

harder and try to assimilate even more. Little by little I

worked with my accent to the point that it was hardly

noticeable.

There is Amanda. When she started high school she decided she knew what she wanted to do with her life. She wanted to serve in the U.S. military. She was No. 5 in her high school class. She was a member of the National Honor Society and, listen to this, she received the Daughters of the American Revolution award at her high school. Amanda overcame great obstacles and wants to be part of America's future.

She asked, when she wrote to me, if I would tell her story and let those who hear it know that Amanda wants to serve in the U.S. military, but under our law she cannot. She is undocumented. If the DREAM Act passed she would have her chance.

Here is another story, another lovely young lady, Karla Contreras, brought to the United States at the age of 3. Today Karla is 16. She lives in Pelham, AL. She is a sophomore in high school.

She is a leader in the Alabama Dreamers for the Future, an organization of students of similar status, in her State. Her dream? To become an attorney. Her family's considering moving to Washington State because of this new Alabama law, this anti-immigrant law. Here is what Karla wrote to me:

I have never really lived anywhere besides Alabama. I have

been here practically all my life. Alabama is my home.

Karla sent me a powerful essay about the Alabama immigration law. She said:

All that people want is a better future, a job to maintain

them in an average way, a place they can call home with no

fear of being kidnapped by a drug dealer, a place where they

are not afraid to walk out to their yard. It is so hard for

me to see how these things could be a crime in anyone's eye.

This law is putting children in fear for their parents. Now

tell me who on earth would want to purposely frighten a

child.

In 1982, Texas passed a law that allowed elementary schools to refuse entrance to undocumented children. The Supreme Court of the United States of America struck down that law. As a result, millions of children have received an education and millions have become citizens. They are doctors, soldiers, policemen, lawyers, engineers, and businesspeople who make America a better nation. Imagine what would have happened if the Texas law had been allowed to stand. Incidentally, that is exactly what Alabama wants today. Alabama should know--every State should know--that no State is above the law. No State is above the findings of our Supreme Court.

The American people have a right to be frustrated. Congress has repeatedly failed to fix our broken immigration system. The casualties--many are young DREAMers whom I talked about today, and many have been around many years and still live in the shadows and live in fear every single day. We are a better nation than that. We are a nation of immigrants, a nation of justice, and a nation that can find its way to give an opportunity to young people who have attended school every day, stood, put their hand over their heart, and pledged allegiance to the only flag they have ever known. They are asking for a chance to be part of the future of America.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help me pass the DREAM Act.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Although well intended, this amendment is duplicative and would add delays to the permitting process and production of American-made energy. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior as overseers of permitting in the gulf to ensure safe and environmentally responsible drilling in the gulf.

Since the spill last year, the Department of the Interior has made extensive changes to permitting requirements for offshore operations. Every drilling permit is required to go through multiple environmental reviews before the application can be approved. This begins with an initial programmatic environmental impact statement and is followed by a lease sale-specific environmental impact statement and continues with additional environmental reviews as drilling activities move forward.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the department already must comply with numerous environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive orders. These regulations include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. And I may have left some out. This demonstrates the redundancy in this amendment and why it is not necessary.

Administration officials and even Director Bromwich have stated on numerous occasions to both the Natural Resources Committee and the American people that they would not permit operations if they did not believe they meet all the requirements to be conducted safely, efficiently, and in an environmentally responsible manner. The Interior Department already complies with these particular environmental regulations when approving permits. And the fact that the Department is permitting operations, although at a slower pace than I would like to see, demonstrates that they have confidence in the regulations that the agency has set for offshore drilling operations. The real effect of this amendment, whether intended or not, is more delays to offshore energy production and more lengthy and burdensome lawsuits.

So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do oppose this amendment. Although well intended, the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act itself makes drilling already safer by requiring that the Secretary ensure that any proposed drilling operation be subject to a safety review--it's there in the bill already--and that it meet established critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements, and this has to be done before the issuance of a permit.

The decision to approve individual permit applications is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. I don't believe it should be farmed out to other organizations that may or may not have the background, the expertise, or the resources to evaluate drilling permits.

In fiscal year 2011, House Republicans voted to increase funding for the Department of the Interior in order to ensure that they have the resources to safely, responsibly, and effectively approve permits.

The Interior Department has a responsibility, as it drafts legislation, to solicit public comment; and they do take advice and counsel from all Americans, including those with expertise in these areas. However, once the standards are set, it is the responsibility of the government to enforce the standards.

Oversight is the Federal Government's responsibility, and it should not be delegated to outside organizations. Whether intended or not, this amendment would slow down and make more complicated the already lengthy and involved permitting process. So I urge opposition to this amendment, and urge opponents to vote ``no'' on it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there is a public comment period that is available right now, and that is a proper and appropriate forum for an outside group to make the kind of standards- related comments that would be possibly helpful.

But when it comes to actually issuing the permit, that is something that should be delegated to the Federal Government. They do have the resources. In fact, they have expanded resources to do a better job of that, hopefully, in the future.

So, for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment was already rejected by a bipartisan vote of the full Natural Resources Committee and, once again, I urge opposition to it. This amendment micromanages and dictates specific safety and blowout preventer standards for permit applications. Many of these standards would do little or nothing different than what is already being done by the Department of the Interior.

However, these restrictions would, if this amendment passes, be etched into law, making Congress the technical arbiter and micromanager of Outer Continental Shelf regulations, and reducing the flexibility and ability of the Department to adapt to new technology and new development in drilling safety. So if we're lagging behind developments in the industry, this would actually prevent us, or could prevent us, from adopting those new and better standards in the future.

The technical standards proposed in this amendment have not been subject to a thorough review or understanding of the impacts of such changes. This is particularly troubling when you consider that this language was written before we even knew why the blowout preventer failed.

H.R. 1229 already takes steps to increase the safety of offshore drilling by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review to ensure that the proposed drilling operations meet ``critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements.'' That language is lifted straight out of the bill.

So my colleagues on the other side are acting as if nothing has changed and no safety reforms have been made. By doing so, they are ignoring the facts on the ground and the actions of their own party's administration. I'm not willing to indict the administration and say that they have done nothing in this regard.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying that the experts that we should rely on are those that are in the Department of the Interior, Director Michael Bromwich with BOEMRE and all the way down, who have been working on this for the last year. They have extensive regulations. Some of what is proposed are actually regulations right now.

And while the bill does call for certain safety standards to be satisfied and met, we have delegated the responsibility for the exact language and implementation of those regulations to those who deal with this 8 hours a day, day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out. So there is a balance. We give the broad parameters. They carry out, as a regulatory agency, every last final detail.

And Congress, as has been admitted, does not have the technical expertise to foresee every single development and foresee every single problem that could arise. So while overseeing, we have to do some delegation. This bill does that. We strike that fine balance.

And the administration's department has been doing a strong job of strengthening the safety requirements. I do take issue with the pace of their permitting. But as far as the safety implementation, they have put very aggressive safety measures into place.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do oppose this amendment because it is duplicative and unnecessary. This amendment attempts to expand upon the language in the bill that already mandates that the Secretary conduct a safety review to affirm oil spill response and containment capability prior to issuing a permit. We believe that the Department of the Interior already requires that applicants must calculate worst-case discharge before approving a permit.

On June 18 of last year, the Department issued a notice to lessees outlining the information requirements and standards to be met before a permit could be approved. In the notice it is required that a lessee ``describe the assumption and calculations that you used to determine the volume of your worst-case discharge scenario.''

This exact language, this exact intention has already been addressed, so I would oppose this amendment as redundant and unnecessary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee who has a district in the State of Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, so at this point I am going to wait and close as soon as the gentlelady is done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying that this amendment, though well intended, is duplicative; and I think that has been admitted by the other side and therefore is unnecessary.

I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The legislation on the floor today is designed to put Americans in the gulf region back to work and to ensure that permits are processed in a timely fashion and that bureaucratic delays are not hampering the Nation's energy production. There are critics of the timeline that is proposed in this bill on both sides of that timeline. Some say it's too short. Others say it is too long. It's important that people understand that nowhere in this bill do we require the administration to do anything but reach a decision, whatever that decision might be. They may deny an application at any time in the process as long as they provide a clear description of why they are doing so.

Prior to the incident in the gulf, the administration was very capable of processing permits in 5 to 15 days on average. The 30-day timeline in the bill is significantly longer, and allows the administration extensions. In the end, the administration must reach a decision. The provision this amendment proposes to remove is the final deadline that the administration must meet and one that should be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that no de facto moratorium or permitorium is instituted.

This amendment, if adopted, would simply further delay offshore energy production. It would continue to allow the Department to arbitrarily impose a de facto drilling moratorium that could cost thousands of jobs and allow higher prices on energy with less supply.

I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to apologize. I was confused as to whether the gentleman was asking a rhetorical question or really wanted to have a colloquy. By the time I figured that out, he had moved on to the remainder of his argument. I would have been happy to and hopefully in the future I could have a colloquy on that with him.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

I will conclude by saying that what this bill wants to accomplish is that the administration must reach a decision on whether a permit should be issued. This amendment proposes to remove the final deadline that the administration would have to meet and one that should be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that no de facto moratorium is instituted.

This amendment would simply further delay offshore energy production. That does not help jobs. It does not help the supply or cost of energy in this country. It would allow the Department to arbitrarily impose a de facto drilling moratorium that would cost thousands of jobs.

I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will do my best to be brief.

The purpose of H.R. 1229 is to get residents of the gulf back to work in producing offshore energy. It is not only good for them; it is good for the entire country.

This amendment, whether intended or not, would allow the administration to continue to impose a de facto moratorium that would delay American energy production and keep thousands of people out of work. The residents of the gulf are simply in a holding pattern, waiting for their jobs to come back. Some of them are even seeing their jobs outsourced to other countries as rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico, bound for other parts of the world.

Now, there is an established process for the administration to propose and advocate for funding and resources, which is different from what this amendment addresses. This annual process, the budget process, provides ample opportunity for considering what is needed to safely and responsibly oversee offshore energy production. Let us note that the House Republican majority, in enacting a budget, acted to increase funding for reviewing and approving offshore permits for the current year, which was not done by the Democratic Congress last year.

This amendment would delay American energy production. For that reason, I oppose it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

The amendment that I propose is a very simple and a commonsense amendment. First of all, let us recall where we come from.

Title 43, section 1340, entitled ``Geological and Geophysical Explorations,'' is what is the subject of H.R. 1229; specifically, subsection D, entitled ``Drilling Permits.''

Under that subsection, it states: The Secretary may, by regulation, require any lessee operating under an approved exploration plan to obtain a permit to drilling any well in accordance with such plan.

What the amendments are proposing here today and what my amendment addresses is what is set forth at page 4. And I propose that it amends after line 6 and includes a subsection 3, which addresses the worst- case discharge scenario certification. This amendment requires: The Secretary shall not issue a permit under paragraph 1 without certifying that the applicant, first, has calculated a worst-case discharge scenario for the proposed drilling operations; and, B, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the applicant possesses the capability and technology to respond immediately and effectively to such worst-case discharge scenario.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking here to the people, the people across this Nation and in the world who watched the worst-case scenario, what happened in the BP oil spill. What we are simply saying is that before any permit is issued, that the Secretary take the precaution of, first, having assessed what that worst-case scenario could be; and, second, that applicant who is seeking this permit has both the capability and technology, and has demonstrated as such, to address that worst-case scenario.

Mr. Chairman, it is a simple statement and it is a requirement that the people would like to see. No one wants to sit there and experience a BP oil spill again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, if this amendment is duplicative, it should not be an issue, because what it does do is it contains the language that the people want to hear. The people want to hear, What is the worst case scenario? I also contend that it really does not do that. It is not duplicative.

What is contained in the bill is the statement of critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and contamination requirements. It does not say ``the worst case scenario'' and it does not require the applicant to show, to show the Secretary that it has the capability and the technological ability to address that. So it is not duplicative.

But to the extent that the opposer would like to say that it is duplicative, then I believe that they should not object to this because, after all, it does say what people want to hear. People want to be guaranteed that the BP oil spill does not happen again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the Chair as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, I am sure that the gentleman from Louisiana has no intentions of saying that anyone who may want an amendment to this bill is somehow hostile or somehow anti-jobs, anti-energy security and anti- environment, because that is not the intent.

This bill has been labeled Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act. We have no objection to that, Mr. Chair. But why can't it also say Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act Safely? That is all that is being requested here.

Let's look at what happened at the BP oil spill. Let's just make sure it doesn't happen again. Another spill like that, by taking these precautions, can be avoided, and by doing that, by doing that, we will not be faced with a situation where someone from that district would say we are hostile because we are not encouraging jobs or not encouraging energy security or not encouraging the environment. This is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to do all of these, and it has a ripple effect throughout the Nation.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chair, I request an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. It is a very straightforward, commonsense amendment. It addresses what the people want to hear and want to know, that we are ready to address the worst-case scenario, and the Secretary will not issue a permit until it is addressed, it is not only identified, but that the applicant has both the technological skills plus the capabilities to do it and prevent such a spill.

We are all interested in the jobs and the economic security of the gulf and all the neighboring States in that area, plus its ripple effect. That is why we want to see that it never happens again, and that is why we want the people, the people, to be confident that we in Congress have addressed their concerns.

I request an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chair.

H.R. 1229 includes language that would add a timeline to the permitting process for offshore oil and gas drilling. This provision states that, ``If the Secretary has not made a decision on the application by the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date the application is received by the Secretary, the

application is deemed approved.'' My amendment would simply strike this section. In other words, as it stands in the legislation before us, if for whatever reason--incomplete information, new information--the Secretary has not made a decision whether or not to approve the application, then the application will be considered from then on approved.

There are a number of provisions in this bill that could make offshore drilling less safe. My amendment is aimed at perhaps the most dangerous of those provisions. This bill short-circuits existing requirements to protect oil industry workers and those who depend on marine resources for their livelihoods and so forth. Ensuring that environmental and safety standards are met--so that the new permits will not result in a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon disaster--is really too important to allow permits to go through the door prematurely and automatically simply because of an arbitrary timeline imposed by this legislation.

Depending on the dedication of a particular Secretary to safety and environmental protection, H.R. 1229 would produce either precipitous automatic approval of an application to drill or unjustified rejection of a valid application if the review is not completed within the allotted time. Either way, the imposition of an arbitrary deadline is bad policy. It's based on a presumption that environmental and safety reviews are worthless and that there is really no value in getting the review right.

My amendment would leave in place the permitting timeline set in H.R. 1229, creating the sense of urgency my colleagues are seeking. But it would remove the automatic approval of drilling applications after that 60-day timeline. If we've learned anything from the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it is that we must do more--not less--to protect those who work in the oil industry and those who depend on offshore resources and onshore resources for their livelihood.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask the Chair the time remaining?

Mr. Chair, my friend from Colorado talked about the harm that this bill would do and why it's important that the application be approved even if the review is not complete, even if the review is not yet done right. I wonder if the gentleman from Colorado thinks that maybe a student should graduate even if he hasn't taken the exam because the semester is coming to an end. Well, time's up. I guess we should just declare the student duly passed--even if the review hasn't been done.

That's a question. If the gentleman feels that a student should be deemed passed because the semester is coming to an end, even if the review of that student's work has not been completed. I would yield to the gentleman if he cares to answer that. If not, I will continue.

This legislation might make sense if we thought there was some economic need for it, if we thought that there was some safety need for it, if we thought it was important to grease the skids and move through the environmental review quickly. But none of those things apply. This will not bring down prices. Certainly, release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do more for prices at the pump than this. This won't make a bit of difference in the price at the pump, this legislation. It certainly won't help support an important but troubled industry. Actually, this industry is not troubled. This industry is going to take home about $100 billion dollars in profits this year. We don't need to grease the skids and make things easier for this industry because getting the review right would subject them to undue hardship. No. In fact, this is a very dangerous provision in a bill that is part of the set of ``Amnesia Acts.'' The bill is part of these three bills that pretend that there are no lessons to be learned from 2010; the bill that pretends the gulf oil blowout never occurred; that wills amnesia on the policy of the United States so that we forget that the worst oil spill in history from which there are real lessons to be learned never occurred.

I urge passage of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.