Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 641 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel An America That Works Act of 2014. It makes 10 amendments in order--four Republican and six Democrat--and the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2015, under a modified open rule and provides for other technical and clerical purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is a bipartisan measure that provides for the essential funding of several Federal agencies during the next fiscal year, including the Department of Energy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation.

This measure would also fund important Federal science research in the fields of energy, high-performance computing systems, and next- generation energy sources. It is appropriate that this measure providing for the Nation's energy needs also be included with this rule.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today and speak in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.

American families, Mr. Speaker, are hurting. Every time you pull up to the gas pump, you have to wonder whether there will ever be any relief to the family budget for these ever-increasing gasoline prices.

It means simply--whether you support or like the guy or not--that before President Obama took office in 2009, the average national price for a gallon of unleaded regular gas was under $2 a gallon. Today, it has nearly doubled to around $4 a gallon. And the prices keep rising almost every day.

This administration touts its growth in energy production, not recognizing that that production increase has all come on private and State-owned property. If we are to have sustained growth of our economy, if we are not having peaks and valleys, if we are not having boom and bust, it is important that the resources that we have in great abundance that are on Federal lands also be included so there can be a sustained growth to our economy.

Unfortunately, since President Obama took office, total Federal oil production has dropped 6 percent, total Federal national gas production has dropped an astounding 28 percent, and, at the same time, offshore oil production is down 15 percent and offshore gas production is down 47 percent.

Unfortunately, 87 percent of all the area that is allowed offshore of acreage of potential development is currently off limits to oil and natural gas production.

We have policies that are really harming our progress forward, and they need to be changed. This act that will be put before us, if we pass this rule, does indeed do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman has only from me yet to hear.

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

I am an old history teacher, and one of the things I have always claimed for my students is you should actually try to look to the past, to see how you can plan for the future.

When Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, this country was faced with the crisis of double-digit inflation, double- digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates; and as President, after so many years of a Congress that tried to have the policy of spending ourselves into economic growth that failed, his issue was: Which of those do you attack first?

I think it is interesting to realize--to grab hold of each of those issues, his first action was to increase the supply of affordable energy. That became the basis of growing an economy in which he could then attack each of those problems of unemployment and inflation and interest rates which were plaguing this country.

We have to realize now that a strong foundation of affordable energy is extremely significant, from whatever source, but especially from what will be workable now.

High gasoline prices--and the price that is increasing in every form of energy we have today--hurts the middle class, and it especially hurts the working poor, many of whom have to decide, every time they go to the pump, whether they are going to put food on the table or fill up the minivan.

We have to deal with something. Now, in my area of the west where we live and the part of the country where the distances between communities are extremely large, as opposed to back here in the east, where everything is so lumped closely together, the increase in fuel costs hits home with a real inflicting pain.

I am sorry. The policies of the past that we had that made the desert bloom are being reversed by the policies of the present. Whether you are at the pump realizing the pain that is inflicted or whether your concern is what kind of energy cost it will take when you go into the room and flip on the light or you decide to cook food, we have to realize these are real problems facing middle America, as well as the working poor of America.

We can either come up with policies that move us forward, or we can implement policies that allow us to freeze in the dark, and so far, we have done a good job on the latter and not the first.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have passed several bills over the past few years--and this year as well--aimed at increasing U.S. domestic fuel production, only to have those bills sidelined in the deliberative body on the other side of this building.

It reminds me of a great quote, when Thomas Brackett Reed, the old Speaker of the House, went over to the Senate to watch them in debate and came back and announced to the body:

Thank heavens we are not a deliberative body.

There are problems that we have that can be solved. We have those places, too, and I appreciate the fact the gentleman from Florida did mention that China and others are putting money into alternative energy programs.

They are also going around the world and gobbling up whatever kinds of oil and coal resources they can get their hands on, to support and sustain a growing economy over there, while our administration is taking the United States in the opposite direction by self-inflicted artificial limits, policies that have actually hurt our economy, killed high-paying jobs, and increased the cost of consumer goods for all, including the middle class.

There are reasons why, Mr. Speaker, in the last 6 years, our economy is simply limping along, and we should learn the lessons of the past to recognize what we can do from that. Our economic malaise can be attributed to a lack of attention to a commonsense energy program on Federal lands.

So what would this bill, H.R. 4899, actually do? It would establish and demand a new 5-year plan for the leases of those areas, with the concept of going after where the resources actually are. We can talk about all the lands that are leased, but it is totally unimportant if there are no resources there.

Have a plan that focuses on where the resources are. Produce a revenue-sharing plan with the coastal States. Come up with three distinct agencies which would replace the new structure that has been put upon since the oil spill and make them actually functioning. That is the problem.

I agree with some of the things you have said. We haven't done much in reform, but we have done a whole lot in regulatory reform on the administrative level, and I agree with you, that that hasn't worked as well.

To establish a policy that the NPR-A is for the purpose of providing oil as a resource to the United States and to establish some kind of Internet-based auctions for these programs--look, we are not talking about taking over everything and drilling everywhere.

This Federal Government owns somewhere around 400 to 450 million acres of land. Of that, 350, roughly, are already in a conservation status that can never be touched.

There are 50 million acres, at the most, that have development potential, and those are the areas in which policies of this administration are strangling the ability to move them forward.

I will--because I hadn't planned on it, so I don't have my wonderful charts here. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida talking about education because I want to finish off with that in just one second.

I appreciate his sentiment that, some day, my position can prevail, but unless we change the overall Federal position, I can't get that moving forward, and that is why it becomes extremely important.

We are not just talking about gas at the pump and the cost of electricity and the cost of cooking your food. There are also those tradeoff effects which specifically deal with education.

If one looks at a map of the States, there is overwhelming control by the Federal Government of ownership of the land, the public land States of the Midwest and the west coast, and you look at the States which have the hardest time increasing their funding for public education.

It is an amazing correlation between the two, which means that, over the past 20 years, those who do not live in public land States, those areas east of Denver, which average about 4 percent of their States being controlled by the Federal Government, have grown their educational funding by 68 percent.

Those of us who average over 50 percent of our land controlled by the Federal Government in these public lands States have grown our education budget by 35 percent.

It is simply a matter that my State cannot improve its education funding alone unless we are allowed to develop some of the resources we have in huge abundance but are tied up in the policies of the Federal Government.

So, yes, it is true. We are growing petroleum activities in this country. We are growing our exploration. We are growing what we are developing, what we are exporting. But it is all coming from private lands and State lands that are not part of the West. And if you want to keep that growth on a continuous basis and not have spikes, then you have to go after the resources that we have on the public lands.

And if you were allowed to do that, not only would we get royalties coming back in from those resources, but it would spin off all sorts of jobs that would then generate the income tax we need and the sales tax revenue and the royalties to replace the fact that we are not getting property tax from lands that are controlled by the Federal Government and were promised to us a long time ago when we became States.

This bill provides a plan on how to do this. This bill is something that is desperately needed if we are going to move forward. If enacted into law, it would encourage greater oil and gas development on Federal onshore and offshore lands with a plan of how you actually accomplish it and how you do it. And it may actually give my kids a chance at a fairer shot for an education, because they desperately need it, and the status quo is not providing it. And that has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I would only urge Members to support this rule. It is a fair rule. It is a good rule. And then I would hope, afterwards, they would support the underlying bills which provide for our Nation's critical energy needs and would help promote jobs at the same time, as well as funding for my schools in Utah.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 641 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1426) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow

the deduction for income attributable to domestic production

activities with respect to oil and gas activities of major

integrated oil companies. The first reading of the bill shall

be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration

of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 1426.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

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

I thank the gentleman, my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I join my good friends on the Energy and Water Committee, Representatives Lowey and Kaptur, in applauding the chairman's concerted effort to compose H.R. 4923 in an inclusive manner.

I appreciate the bipartisan nature of the bill and am supportive of many of the provisions contained within it. However, I am not without my concerns. All of these phrases that my friends on the other side of the aisle bandy about--``increase over this,'' ``funding above last year's levels''--sound great, but as always, we need to see what is lurking in the shadows.

For example, H.R. 4923 is completely uninspired when it comes to renewable energy. Its approach, in my view, is a myopic one--one that, if we follow it too far, leaves us trying to play catch-up with our competitors, like the Chinese and many other countries, that have turned their attention to renewable energy. As China continues its now decade-long trend of increasing investment in its renewable energy sector--a footnote here: it invested $56 billion just last year--we take the truly uninspired step of cutting funding for renewable energy by 6.4 percent.

I am aware of the studies that conclude that our Nation will be able to meet 97 percent of its energy needs through domestic production by 2035, and I consider that to be great. This Nation has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign oil since 2003. This is a serious national security vulnerability, and I think we can all agree that lessening this dependence is a desirable goal.

I also know that, for many in this day of Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, 2035 seems like a long way off. Those of us in this Chamber do not have the luxury of thinking that way. We have a responsibility to look past 2035, and we have a responsibility to leave our children and grandchildren with an energy portfolio that will keep them in good stead for the years after 2035. We abdicate this responsibility when we underfund research and development in the renewable energy sector. We abdicate this responsibility when we skew applied energy programs at the Department of Energy too heavily toward nuclear energy and fossil fuels. An increased investment in renewable energy makes good economic sense; it makes good environmental sense; and it makes good national security sense. The time to make this investment is now.

We need to be careful even where we see funding increases. Though these funding increases may seem impressive and prudent, we need to be reminded that all that glitters is not gold. They merely mask a continuation of the status quo for my friends from across the

aisle. They would have you believe they are increasing funding for environmental protection while reducing spending on defense, but alas, in my view, this is an illusion. In reality, this bill represents business as usual for the Republican Party--slashing funding for research in renewable resources while doling out more handouts to dirty energy and environmental polluters. It seems like every other week we are voting to drill off our shores, in our parks, or on Federal lands.

To that end, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014--we are the greatest naming people in the world here in Congress--is just a greatest hits record, rehashing two measures the House has already voted on, one of which itself was already cobbled together from a number of separate bills. Like all greatest hits albums, it, too, is stuck in the past. Those past attempts rightly died in the Senate, and there is no reason to expect a different result this time around. Yet here we are again, tossing legislation into the void while our country's very real problems fester.

My friends across the aisle have no ideas, evidently, for energy independence and security beyond more drilling. They would rather score political points than propose real solutions. I am sure they will go home to their districts next week for one of the biggest driving weekends of the year. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I commented that the oil industry manipulates us. Every year in the summer, prices go up on gasoline, and I just don't think that is coincidental when gas prices historically tend to be high. Yet they are going to point to these votes as evidence that they tried to lower gasoline prices. While it may make for a good feel-good story, that is all it is. Putting more oil out there won't move prices. Domestic production is already at a 25-year high in this country, up 60 percent since 2008. Imports are at 29-year lows.

Despite my friend's claims, onshore oil production from Federal lands has gone up 30 percent since 2008. I can never pass up an opportunity to say that I will continue to resist offshore drilling off the coast of Florida beyond the accommodations that have already been made by this body. Yet gas prices remain unchanged. The U.S. holds only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. Even tripling current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we would continue at the rate we are going; or if we would increase oil production all the way to 50 percent--which is more than drilling in the Arctic, increasing public lands and offshore drilling, and the pipelines would provide--prices would decrease by only 10 percent at most.

Oil is priced on the global market, which is far more complicated than my friends let on. Record demand for fossil fuels in this country and in places like India and China and Singapore and Japan have far more impact on the price of gasoline than anything my friends here hope to do. The liquid natural gas export bill the House passed yesterday shows they understand the nature of the market. They just choose to ignore it whenever it is convenient.

My friends across the aisle have no plans for addressing the demand for the kinds of policies that actually could help reduce energy costs, like increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of our cars, and developing renewable energy resources. I was visited by one of our college presidents, John Kelly, who is new at Florida Atlantic University. He visited with me today, and that university has a new grant dealing with currents, which may very well at some point add to our understanding with reference to renewable energy resources. So it won't be the American people who benefit from more drilling. It will be the bottom lines of the companies that own the wells. Hardworking Americans will be left to bear the risk.

This ``drill everywhere, all the time'' plan isn't a serious energy strategy; it is a cash grab by the fossil fuel industry. It is not a path to energy independence and security; it is a road to environmental and economic collapse. This isn't a game. The threat is real, Mr. Speaker. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Let me repeat that. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. A footnote here: BP has not paid for all of the damage that they did in that area, and I defy anybody to show me how it is that they did. I ask anybody who is getting ready to eat seafood that comes out of that bay to look at the damage that was done and at the continuing sediment that continues to rise from that area that was polluted.

What happens to all of those Floridians whose livelihoods depend upon our oceans and beaches?

If you want to know, ask the oyster people what happens. Ask the shrimpers who go out into the gulf what their product looks like nowadays, including the deformed product that they are seeing from this awful disaster.

Florida's GDP from its living resources, which includes fishing, hatcheries, aquaculture, seafood processing, and seafood markets, is worth nearly $300 million. Additionally, the State's GDP from ocean- based tourism and recreation is nearly $16.5 billion. On top of that, Florida generates millions of dollars in commercial fishing, including shrimp, mackerel, blue crab, swordfish, and stone crabs, which we are finding are diminishing in numbers. We have 350,000 jobs in tourism and recreation and nearly 120,000 direct jobs in recreational and commercial fishing.

But you can't eat contaminated fish, and who wants to spend one's hard-earned dollars and vacation time lounging on a beach that is covered in tar balls?

When I lifted up on Monday in the US Air plane and looked down at the shore of Florida, I saw what amounts to about a mile-long oil slick. I saw people walking, and I knew that, in a matter of time, they would be walking on tar balls.

How bad does the next spill have to be?

Climate change is not even pending anymore. It is here, and its effects are conspicuous. Downtown Miami, for example, floods whenever it rains, and so does Hollywood, Florida, and areas that I live around. People can't get to work, businesses can't open, and historic droughts have now ravaged the West, and my friends say that there is nothing to concern ourselves about as it pertains to climate change.

The Risky Business report just released by President George W. Bush's former Treasury Secretary--Henry Paulson--and Mayor Bloomberg and Tom Steyer and other former Cabinet officers, lawmakers, corporate leaders, and scientists says climate change could cost the country billions of dollars over the next two decades.

This bill fully ignores the reality of the world we live in, but I do want to say one thing.

In yesterday's Rules Committee, my friend who is managing this rule, Mr. Bishop from Utah, did make to me a compelling argument regarding education in the State of Utah and the fact that, on some of the Federal lands in Utah, if they had an opportunity to do further oil exploration, it could have an impact on Utah's economy. I think that, in many respects, a lot of that is reasonable. I am hopeful that at some point some of his views in that regard will prevail, but I hope, for the most part, that his overall views do not prevail.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my good friend.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2013, Representative Tim Bishop's bill, to end the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies given to the largest, most profitable oil companies each year.

To discuss our proposal, I am pleased, at this time, to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise at this time and ask if you would learn from my colleague if he is ready to close. I have no further speakers, and I am prepared at this time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that these bills just leave us spinning our wheels, while we could be making actual progress in helping hardworking Americans all across this Nation.

It is outrageous that 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I might add that we learned yesterday that 300,000 of that 3 million are American veterans.

We have also had, along with the expiration of tax extender provisions that help individuals that have expired, they help families and small businesses invest.

Republicans and Democrats should be working together to move our Nation forward on comprehensive immigration reform, and I might add that I agree with everybody that says that the border needs to be secure, and one good way to do that is to do comprehensive immigration reform and tax reform.

We need to raise the minimum wage in this country, and we need to protect voting rights and secure equal pay.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' I just want to make it very clear that the measures that we are considering today have already been voted on by the House and did not go further to become law. The likelihood of this measure reaching that same fate is very strong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 140 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

This resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, and provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

It makes in order all amendments which were preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the House. So this modified open rule is very fair, it's a generous rule, and it will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to stand before the House and support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 678, which is the long title I gave earlier.

I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), and of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, Mr. McClintock of California, for allowing this bill to move forward from the committee and continuing the Natural Resource Committee's record, under Chairman Hastings' leadership, of furthering several important pieces of legislation which, if enacted, will greatly improve our Nation's energy policies and provide a responsible, balanced approach to further domestic energy development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this piece of legislation, to explain why it is so necessary that we do this, even though on paper it seems like this problem is solved.

Let me take a moment just to give my impression of this particular bill, and then I'll be ready to close at that time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill which had a bipartisan vote in this body last time and a bipartisan vote in the committee, sent to the Senate, where an errant Senator was able to hold the process up. Fortunately, in this session, there is a new chairman of that committee in the Senate from the West who clearly understands the value and significance of hydroelectric power.

So I think that everyone in this body on both sides of the aisle can agree that our Nation is in great need of more energy. If we want to create real jobs, private sector jobs, there has to be a strong energy component to our ability to do that. Our Nation has tremendous amounts of energy that are locked away domestically in the forms of oil and gas and low sulphur and high-BTU coal reserves; but too often special interest groups and layers of bureaucracy have kept us from becoming more energy self-sufficient with these areas. And we're now seeing and feeling the results every time somebody tries to pay an electric bill.

This administration seems to be dragging its feet on energy development of everything from the Keystone Pipeline to the development of public lands. But there is also another source of energy that is presently being unused and can be put to good use without negatively impacting the environment. The energy resource is what we're addressing here in this particular bill. This bill deals with electricity that can be generated from hydro, a renewable energy resource that is very clean and helpful to the environment.

Numerous witnesses testified this year and last year that there is an uncertainty on the NEPA costs, which throw these projects into limbo and often render projects financially unfeasible and stifle private investment far beyond what has been able to be done. Thus, this is stifling what could be done to produce self-sufficiency in energy production. One witness from Arizona simply testified in 2011 that it would cost them $20,000 to install this generator that would create energy in a Federal canal. Yet the NEPA analysis would cost them $50,000 to check the boxes and do that simple paperwork, as we have heard about. The environmental paperwork in this case is almost three times the cost of the capital that you would put into the project. And it all is redundant since the NEPA analysis was done in the first place for the entire canal. This is a second project put in the same canal that has already gone through this process. It's a manmade canal.

Witnesses have testified this year that despite the Bureau of Reclamation's claim of its categorical exclusions and having a policy in place, not one project has utilized this project because of a potential legal uncertainty surrounding categorical exclusions.

As a result, there is no new development that has occurred, and the gentleman from Colorado's amendment will improve this particular situation. So, once again, let this be done.

This is not denying a NEPA review. NEPA has already been done on every one of these projects. This is saying you don't need to do the same thing a second time, which is simply redundant, it is silly, it's red tape, bungling by administrations that need not be there.

The choice is very simple in this particular bill: Either you can give the administration, the executive branch, the right to make these kinds of decisions on moving us forward, in which case the administration can make and can take away their decision at whim, in which case it invites litigation because of the uncertainty of an administrative policy, and also invites conflict within different administrative agencies. Or we can do what we're supposed to do and actually pass legislation to solve problems. The gentleman from Colorado's approach is simply allowing the legislature to make the decision, to institute what the policy will be and tell the agencies how they will proceed into the future. We can either have the legislature stand up and do our job and do it the right way or we can pass it all off and let the executive branch come up with regulations now which they could change and also are subject to the fear of litigation.

This is an easy thing to do. This bill actually should be a no- brainer. It will increase the energy production we have in the country, it will increase the ability of making sure that we have adequate water resources in the West, it will also give a needed boost of revenues to the canal companies, and it will create ultimately more jobs, especially with a cheap form of highly effective energy production.

This bill is reasonable, and it's understandable why it passed with a bipartisan vote last time. I hope it passes with a bipartisan vote again, and I hope we can recognize that this will move us forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time unless the gentlelady has other speeches that she has requests for.

I am prepared to close when you are.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me state a couple of things. Number one, this is a good rule. Therefore, you should vote for this rule. It is a fair and open rule--a fair and modified open rule. More importantly, it is a rule that will allow us to discuss a very good bill. This bill encourages energy production. We may think of these as small energy projects, but I am told that all these small projects already being held up in Colorado would create the amount of energy that comes from a large project like the Glen Canyon Dam. It's a large amount of energy that is clean energy that we will be producing. Number two, this bill gets rid of redundancy. It is not that we are doing away with environmental protection or a review for environmental protection. That environmental protection review has already been done. It is that we're simply saying for these small projects you don't need to do the same thing a second time and incur the cost, which is an amazing amount of cost, and potential litigation factors that go along with it.

If we do want to produce private sector jobs, and that is a worthy goal, you have to have energy to do it. This bill produces the energy which will be used to grow the economy to produce those jobs that we really want. That is why it is a bipartisan bill, and I expect a bipartisan vote on this particular bill. It's a good bill, and we should pass it today. This is a fair rule, and I urge its adoption.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday we received the news that the economy had only added 88,000 jobs in the month of March. The percentage of unemployed Americans dropped, but that is almost entirely because thousands of workers have given up looking for jobs at all.

This slowdown is a warning to Congress, but we won't take it, I feel sure, since we've pretty much ignored it. Unless this majority reverses the spending cuts contained in the sequester, the health of our economy is only getting worse.

Months ago, economists were warning that the sequester will stall out our economy and lead to job loss, and as we can see by the March data, their predictions are beginning to come true.

With economic warning bells beginning to toll, one would expect Congress to make job creation our number one priority. But one would certainly be wrong because we haven't done that at all. Unfortunately, such expectations don't even come close.

Instead of working on legislation to grow our economy and to create some good-paying jobs, we are wasting valuable session time discussing yet another bill that went nowhere in the last Congress, and I predict will go nowhere in this one as well. But we seem to have the time to waste.

The majority has decided that erasing environmental regulations for hydropower companies is a better use of time than putting Americans back to work and to help families pay their bills.

Furthermore, the bill before us today is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. Despite the rhetoric of the majority, small conduit hydropower projects are rarely delayed because of environmental regulations. In fact, from 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions were completed in less than a year, and in 2011 there were nine exemptions that were granted in an average of 40 days.

In addition, changes within the last year have made the process even easier for hydropower developers. Under the new regulations by the Bureau of Reclamation, all a developer has to do to avoid a full environmental assessment is to get a simple, 1\1/2\ page form filled out with 15 boxes to check ``yes'' or ``no.'' That is certainly not a burdensome regulation. All they have to do is check the box ``yes'' or ``no,'' indicate the project is not in an especially sensitive area.

Most small conduit hydropower projects will easily pass this test because the reclamation sites are already developed. But despite what you may hear, there is little evidence that there is even a problem with hydropower regulation that needs to be solved.

Contained within today's legislation is a proposal to clarify the lines of authority between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a worthwhile effort that would receive bipartisan support, and we made that very clear. Standing alone, though, this proposal could pass on suspension within a matter of minutes. That would, of course, leave us with nothing to do here today, so here we are.

During the debate in the Natural Resources Committee, the majority was given the opportunity to agree to the noncontroversial and bipartisan parts of the legislation and drop their partisan attacks on environmental safeguards.

Unfortunately, the majority has once again rejected this chance for productive compromise and chosen the partisan path. And as a result, we are here spending time debating another partisan bill that will not pass the Senate and turning our back on the pressing economic needs of this country.

I've said many times on the floor during rules debates that CBS News had estimated it costs $24 million a week to run the Congress of the United States. And it has been embarrassing that we do so little work. But for millions of Americans, the luxury of the time that we take here is something they cannot afford.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation so we can get back to the task of growing our economy, repealing the sequester, and creating American jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time until my colleague is ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, so I am prepared to close if my colleague is.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, today's bill does nothing to address the pressing economic issues facing every American household and fails to stop the sequestration cuts that are threatening our economy as a whole. It's rather ambiguous. On one hand it gives; on the other hand it takes back away, but we'll get into that in the general debate.

Instead, today's legislation unnecessarily attacks environmental protections while doing nothing to create new jobs. Today's legislation includes a blanket waiver for all small conduit hydropower projects that generate less than 5 megawatts of power. The requirement is arbitrary and would fail to protect the environment. Environmental danger is not determined by the megawatts produced but whether the hydropower project is located where it is likely to do damage. A 1- megawatt project in the wrong location would be more harmful to the environment than a 6-megawatt project in the right location.

Perhaps most importantly, consideration of this legislation is taking up time that we could otherwise be using to repeal the sequester and create jobs. As I have mentioned repeatedly on the House floor, my colleague and ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, has appeared at the Rules Committee repeatedly offering legislation to repeal the sequester and reduce our deficit in a responsible way. The Rules Committee on at least three times has never even allowed it to come to the floor. Despite voting on hydropower legislation twice in the last 13 months, the majority has rejected Mr. Van Hollen, who, as I said, is the ranking member on the Budget Committee, and his bill would save and create thousands of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426 from Representative Tim Bishop of New York to roll back tax giveaways to big oil companies. The bill is known as the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous matter immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can get back to trying to grow our economy and create American jobs,

and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank Chairman Bishop for yielding.

When we're talking about job creation in this country, I think it's worthy to note I just traveled through the Third Congressional District of Colorado visiting with people from Pueblo to Alamosa, Durango, Cortez, Montrose, Craig, Hayden, and Steamboat. One of the greatest challenges that they face is regulations coming out of Washington when it comes to job creation.

The fact of the matter is we're spending $1.75 trillion per year for businesses to be able to comply with government mandates. Is it a sensible approach to be able to look at regulations that simply don't work and are inhibiting job creation and our ability to be able to achieve the most carbon-free, environmentally friendly legislation that we can have? That's hydropower. That is a sensible approach.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of House Resolution 140 and for an open discussion on how we're going to be able to work together to be able to promote clean, renewable hydropower development in rural America and create much-needed jobs in the process. At a time when our country needs to be able to focus on domestic energy production and job creation, hydropower can play a critical role in providing clean renewable energy while expanding job opportunities in some of our hardest hit rural communities.

Hydropower is the cheapest and cleanest source of electricity available through modern technology. It's the highest source of non- carbon-emitting energy in the world and accounts for approximately 75 percent of the United States' total renewable electricity generation, making it the leading renewable energy resource of power. Canal-based hydropower can produce up to 1,400 megawatts of power in Colorado alone. Let's put this in perspective. This is the equivalent of the power produced by the originally designed output of the Glen Canyon Dam, just out of Colorado, not including the rest of the western United States.

Increased conduit hydropower serves a number of purposes: it produces renewable and emissions-free energy that can be used to pump water or sell electricity to the grid; it can offset diesel-generated pumps; it can generate revenue for the hydropower developer to help pay for aging infrastructure costs and water/power facility modernization; and it can create local jobs and generate revenue for the Federal Government.

As it stands, Federal regulations hinder this development on Federal projects and subject job creators to unnecessary requirements which can render small hydropower projects economically unfeasible. For this reason, I introduced H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act. This legislation authorizes power development at the agency's conduits to clear up multi-agency confusion and duplicative processes and reduces the regulatory costs associated with hydropower development.

H.R. 678, as passed by the Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support, would eliminate the requirement of duplicative and unnecessary environmental analyses for projects on manmade facilities which already underwent a full environmental review at the time of their construction or when undergoing rehabilitation. The bill covers small hydropower generators installed on manmade pipes, ditches, and canals; and the renewable energy development promoted by the bill in no way impacts the natural environment. By streamlining this process, we can finally make these small conduit hydropower projects financially feasible and unleash private investment in clean energy that will reduce costs for ratepayers and increase tax revenue for the Treasury while putting people back to work.

I understand that some of my friends on the other side have reservations about this provision; and as I have made clear in the past, I'm open to working with my colleagues to be able to address their concerns with the NEPA provision. However, failure to address the existing regulatory uncertainty would negate one of the primary purposes of the bill and would ensure that the renewable energy development envisioned by the bill remains in limbo. I'm optimistic that discussing this issue openly will allay any concerns Members may have and allow us

to be able to arrive at a solution which ensures the implementation of a statutory framework that streamlines the project approval process and reduces costs.

I'm proud to have the support of the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, and the American Public Power Association, among others. I think the broad support this bill has seen among those most directly impacted indicates how close we are to making this renewable energy development a reality. I look forward to an open discussion on the merits of the bill, which I believe will speak for themselves.