Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4480) to provide for the development of a plan to increase oil and gas exploration, development, and production under oil and gas leases of Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Defense in response to a drawdown of petroleum reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

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

My colleagues, the short title of this bill, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, spells out the word D-E-J-A. But what we're seeing here is not just deja vu, the feeling that we've seen all these Big Oil giveaways before. No, this bill is a deja preview, a look ahead into what the Romney administration would do if elected and had a GOP House and Senate to fully implement the oil companies' legislative agenda and block all efforts to help clean energy.

There's been a lot of discussion of the DREAM Act recently, but the bill we have before us today is really the Big Oil dream act. This package represents everything Big Oil could ever possibly dream up to drill on our public lands and roll back public health protections.

As the world gathers in Rio de Janeiro right now to try to head off catastrophic global warming from the burning of fossil fuels, here we are in the House of Representatives looking for ways to give more benefits to fossil fuel industries.

And as America's wind and solar companies look to hire more American workers, here we are in the GOP-controlled House, where the Republican leadership refused to make my amendment in order to establish national goals for wind and solar, clean energy and energy efficiency. They won't even allow that debate to take place on the floor of the House of Representatives during what they say is the big energy debate for America. Can you imagine, it's 2012, we are having a big energy debate, big, big debate on the energy future of our country, and the words ``wind'' and ``solar'' are not going to be permitted by the Republicans to be out here on the House floor and being debated. And by the way, did I throw in biomass? Did I throw in geothermal? Did I throw in energy efficiency? They won't allow the words to be spoken. There's a gag order here, a big gag order by the Republicans. No debating that.

And then they have the temerity to call it an all-of-the-above bill. Oh, a comprehensive energy plan without wind, without solar, without geothermal, without biomass, without plug-in hybrids or energy efficiency debated out here because they have a gag order. They prohibit any debating of those issues on the House floor. And yet here they are, saying it's an all-of-the-above energy bill.

Great. Great. So fair. Fair and square. A real debate. Let all the Members decide what our energy future looks like.

But before the end of this year, the Republicans are allowing all of the tax breaks for the wind industry to expire. And what are they doing? They are actually going to continue the $4 billion a year that ExxonMobil and Chevron get. That's fair, huh? A gag order on even mentioning wind and solar out here as part of an amendment, a debate, $4 billion for the oil industry. And by the way, let's take a look at what's going on in oil production in the United States.

Oh, by the way, did you hear the news? It's now at an 18-year high. Obama, drill, baby, drill. Obama, what a great job. An 18-year high under Barack Obama, way better than George Bush. Way better. You have to go back to almost a time when a kid who's graduating from high school has no memory of. It's 18 years ago the last time there was this much oil drilling in the United States--Federal, State, private lands.

But if you listen to the Republicans, they're saying there's not enough breaks for ExxonMobil. No, no, no, we have to give them more. This poor, beleaguered company, and all of the other oil companies of the same size, they have been beleaguered as they are now at an 18-year peak in oil production in the United States. And you know who's beating them up--wind and solar, geothermal, biomass, plug-in hybrids. Very scary things to the Republican. So scary that because they control the Speakership, because they control the Rules Committee, we're not allowed to debate wind and solar. They're prohibiting it today. An absolute, all-out prohibition this week on the discussion of wind and solar. Huh?

When I asked to have an amendment be put in place that we could debate whether or not we had a national renewable electricity standard for the whole country, setting goals for what our country should have for wind and solar by the year 2020, you know what they said: No, we're gagging you. You can't have that debate out on the House floor. You can't even raise the words ``wind'' and ``solar.''

Yet they're going to keep coming out here saying we're for all of the above. All of the above that Exxon and Shell and BP want. Right on their list. And do you know where wind and solar are on the BP and ExxonMobil list? Oh, they just forgot to put it on their list. And that's what we get to debate out here, and it's going to be called an all-of-the-above energy future.

Well, let me tell you something--the American people deserve a lot better. They really do have a real sense that America has to be the leader in these new energy technologies. And President Obama has done his best or else we would not be at an 18-year high.

By the way, there are more oil rigs drilling in the United States for oil today--are you ready for this--than all of the other countries in the world combined. Barack Obama, drill, baby, drill. You are really doing the job. More oil rigs right here in the United States right now drilling than all the rest of the world combined.

But you're going to listen to these Republicans talk as though somehow or other, although ExxonMobil and BP and Shell are reporting the largest profits of any corporation in the history of the world, that they are being discriminated against.

What do ExxonMobil and BP expect? They expect there to be a gag applied out here on the floor so we cannot debate wind and solar, we cannot debate biomass and geothermal, we cannot debate energy efficiency. And yet we're supposed to sit over here in silence and listen to them say that they have an all-of-the-above energy strategy when we all know their entire strategy is oil above all--as a matter in fact, to exclude all else, exclude it, can't even debate it. They actually passed a rule here last night prohibiting us from debating wind and solar, from debating the future, from unleashing this technological revolution.

And why is that the case? I'll tell you why it's the case. Because in the last 5

years there have been 45,000 new megawatts of wind installed here in the United States. In this year, there will be 4,000 new megawatts of solar installed in the United States. Do you know who hates that? ExxonMobil hates that. Shell, BP, they hate it. Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, they hate it. They see this new clean energy future unfolding.

Out here on the floor of the House, as we debate the big energy bill here of 2012, I'm prohibited, as the senior Democrat, from bringing out an amendment that talks about wind and solar, that talks about geothermal and biomass, that talks about energy efficiency. I'm not allowed to bring it out here. So this is not an auspicious day for the United States Congress.

If there were any kernel of truth about Obama and his incredible work here, lifting us to an 18-year high in total oil production in the United States--by the way, since Bush left, since he left, we have dropped from being 57 percent dependent upon imported oil down to 45 percent dependent upon imported oil. Did Bush do that? No. Did Bush's father do that? No. Barack Obama did that, ladies and gentlemen. And what Barack Obama is saying, in addition to the dramatic decline in the amount of oil that we import from the Middle East, I would also like to add wind and solar and geothermal and biomass and energy efficiency. And they're saying, oh, no, it's already going too fast. This dependence thing is already happening much too fast for us.

And, by the way, this revolution in wind and solar and geothermal, people might start driving cars that are all electric and dependent upon wind and solar to give them the electricity so they don't even have to go into a gas station.

Do you know what they're really afraid of? They're afraid that what is going to happen to them is what happened to the typewriter, that in 20 years we went from everyone using a typewriter to everyone using a computer. People have to look into a history book to now find what a typewriter looks like. It only took 20 years. They can see this wind and solar revolution happening so fast that they're afraid that in 2030 a kid won't even know how to fill up a car with gasoline because they'll be plugging in the car at home with solar and wind-generated electricity. That's what they're most afraid of.

That's what this debate is really all about and that's why there's a gag on the Democrats, why we're not allowed to talk about wind and solar and geothermal and biomass and energy efficiency. Oh, I'm sorry, we're allowed to talk about it, we're just not allowed to have an amendment out here on the floor. We're just not allowed to put everyone on record as to where they stand on those issues. We're just not allowed to do that. You cannot have an amendment out here on the floor.

So this is the full extent of our ability to help those industries, those competitive industries, those Microsofts and Googles and eBays and Hulus and YouTubes of the energy industry get out there and reinvent the way in which we generate electricity here in our country. That's what this debate is really all about.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

I yield myself 1 minute.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

Yes, what the Republicans are saying is, in their bill, that they want a study for 4 years of wind and solar. A study?

Well, maybe they should study the fact that it's very sunny in Florida. It's very windy out in the Midwest and, as a matter of fact, so sunny and so windy that there have been 45,000 megawatts of wind installed over the last 6 years in the United States, that there's going to be 4,000 new megawatts of solar installed in the United States just this year.

So maybe the Republicans should study the studies that are already out there, and maybe they could actually look over and ask the coal industry what they're thinking as they've dropped from 51 percent of all electrical generation down to 36 percent of all electrical generation in the last 5 years.

Maybe they're looking at the wind industry. Maybe they're looking at the solar industry. Maybe you could call them. But you don't have to wait 4 years, because all you want to do is study it. What we want to do is give the incentive for the wind and solar industry to continue their revolution.

I yield 5 minutes, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Would the Chair tell me how much time is remaining.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Again, I ask how much time is remaining on both sides.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

May I ask again, Mr. Chairman, that we review where the majority and minority are in terms of time remaining in debate?

I will yield myself 1 minute at this time.

I would just like to review, once again, the Republican ``all-of-the- above'' plan: One, light, sweet crude oil. Two, sour, high sulfur oil. Three, heavy oil. Four, tar sands oil. Five, oil shale. And oh, just to mix it up, a little natural gas. What they forgot was, of course, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. And they won't even allow us to have an amendment out here on the floor in order to have a debate over it.

But that ``oil above all'' agenda you have, it is very comprehensive, and I give you credit for figuring out every single way that we can help all the oil companies in the United States at the expense of all the renewable energy industries.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield myself 2 minutes.

You know, I hate giving all the bad news to the Republicans. But I'll give you some more bad news. You hate to hear it, but I will give it to you anyway.

In 2011, in terms of new electrical generation in the United States, 33 percent came from natural gas, 29 percent from wind, 20 percent from coal, and 8 percent from solar. Got that again? Wind and solar were about 37 percent of all new electrical generating capacity in the United States in the year 2011. But you guys want to study it. You want to have more information about this technology.

And by the way, in that study, you should also throw a few other things--a single device from which you can talk to your family, send emails, and watch videos. That's a concept some people have. You might want to study that as well. Oh, no, we already have that.

Sending a man to the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. Oh, I guess that's something else we already did. How about studying the possibility of mapping the entire human genome so we can have an idea of what material humanity is made out of, to kind of break a breakthrough. Oh, I think we've already done that. And there may be many other things that we can throw into that solar and wind study that we also don't need to have studied that you can also throw in there as part of your technological and scientific phobia that refuses to have you admit that things are already happening.

And by the way, something else you are refusing to admit that happened--during Bush's term as President, the production of oil went down, down, down, down from 2001 2008. Do you know what happened once Obama took over? Up, up, up, up. So much oil drilling, in fact, that all the rigs in the world combined are not matching what Obama has done in terms of total oil rigs out there. And we are now at an 18-year high in oil.

Maybe you should study this. Maybe this is hard for you to understand. I've heard all the Members out here saying that there is a jihad against oil being waged by the Obama administration. It just doesn't match any of the evidence.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me just say that I know it's not anything that has been observed by the Republicans. But the price of gasoline has dropped for the last 11 weeks in a row, ever since the President threatened to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because it was never about supply and demand. It was always about fear and greed. It was what Wall Street was doing and manipulating the price of oil and the commodities futures of the marketplace. It was about the fear that people had about a war in Iran breaking out.

But what's the response from the Republicans? Well, they have a brilliant amendment inside of their bill. What they say here is that if, God forbid, the Ayatollah ever attacked the United States, a Middle Eastern war ever broke out, and the President deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 10 million barrels worth of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, you know what their bill says? That we, the Federal Government--if the Republican bill passes today--would then have to sell to ExxonMobil and the other Big Oil companies 200 million acres of Federal lands for ExxonMobil and the other Big Oil companies to drill on.

Understand that? That the Ayatollah attacks us, there's a war in the Middle East, and who do we have to pay the ransom to? To the Big Oil companies of the United States, if we deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Now how nonsensical is that? That is an absolutely crazy idea, that the oil companies become the beneficiaries of a Middle Eastern conflict. They get the public lands of the United States, 200 million acres that we have to sell them simultaneously. It's almost a trigger that occurs inside of their legislation. That's how meshuggah this all is.

This is an absolutely crazy set of concepts, where we can't have an

amendment on wind and solar, geothermal, biomass, plug-in hybrids, all new technologies and efficiency that back out the need for all this oil to ever come in in the first place. And as a penalty, the country will use this Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a weapon of our national security against OPEC, that if the President uses it, we have to sell 200 million acres of American land to the oil companies so that they can even drill for bargain basement prices here in the country.

This bill is absolutely the wrong recipe for our country as we head into the 21st century. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, when manager's amendments making technical changes to legislation are presented, such amendments are accepted and we move on to amendments making substantive changes to the bill. In this instance, however, among the technical changes made by this manager's amendment is a controversial provision flatly overturning an EPA ruling in Alaska. This change should not be made at all, but it certainly should not be made as part of a manager's amendment.

As part of the review process for beginning energy production in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the EPA designated the Colville River, the largest Arctic river in Alaska, as an Aquatic Resource of National Importance. To be clear, this designation did not stop the proposed project. ConocoPhillips has already received approval to build a gravel road, including a bridge over the Colville to access their oil field. The National Importance designation simply required a heightened level of review before the project moved forward. For Congress to overturn this EPA finding through a provision buried in what is supposed to be a technical manager's amendment is not appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I doubt a single Member of this House has an informed opinion regarding whether the Colville River is an Aquatic Resource of National Importance. But I will tell you who does have an informed position on that question, and that is the scientists in Alaska working for the Environmental Protection Agency.

This provision is an ill-informed sneak attack on an agency decision, and for the purposes of this debate, it has no place in a manager's amendment. It should be a stand-alone amendment that we're debating. Because of the inappropriateness of it being inside of the manager's amendment, I would have to oppose this provision.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time just to say that I don't have a problem in debating this issue, but I just think it should be done in an appropriate way. It is an important issue. It overturns an EPA decision of some significance and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4480, the so-called Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, what is really a death and destruction act, an act that will directly lead to the death of American citizens from various health-related causes-- including cancer--and destruction. It is the destruction of not only our environment, but of our quality of life, including our quality of life in my home State of Colorado that is such an important part of driving our economy forward and creating jobs.

Here we are where several controversial, highly partisan bills have been packaged together. There are seven bills. While there is an attempt to dress this up as a jobs package, it's really a wish list for the oil industry that has no chance of becoming law. It's a huge giveaway to the oil industry at the expense of the health of American families, the health of our environment, and our enjoyment and recreational opportunities and economic opportunities on public lands.

Instead of allowing improvements to this drastic death and destruction bill, the House majority has blocked many amendments offered by Republicans and Democrats alike. Under this restrictive rule, commonsense amendments were blocked, including an amendment I offered that would have directed a study on the impacts of oil shale development on agricultural and municipal water usage. My colleague from California, Representative Napolitano, offered a similar amendment in committee.

Those of us in the West, where farmers, ranchers, and community leaders consistently keep us abreast of water issues--and water is our most precious resource--know that we need some commonsense and objective data with regard to how energy production impacts resources, particularly our most precious resource: water.

What lies at the heart of this death and destruction bill today is simply a false premise. It's the false premise that somehow the United States is failing to make good on its natural energy resources.

The fact is, as a result of President Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy, our Nation's dependence on foreign oil has fallen drastically, and crude oil production in the United States is at an 8- year high. President Obama has increased production of crude oil substantially over the Bush administration lows. The President's policies are demonstrating that we can have an approach to energy in the United States that boosts oil and gas

production and invests in the next generation of cleaner, job-creating, renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar, and geothermal.

In contrast to the President's all-of-the-above approach, which will lead to reductions in gas prices and a sustainable energy future for our country, this death and destruction bill before us today is an oil- above-all approach. This death and destruction bill hands public lands that we all value over to the oil and gas industry and undermines the laws and rules that have made our air and water cleaner and safer over the past 40 years.

One of the scariest provisions in this package would gut important health-based standards provided for in the Clean Air Act established on a bipartisan basis in 1970. The Clean Air Act-based standards are especially important for protecting children, the elderly, and others who are susceptible to harmful air pollution.

Many nonpartisan public health and medical organizations have recognized that this bill would override clean air standards that have protected American people and families from harmful pollution in the past 40 years. That is why on this bill, which the majority purports deals with energy, we've heard from pediatricians, we've heard from doctors, we've heard from health care providers that this would lead to death, as well as the destruction of jobs, as well as the destruction of our environment and recreational opportunities.

Another controversial partisan provision in this bill would open up vast quantities of public lands to drilling. The bill sets an arbitrary requirement on the Department of the Interior to offer oil companies at least 25 percent of onshore areas that industry nominates each year. Let me say that again. The Department of the Interior wants to open up more lands to industry, even though oil and gas companies hold more than 25 million acres of public lands on shore where they're not producing oil and gas. In addition, these companies are sitting on 6,700 drilling permits that have been approved that they are not using. They need to explore lands where they already hold energy leases.

This is not a sensible energy policy. It's called an old-fashioned land grab and an old-fashioned water grab. They're coming after our land in the West, and they're coming after our water in the West. We're not going to take it sitting down.

Another extreme provision is that this bill would overturn the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to elevate energy production above other public land uses. My constituents in Colorado are tremendously concerned that somehow oil production would trump job- creating activities, including hunting, fishing, recreation, grazing, conservation, mainstays of jobs and the economy in my district that would be overridden in the name of oil, which would destroy jobs and destroy the health of Colorado families and families across the United States.

Another provision in this bill turns the review of applications to drill into nothing more than a rubber stamp. The bill says that if the Secretary of the Interior doesn't make a decision within 60 days, it's automatically approved. It will be automatically approved with no process.

At the same time, many of the proponents of this bill are attempting to gut the budget of many of the agencies that need to review these applications, effectively ensuring that no application can properly be dealt with and evaluated within 60 days, and therefore they would all be automatically approved regardless of the impact on people's health or economic opportunities and jobs.

Now there are so many troubling provisions in this bill. Another one--and this one would likely violate our Constitution, which we began this session of Congress by reciting very publicly in this body--it would limit a citizen's right to participate in the discussion of leasing and drilling by making all dissenters pay a $5,000 fee.

Now imagine you are a Coloradan, an Arizonan, a Pennsylvanian, a Texan who's concerned about drilling near your home or near your school or near your ranch. Now under this death and destruction bill, opening your mouth would cost you $5,000. Free speech would no longer be free, if this bill passes.

Madam Speaker, public lands are just that, public. We all own a share of them. We all benefit from them. They're not the private playground of oil and gas companies. They're owned by all Americans. And all Americans should have a say in how they're used, not just Americans who cough up $5,000.

Well, this bill would grant the oil and gas industry's wish list by opening up public lands and rolling back public health safeguards, hurting health and killing American families. But one thing this bill will not do is lower the price of gasoline. Economists agree: this bill has no impact on the price of gasoline.

There are actually now more drilling rigs in operation in the United States, thanks to President Obama's leadership today, than the rest of the world combined. In addition, the number of drilling rigs has doubled, doubled since 2009. President Obama's leadership has doubled the number of drilling rigs since 2009.

Now research going back more than three decades shows that there is very little correlation between the volume of domestic oil and the price of gasoline at the pump.

Go ahead and tell the American people that we want oil and gas companies to drill anywhere they like with no regard for public health. Is that the message that we want to send? This bill, this death and destruction bill, would not only lead to the deaths of Americans but would destroy jobs, destroy economic opportunities, and destroy recreational opportunities. It's nothing short of a Federal land grab and a Federal water grab.

Representing my constituents in Colorado, I encourage my colleagues to say, ``Heck, no,'' on both the bill as well as the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

If we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to consider the Stop the Rate Hike Act of 2012, legislation that would keep the student loan interest rate low and reduce the deficit. If Congress fails to act, more than 7 million students across this country will see their student loan interest rate double come July 1, just around the corner. It's outrageous that at this time of slow and painful economic recovery the majority continues to refuse to work on this issue in a bipartisan way.

To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, this is a rare time when we are talking about energy, when we are hearing from the Academy of Pediatrics, the Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Public Health Association, the National Association of City and County Health Officials, and a number of other signatories on this letter which says, very simply, that we should make sure that the EPA can determine whether our air is safe to breathe and not do it based on how much it costs to reduce air pollution.

June 18, 2012.

Dear Representative: The undersigned public health and

medical organizations

write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 4480, which

includes dangerous provisions that would block and delay

important public health safeguards under the Clean Air Act.

Gutting the Clean Air Act will not address rising gas prices,

but it will needlessly weaken the Clean Air Act's life-saving

protections and delay much-needed air pollution safeguards.

Title II of H.R. 4480 indefinitely delays three overdue air

quality safeguards, including standards for tailpipes

emissions and gasoline sulfur content (Tier 3), air emissions

standards for petroleum refineries and ground level ozone

standards. Most egregiously, H.R. 4480 also repeals the

health premise of the Clean Air Act.

In 1970, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress

agreed that to adequately protect public health, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must set air quality

standards to protect health with an adequate margin of

safety. These standards are based on the best available

health science. This system has worked for more than 40 years

to let people know if the air is safe to breathe, and

motivate action to improve air quality when it is not safe.

EPA must retain this authority to establish health-based

ambient air quality standards.

The Clean Air Act fully considers cost and feasibility in

determining how to meet air quality standards. States and EPA

consider these factors during the implementation process as

strategies are implemented to meet air quality standards.

Just as a doctor does not diagnose a patient based on the

cost of treatment, EPA should not determine whether the air

is safe to breathe based on how much it costs to reduce air

pollution.

The Clean Air Act is one of the nation's premier public

health laws. Since its establishment in 1970, the aggregate

emissions of criteria air pollutants decreased 71%, while

Gross Domestic Product increased 210%. Given the enormous

contribution of the Clean Air Act to public health, we urge

you to reject all efforts to weaken and delay it. Please vote

NO on H.R. 4480.

Sincerely,

American Academy of Pediatrics.

American Heart Association.

American Lung Association.

American Public Health Association.

American Thoracic Society.

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Health Care Without Harm.

National Association of City and County Health Officials.

National Environmental Health Association.

Trust for America's Health.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

And here we are. While we're debating this death and destruction, oil above all bill, the clock is ticking on student loan payments that will cost middle class families millions and millions of dollars.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

I would like to inquire of the other side if he has any remaining speakers.

Very good. Then I'm prepared to close, and I will yield myself the balance of the time.

Now, this rule only provides for consideration of certain amendments. Why are the Republicans so concerned with letting the House work their will on such an important bill?

Now, a number of these measures have been brought forward by Representatives from Colorado. I want to be clear that these are policies that are not universally supported in Colorado and that many of us believe that the policies contained in this set of bills would destroy jobs as well as the quality of life and health of not only Colorado and the West, but the entire country.

In Colorado, we've created a balanced approach to energy policy that's worked. In some areas we lease, some areas we use for other purposes, some areas we protect. Many Colorado small business owners agree, our parks and public lands are critical not only to the economy and job growth, hiking, fishing, hunting, the outdoor industry, but also to our quality of life and our health.

This job-destroying Federal landgrab, Federal water grab bill would put tens of thousands of Coloradoans out of work and destroy the quality of life for our entire State. This bill puts the wish list of the oil and gas industry above all the other users of public lands, above the interest of hunters, above the interest of fishermen, above the interest of hikers, above the interest of tourism, above the interest of skiers, above the interest of conservationists. This bill is out of touch with the citizens of Colorado and will destroy jobs in Colorado and throughout the country.

Look, companies are able to drill. They've been drilling the last 40 years. President Obama's leadership has led to twice the number of drilling wells. Our energy production is at an 8-year peak from oil and gas, and we continue to increase our energy production on public lands, and there's a responsible way to do it.

But we need a balanced approach that doesn't throw out the safeguards and protections that protect the health of children and the health of families, to protect our jobs in the outdoor industry, that protect our jobs in the recreation industry and protect our quality of life across the Western United States, and laws that protect our water and laws that protect our air.

This bill, this series of omnibus death and destruction bills, simply fails that test. The American people deserve more than the death and destruction, oil above all omnibus package that's being offered here today. While millions of Americans are waiting in the unemployment lines, we need a bill that creates jobs rather than destroys jobs.

An increased concentration of toxic chemicals can harm the health of American citizens and Coloradans. Now there is great promise and opportunity in technology that will allow companies to drill with less of an impact on

human health and the environment. That's why we have a regulatory framework. It is to ensure that there is incentive to make sure that American families are safe.

This package of job-destroying bills that has been brought before us today would harm our sensitive lands and constitute a Federal land grab and Federal water grab, all without lowering the price at the pump and destroying tens of thousands of jobs in the process.

This death-and-destruction bill is simply not what this country needs to move forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and to defeat the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we are debating and considering today is a clear all-of-the-above plan to increase American energy production, to lower gasoline prices, and to reduce our dependence on unstable foreign energy. But more than anything else, Mr. Chairman, this is a bill about creating jobs. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act creates good-paying permanent jobs that will put people back to work and help grow our economy.

The only thing that the Obama administration has been more hostile to than American job creation, Mr. Chairman, is American energy production. Frankly, that shouldn't surprise anyone because the two do go hand-in-hand.

President Obama likes to talk about an all-of-the-above energy plan. But in reality, it's a nothing-from-America energy plan. This administration has consistently said ``no'' to new American energy production while happily forcing hardworking American taxpayers to spend over $1 million a minute on foreign energy.

President Obama doesn't want to drill for oil in Utah; perhaps he'd rather get it from Venezuela. President Obama doesn't want to drill for natural gas in New Mexico; perhaps he'd rather get it from Yemen.

President Obama doesn't want to develop our oil shale in Colorado; perhaps he'd rather get oil from OPEC.

President Obama doesn't want to import oil from our friends in Canada by approving the Keystone pipeline; perhaps he'd rather import oil from countries that aren't our friends in the Middle East.

Finally, President Obama doesn't want to drill off America's coasts, but he doesn't seem to mind Fidel Castro drilling 60 miles from America. And he doesn't seem to mind giving Brazil billions of dollars to help them drill off their coasts and then promise to be their ``best customer.''

The American people need to understand that this administration has

taken this country in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to developing our vast energy resources. While President Obama has been digging the United States into massive fiscal deficits, he has also gotten America into an energy deficit on Federal lands from which it could take years to recover.

Energy production on Federal lands is one of our best opportunities for job creation and energy security. But time and again, that production has been blocked or delayed by this administration. Under this administration, from 2010 2011, oil production on Federal lands fell by 14 percent. And natural gas production on these same lands fell by 11 percent. Mr. Chairman, this is in stark contrast to the oil and natural gas production on State and private lands because that production has boomed.

American energy equals American jobs. It's a simple formula for job creation and economic growth, but clearly it's one that this administration doesn't seem to understand. Maybe that's because they just don't know how desperate Americans are for jobs. Just a few weeks ago, with unemployment above 8 percent and 23 million Americans looking for work, our President told the American people that the private sector is doing ``just fine.'' Well, if you don't know what the problem is, how can you possibly know how to fix it?

Mr. Chairman, in summary, this is the same President that has issued the lowest number of onshore energy leases since 1984. This is the same President who talks about an all-of-the-above energy plan, but actively blocks ability to produce more oil and natural gas and coal, and specifically doing so on public lands. For President Obama, ``all of the above'' is just a politically convenient slogan. But for House Republicans, it's a real job-creating energy policy.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act to put Americans back to work and make us less dependent on foreign sources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), author of one of the provisions in this.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), an author of one of the provisions of the bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), whose State has tremendous resources.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

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

Mr. Chairman, I will advise my very good friend from Massachusetts that I am prepared to close if he is prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is hard to know where to start as I close the debate on this portion of the bill because there's been so much information out there and so much information that, frankly, I won't say it's untrue, but it's not exactly accurate.

Let me start with the idea that the price of gasoline has dropped with this administration. In January of 2009, the average price of gasoline in this country was $1.82 a gallon. Now what is magic about January 2009? Well, that was the month that the President was inaugurated and the price of gasoline was $1.82 a gallon. Today, the average price of gasoline is $3.48. Now if your math is such that the price of gasoline drops when it starts at $1.82 and ends at $3.48, you've got fuzzy math. But that's what we keep hearing.

Furthermore, we have heard I don't know how many Members on the other side speak, but I dare say every one of them said that this is a giveaway to oil and gas. If they didn't say it, they implied it, trying to get that message across.

Now, I wondered when I heard the debate here about there's no reference to renewables if they read the bill. I am now convinced they did not read the bill, Mr. Chairman. And let me tell you why. Because when we talk about renewables, we're talking about Federal lands and we say that the Secretary--and I'm reading from page 15, title III, section 44, paragraph 3. It says:

The Secretary shall determine a domestic strategic

production objective for the development of energy resources

from Federal onshore lands.

Now that's the directive.

So on page 16 we make reference to renewable energy. And they said, Oh, it's just a study. What do you mean it's just a study? Well, if you read, Mr. Chairman, we are asking for a study for the estimates of what? On subsection A, it's oil and natural gas. What? We're asking for a study of oil and natural gas on Federal lands. Then, you go to C. It talks about the critical minerals. Then it goes on to renewables.

In other words, the point I'm making, Mr. Chairman--and this is very important--if this is a giveaway to oil and gas companies and not helping renewables, then why is it the precise same language for the type of production of energy on Federal lands? You can't have it both ways.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very good bill because we're focusing on where the greatest resources we have in this country are on Federal lands. That's where the greatest potential resources are. This bill is aimed at those resources. That's why this bill is so important.

Let's set production goals on all energy development. And that means all-of-the-above. That means above ground. That means underground, as my friend from Mississippi said. That's what we are attempting to do. But to suggest that this is a giveaway when precisely the same language applies to all energy production, frankly, is inaccurate.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Natural Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR A, was specifically designated as a petroleum reserve back in 1923. It's a place that we can develop our resources for energy and national security. Title VI of this bill will ensure that production can occur on NPR A by requiring at least one annual lease sale, streamline the permitting process to ensure lease sales lead to energy production, and ensure a right-of-away plan to allow for the transportation of the product out of NPR A.

In addition to making technical corrections, this amendment aims to accomplish two vital goals that are imperative for facilitating development at NPR A. First, it would require, at the request of the State of Alaska, up to two additional rights-of-way planned in and out of NPR A. This would prepare for future development by providing approved rights-of-way in and out of this area.

Secondly, it would repeal the designation of the Colville River as an Aquatic Resource of National Importance. This designation was blatantly used by the anti-energy EPA as nothing more than a tool to stop energy development on this area.

While the President touts his energy record and speaks of his support for leasing and energy development in the NPR A, he fails to mention that due to red tape from his administration, Alaskans have waited for years and years for approval to build a simple bridge across the Colville River to begin production in NPR A. What you do not hear is that the EPA has paid no attention to the Colville River until after ConocoPhillips filed its application for a bridge. It was shortly after that application that EPA declared it was an Aquatic Resource of Natural Importance. And it was that action that stopped the development and production for nearly a decade before approval of this simple bridge and pipeline.

What the Obama administration says and what the administration does to promote energy development in Alaska are entirely two different things.

So those two things that I mention in this amendment would give Alaskans the assurance they need to create jobs and encourage development of the NPR A.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I advise my friend that I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, just briefly, there are technical amendments in here which I acknowledge and the gentleman did acknowledge, and there are two substantive changes, and I acknowledge both of those.

Now, I just want to repeat, he talked about the issue that the Colville River was an aquatic resource of national importance. He's basing that as the reason why we should not adopt this amendment.

I want to point out again, and I made this observation in my remarks, the Colville River was not designated this until after--and I want to say this again very slowly; sometimes you don't hear things in this echo chamber--after Conoco wanted to develop the NPR A. When they developed the NPR-A, they

had to have access across the Colville River. But the EPA said all of a sudden: Wait a second, this might be a good time to make that change. That's pure politics, Mr. Chairman.

And I will say this. I was up in Alaska last year, and I stood right at the spot where they want to build a bridge across the Colville River. The Colville River there is not very large, and to suggest it falls into that category and we should not adopt this amendment flies right in the face of common sense.

So with that, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would really restrict the ability to produce energy on Federal lands, and I think, quite frankly, it is purely a political amendment.

Rather than allow existing environmental protections and reviews to ensure that we have safe drilling operations, this amendment seeks to use an arbitrary standard that, frankly, is more of a scare tactic than good science; and it would actually harm school districts, principally those in the Intermountain West, that take advantage of their large landholder status to lease their lands for energy development.

In addition, it would infringe upon the ability of Native American tribes

to manage their lands and their resources. It's bad policy, particularly for the consequences of tribal lands that are trying to develop their energy resources. This would restrict their ability to do that.

Now, we've heard the other side talk about why we need to do this, and the implication is that we need to do this to protect drinking water at our children's schools that may become contaminated from hydraulic fracturing. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this very emphatically. This information of contamination is based on absolutely no science or factual evidence. As a matter of fact, to put an exclamation point on that, earlier this week, the gentleman who is offering this amendment, his governor, Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado--who, I might add, is a Democrat--was quoted as saying--and I'll say the whole quote here, and I'll say it as slowly as I can so everybody can understand what Governor Hickenlooper said:

There have been tens of thousands of wells in Colorado, and

we can't find anywhere in Colorado a single example of the

process of fracking that has polluted groundwater.

Now, I didn't say this. I am quoting the governor of the gentleman who offered the amendment, his State.

Mr. Chairman, I just have to say, I believe this is a politically motivated amendment, and it, frankly, does not even deserve debate on that. So I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, developing our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf is all about achieving a balance. The Federal agencies involved have to balance the needs of the coastal community and the environment while also providing for safe energy production. This is how you preserve the multiple-use aspect that we have for Federal land management, and I endorse that concept.

Fortunately for the gentleman, the author of this amendment, the purpose of his amendment is already the law of the land. No leasing occurs in the Outer Continental Shelf without extensive environmental assessment. Now, I'll give you an example.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management conducts an environmental impact statement, or an EIS, before leasing any area, then another EIS for the specific lease sale area, and then another environmental assessment must be conducted before a company can even begin development. So, with that process that you have to go through, I can only conclude that this amendment is offered not about protecting the environment, but it's really about stopping offshore energy production. Of course, if we do that, obviously what does that do to American energy jobs?

Like I said earlier, fortunately, all these protections exist if indeed we're going to have energy production. So I don't think we need this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to reject it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

With that, then, Mr. Chairman, the arguments have been made. I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Throughout this Congress, House Republicans have made an all-out assault on our Nation's most basic public health and environmental protections. And they have blocked any effort to address climate change, move towards clean energy, or promote energy efficiency.

On Monday, Congressman Markey and I released a report that documents this all-out assault. It confirms that this is the most anti- environment House in the history of Congress. Over the last 18 months, the House has voted 247 times to undermine protection of the environment. That's almost one out of every five votes taken in the House.

The oil and gas industry has benefited more than any other sector from these anti-environment votes. Since the beginning of 2011, the House has voted 109 times for policies that would advance the interests of the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment, public health, and the taxpayer. The result is a grave and growing peril to our environment, to public health, and to our economy. The massive wildfires, floods, droughts, and heat waves that have been afflicting our country are a harbinger of what is to come.

Americans know this. As the Washington Post reported this morning, the vast majority of Americans believe our environment is deteriorating, and they know that unchecked pollution from oil refineries and other industrial sources is making the problem worse. Yet what are we doing today? Today's bill is one more massive giveaway, and it is one more assault on the environment.

This bill contains two proposals reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee. One would block standards for oil companies to clean up their pollution. The other seeks to bypass existing leasing programs in order to pry open every possible acre of Federal land for oil drilling.

This legislation has been promoted as a solution to high gasoline prices. But this bill is a Trojan horse. This bill would not lower prices by one penny. This bill doesn't protect consumers. It hurts them. The bill will keep dirty gasoline on the market, allow oil refineries to spew toxic emissions, and forestall action to address climate change.

Tucked inside this legislation is the Latta amendment. The language of this amendment cuts the heart out of the Clean Air Act, radically changing the way air quality standards are set. Rather than basing smog standards on what is healthy for our children to breathe, this bill would require standards to be based on what industry says it will cost to reduce pollution. This radical proposal will undermine decades of progress on cleaning up the air. The bill will also cost jobs. The regulations blocked by this bill would create tens of thousands of jobs installing pollution controls and modernizing oil refineries.

In addition, this bill would make it harder for the President to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during emergencies by layering on new bureaucratic requirements to force drilling across a vast expanse of public land.

This bill may be good for the oil companies, it may be good for the special

interests, but it is a disaster for the American people. The Republican energy policy isn't an all-of-the-above policy; it's oil above all.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), and I would like to ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the rest of the time for our side of the aisle on the general debate.

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

This amendment highlights, Mr. Chairman, the absurdity of title II of the Republican bill. The bill will create a new government bureaucracy to conduct an unrealistic and burdensome study of several clean air rules, none of which have even been proposed. This is a fundamentally flawed approach. The scope and timing of the new government committee's analysis simply are not feasible.

The bill requires a new interagency committee to estimate a host of cumulative impacts of multiple unrelated potential rules. The committee is supposed to estimate impacts on gasoline prices, capital investments, projected maintenance and operation of new equipment, refinery capacity, employment at the national, State and regional levels, other cumulative costs and benefits, and even the overall global economic competitiveness of the United States.

Since none of the rules that are supposed to be analyzed have even been proposed, this complex analysis required by the bill would be full of guesswork and assumptions. It's unclear how this new government bureaucracy could estimate the level of pollution control that may be required, predict compliance options, or assess the specified effects.

Given all of the uncertainties and guess work inherent in such an analysis, it's unclear how the committee could produce an economic analysis of the rules with any measure of credibility.

EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy testified:

It is unclear how the new committee would analyze rules

that have not yet been proposed, or how the public could

comment on that analysis in an informed way.

She also noted that such analysis would be redundant and a waste of government resources, given the extensive analysis EPA already completes as part of the rulemaking process and the interagency review conducted by OMB.

The bill provides an unrealistic deadline, as well, for completing this report, doesn't create an additional job in the private sector. All it will do is devote taxpayers' money to create another government committee in order to provide it with the hopeless task of conducting a host of complex analyses that probably could not be completed with any credibility, even if the necessary data did exist and the committee had years to work.

So the whole thing is a pointless waste of taxpayers' money required by the bill.

Now, Mr. McKinley's amendment adds some additional consultation to that already absurd requirement. The Department of Energy is already represented on this new government committee the Republicans want to establish. In fact, the Secretary of Energy chairs the committee.

Mr. McKinley's amendment adds a requirement that the committee consult with part of the Department of Energy. This adds another layer of unnecessary, superfluous consultation on an already unwieldy process.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

In the previous amendment, we discussed title II, the Gasoline Regulations Act, which creates a new government committee to do the impossible: conduct an analysis of EPA air quality rules that have not yet even been proposed, using data that does not exist.

The interagency committee cannot possibly provide a credible assessment of the potential impact of these potential rules on energy prices. It would simply require too much guesswork. Moreover, the Energy Information Administration told our committee staff that it does not have the capability to conduct much of the analysis required by this title. The agency would have to devote significant new staff and contractor time to complete the analysis.

The CBO estimates that the Gasoline Regulations Act would cost $3 million to implement. That's $3 million to produce a report that will not be reliable, credible, or valuable to anyone. Mr. McKinley's amendment would make this report even less credible by significantly expanding its scope. His amendment would require that this new interagency committee examine ``any other matters affecting the growth, stability, and sustainability of the Nation's oil and gas industries, particularly relative to that of other nations.'' This language suggests that the new committee will have to take into account events and regulations in other countries as well as our own. Now, that's certainly going to send the price tag well above $3 million.

For example, will the new interagency committee have to examine Nigerian labor law? What about oil company business practices in the Amazon or the concerns of indigenous communities in Canada's tar sands? Will the committee have to take into account the health of Hugo Chavez and the potential impact on Venezuelan oil prices? Political upheaval in the Middle East has a profound impact on the oil market. Will the new committee have to delve into that?

If the interagency committee were serious about examining ``any other matters'' affecting the stability and sustainability, then it would have to look at a whole Pandora's box of issues here in the United States.

For example, shouldn't the committee have to examine what Congress is doing to give coal a competitive advantage over natural gas by weakening air pollution laws and blocking action on climate change?

The CEO of Chesapeake Energy has been in the news lately for some questionable business decisions that have helped put the country's second-largest natural gas company on the brink of bankruptcy. Certainly, the new interagency committee would have to examine that issue as part of this inquiry into matters relevant to the sustainability of the oil and gas industry.

All of this is to say that Mr. McKinley's amendment is extremely broad and that it would make a deeply flawed report even less reliable and credible, if that's even possible. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, title II of this bill blocks the EPA from finalizing several important air quality rules until after a new government bureaucracy produces a new analysis of these and other EPA actions. But it's a fool's errand because a new government bureaucracy is required to conduct an impossible analysis of rules that haven't even been proposed using data that doesn't exist.

The bill would block the EPA from issuing new tier 3 standards for motor vehicles and fuels to reduce harmful tailpipe emissions that cause smog and deadly particle pollution. Smog and soot pollution can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks, and even premature death.

The bill would block the EPA from issuing long overdue rules to require refineries to use modern technology to reduce their emissions of toxic air pollutants. The pollutants cause cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and other serious health problems.

The bill would also block the EPA from issuing rules necessary for States and localities to implement the 2008 ozone standard. This would leave the outdated 1997 ozone standard in place. Even the Bush administration thought this standard was too weak. In addition, the bill would block the EPA from updating the ozone standard to reflect the best available science on the health effects of breathing dirty air.

During the legislative hearing on this bill, Chairman Whitfield stated, ``It is not the intent of this legislation to roll back any existing health protections.''

That claim is laughable for a bill that radically changes the Clean Air Act by barring the EPA from setting

air quality goals based on what the science tells us is safe to breathe. But if Republicans want to claim that this bill is not an attack on the Clean Air Act and public health, there should be no objection to my amendment.

My amendment simply states that, notwithstanding the bill's provisions and notwithstanding all that's in this bill, the EPA administrator cannot delay implementing any of the rules targeted by the bill if the air pollution that would be controlled by those rules causes serious harm to human health, including asthma attacks and other respiratory disease, heart attacks, cancer, birth defects, brain damage, or premature death.

This is a simple choice between oil industry profits and Americans' health. The top five oil companies earned $137 billion in profits last year. They can afford to clean up their pollution.

Instead, this bill would make Americans pick up the tab for the oil companies, and it would make Americans pay that tab with their health and even their lives. The air quality protections blocked by this bill are especially important for the most vulnerable among us--our babies, kids, old people.

Oil refineries are among the largest emitters of toxic air pollution, and they are often located near where people live, but this bill would indefinitely delay the EPA's ability to require oil refineries to clean up pollution such as benzene, which causes cancer and contributes to birth defects and developmental harm in babies.

Republicans argue these rules would only be delayed for a while, but many of these rules have already been delayed for far too long. The Republicans' claim assumes that the interagency committee can actually complete the impossible study required by this bill. Even if that were possible, there would still be no deadlines for these new rules as the bill eliminates existing deadlines and sets no new ones.

Americans rely on the Environmental Protection Agency to hold polluters responsible for cleaning up their pollution. It's just common sense. If you stop the EPA from doing its job, public health will suffer.

So it's time to come clean. If you want to pass a bill to stop the EPA from doing its job and allow polluters to pollute with impunity, be honest with the American people. Tell them you think that we have done enough to reduce air pollution and that you want to stop any further efforts to clean up air pollution, but don't pretend that this get-out- of-jail-free card for oil industry polluters won't hurt the health of Americans, especially our children and the elderly.

If, on the other hand, you don't want to block efforts to clean up air pollution that is contributing to asthma attacks, heart attacks, lung disease, cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and premature death, then support my amendment. My amendment will make it perfectly clear that the EPA can continue to clean up air pollution that causes serious health effects.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time my side has remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 1 minute to another freshman, Mr. Gosar from Arizona.

I am prepared to close. I have no further requests for time.

I would just inquire how much time I have remaining.

I thank the Chair and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Sixty four thousand eight hundred five jobs, $4.3 billion in wages, $14.9 billion in annual economic impact. That is the number of jobs, the amount of wages, and the economic impact that we would have seen today if not for the backlog of BLM projects over the past 3 years.

Sixty-five thousand jobs. There are 22 proposed projects in the Western United States that would create nearly 121,000 jobs.

Over the past few years, we have seen gas prices increase dramatically: $3.50, $3.60, $3.70. Since we've heard debate on the House floor tonight, they're going down. Even a flood can be lowered by a foot the next day, but it's still a flood. Our constituents who are paying $60, $70 to fill up with a tank of gas to drive their families to school, trying to put food on the table, to get to work, cannot afford high energy prices year after year.

This bill presents us with an opportunity to create jobs to build on American energy independence, to make sure that we are doing the one thing that we set out to do, and that is improve the economic chances of this country, our competitiveness, and the lives of our constituents. But they can't do it with gas prices exceeding $3, $4. What's next? Because here we are again.

The policies presented in this bill will allow us to cut through red tape and to increase exploration on our great lands in the Western United States across this country in an environmentally responsible fashion. It will allow us to make sure that when we access the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because of a supply problem that we're also addressing a long-term supply fix instead of just quick-fix politics.

We have an opportunity to make sure that when it comes to the regulations that are driving up the price of gasoline--and they have a real impact; we have both heard before our committee testimony from EPA administrators who say, yes, it will increase the price of gasoline--we stop and take a look before we leap to make sure that we are analyzing to understand the impact they will have on our constituents, who continue to suffer.

The best way to improve our economy is to make sure that we are unleashing every sector of our economy. And yes, that means renewable energy. This bill includes renewable energy. It takes a 4-year look at renewable energy on public lands, to take advantage of our opportunity with solar on Federal lands, with wind on Federal lands. But we will not sit idly by while our constituents pay thousands of dollars a more each year to put fuel in the tank, competing with the food on their table.

And so, Mr. Chair, this bill presents us all with a great chance to increase our energy supply, create American jobs, and make sure that we understand the full ramifications of regulations and drawdowns of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve before we act. And I think it's important that we send one strong message to our constituents that we've heard you. We've heard you loud and clear. And we are going to do everything we can to improve our economy, bring down the cost of energy, create jobs. That's when this Congress will do our job. This Congress will do our job when we pass this legislation, and I urge passage of H.R. 4480.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we had a discussion on this very issue in the Energy and Commerce Committee,

and we made very clear that the language dealing with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve did not affect existing land management policies or management policies, or those policies in place to protect our resources.

So, again, we actually adopted an amendment by Chairman Dingell, the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman emeritus, to make sure that we restated that this does not change or affect our Federal land management policies and those intended to protect our Federal resources. So we made that clear in the Energy and Commerce provisions in this bill as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, we heard a lot of powerful words there: ban, bar, block. The fact is that this bill does not ban, bar, or block these regulations. In fact, nothing prevents and nothing bars, bans, or blocks the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule. And nothing bars, bans, or blocks the EPA from protecting the public health and the environment as the law requires them to do so. In fact, it's quite commonly known that the EPA is unlikely to even finalize these rules prior to the completion of the study.

We've already got tremendous protections in current law, stringent regulations, some of which were just issued in the past few months. But I think we ought to take a look to understand what impact regulations are going to have on the cost of people's energy.

Our colleague mentioned picking up the tab. I'll tell you who else is picking up the tab: people in poverty are picking up the tab of increasing energy costs, which is making it more and more difficult for them to make ends meet. They are picking up the tab of rising gas prices, costing $50, $60, $70 a tank to fill up with gas to drive to work. That's who is picking up the tab, our constituents who are trying to lift themselves up and out of poverty and are having difficulty trying to make ends meet because of rising energy prices, because this Congress refuses to enact legislation that says, Hey, let's look before we leap and understand the impact these regulations are going to have on the price of gasoline.

Again, the purpose of the bill is to require a study. Nothing in this bill relieves the administrator of the EPA from the responsibility to issue rules required by the Clean Air Act or any other legal obligation. Nothing in this bill changes the EPA's obligation to protect the public health. Nothing in this bill prevents the EPA from developing and proposing new regulations, taking public comments, or from preparing a final rule, a process that typically requires at least a year. In fact, it would be highly unlikely, as I said before, that they could even both propose and finalize this rule before the study was finished.

Our colleague also mentioned that we don't know enough information about proposed regulations to study them. EPA's own action development process--the internal ways that the EPA works, their own internal action development process--requires that the analysis of a regulation start early in the rule development. So they're already talking about what impact these have, including the President's own executive orders that require agencies to perform analysis and consider the cumulative effects of regulations. So this is an unnecessary amendment.

Our colleague mentioned some of the most toxic emitters of air pollution. There's a lot of people around the country that believe the most toxic emitter of air pollution is Congress. In this case, some of those arguments have been used in the bill on this amendment.

I would just urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.