Protecting Educational Loans for Underserved Students Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1965.

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

Madam Chair, with millions of Americans still looking for work, growing debts and deficits, and energy prices that are still far too high, the United States needs to implement an all-of-the-above energy plan to responsibly harness our Nation's energy resources on our Federal lands.

New energy production is one of the best ways to grow the economy and create new jobs to put people back to work. One needs to look no further for proof than to States like North Dakota that have flourishing economies and some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, all due to energy production. Because of this energy boom, the U.S. is now projected to be the world leader in oil production by 2015, surpassing Saudi Arabia.

The catch is that this increased oil production is happening on private and State lands--which is good--places that aren't as restricted by onerous Federal regulations and policies. Federal lands are being left behind.

However, this lack of production on Federal lands is not for a lack of resources. We have tremendous potential for new onshore oil and natural gas production on Federal lands, but the Obama administration is actively and purposely keeping these resources off limits. Leasing and permitting delays, regulatory hurdles, and ever-changing rules are a few of the reasons energy production on Federal lands is in decline.

President Obama has had the four lowest years of Federal acres leased for energy production going back to 1988. Under his administration, the average time to get a drilling permit approved on Federal land is 307 days. By contrast, it takes an average of only 10 days in North Dakota to get a permit; and another example, in Colorado it only takes 27 days.

It is no wonder that State lands are flourishing while Federal lands are experiencing a decrease in energy production. That is unacceptable, and this bill today offers real solutions to unlock the shackles that have been placed on our Federal lands.

H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, is a package of bills that will help us expand oil, natural gas, and renewable energy production on public lands. It will streamline government red tape, break down bureaucratic hurdles, and put in place a clear plan for developing our own energy resources. Even more importantly, this bill will spur job creation and help grow and strengthen our economy.

Madam Chair, I want to take a moment to specifically highlight the importance of the third title in this bill, the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act. The NPR-A was specifically designated in 1923 as a petroleum reserve. Let me repeat that: NPR-A was specifically designated in 1923--that is 90 years ago--as a petroleum reserve. Its express purpose was to supply our country with American energy. That was the foresight of Congress 90 years ago. That is why it is completely unacceptable that the Obama administration this year finalized a plan to close half of NPR-A to energy production. Let me repeat: we set aside NPR-A 90 years ago for energy production, and this administration unilaterally shut off half of it. So this bill would nullify that plan and require the Interior Department to produce a new plan for responsibly developing these resources.

This bill would require annual lease sales in the NPR-A and ensure that necessary roads, bridges, and pipelines needed to support energy resources out of the NPR-A can be approved and completed in a timely, efficient manner. Now, Madam Chairman, this is crucial to the Trans- Alaskan Pipeline System, TAPS. It is crucial because that pipeline needs to remain fully operational.

Much focus has been given to the Keystone XL pipeline, and properly so; but we cannot forget that TAPS is one of the most important pieces of energy infrastructure in our Nation. Reduced production in Alaska has left TAPS at less than half of its capacity, threatening a shutdown that would cost jobs

and significantly weaken our energy security. We cannot allow that to happen, and developing our resources in the NPR-A is vital to ensuring that it doesn't.

I urge my colleagues to support this job-creating legislation and allow our Federal lands to be part of our Nation's energy equation.

We have seen the jobs that can be created through energy production. We have seen how it can grow local communities and create thriving economies. We have seen how lower energy prices are vital to putting more money in the pockets of American families. We know what is possible. It is just a matter of realizing that potential by allowing new energy production to occur on our Federal lands.

The majority of the provisions in this bill passed the House last Congress with bipartisan support. It is time for this Congress to once again move forward with this commonsense, job-creating energy plan.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), a former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the sponsor of this legislation,

Madam Chairwoman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Ohio, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my good friend, the minority leader. He characterized these bills as being not pressing.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that probably the biggest issue facing America that we have heard from our constituents probably on both sides of the aisle is the need to have a growing economy and jobs. American energy--we have a chance to capture American energy and jobs with this legislation. So while it is not pressing, as the gentleman says, it is certainly very, very important.

Now, I would also point out the gentleman, the minority leader, was talking about several issues that are important. I would just suggest that probably number one on Americans' minds right now actually started on October 1, when the signup for the health care plan passed. Now, if there is something that is absolutely pressing that needs to pass this Congress before the end of the year, it is to rectify how people can keep the health care policies that they wanted.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the gentleman from the State that certainly knows what oil production is about.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just let me talk about what this bill is about. This bill is about attempting to open Federal lands to energy production.

All the talk has been on oil and gas. That is very important. But this is also for renewable by doing what? By saying that in the process of using Federal lands for energy production, those lands that have the potential for the most production should be the first leased. What a remarkable idea: go where the potential energy is. And that is what this bill does.

But let me respond to my good friend from New Jersey who talked about how much we are producing in this country and so forth. I would suggest that he left out a few important points.

First of all, it takes some length of time in order to get an active lease into production, and the gentleman didn't talk about that. Why? Because it generally takes 4 to 6 years. And sometimes it is 8 to 10 years.

But in the last administration--the Bush II administration--they were very active in letting leases. And as a result of that, at the time that this administration took over, there were a number of active leases that were ready to produce. That is why the production was high in the early part of this administration.

And just put it this way: again, we are talking about Federal lands that are being leased for production. When the President took office, roughly 1.9 million acres were leased for energy production. That was in 2009. In 2012, that figure dropped to 1.75 million acres that were open for production. That is, obviously, a reduction.

But another way to look at it is the application permits to drill, which is really where I guess it meets the road, so to speak. In 2001, there were a little over 2,000 permits that were issued; and in 2012, there were a little over 1,700 permits issued. That is a 15 percent drop. If you drop the permits, you are obviously going to have less production.

So I think that needed to be pointed out to kind of set the record straight.

As to my good friend, Mr. Dingell, who is not on the floor now, I want to talk about the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska one more time.

Ninety years ago, that was set aside as a reserve. In all the years that Democrats controlled Congress, from the mid-fifties all the way to the nineties, nothing was ever done to change that policy until this administration decided, without any direction from Congress, to set aside one-half of that.

Why is that important?

I mentioned in my opening remarks that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is a very important part of our pipeline system. There is no question that there is a movement in this country to try to dry up that pipeline by slow-walking oil exploration in Alaska, whether they are talking about offshore or onshore.

The NPR was designed to be a petroleum reserve. Why should we not build an infrastructure to utilize that?

It has been said, well, there's not that much oil there. Well, that will come out when leases are offered. Those that want to take advantage of this and think there is some production there will make the leases. The market will dictate that. But to unilaterally close it off doesn't make any sense. This bill corrects that. It makes NPR what it was supposed to be historically since 1923.

So those are just a couple of issues, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to touch on.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes adjustments in the bill to the amount of funds authorized to be made available to BLM field offices for energy permitting. This change is made to ensure the bill meets its goal of reducing the deficit, not increasing spending.

According to information from the Congressional Budget Office, after adoption of this amendment the underlying bill would reduce the deficit by $26 million, while generating more American energy and new jobs for American workers.

This amendment sets the funding directed to wind and solar energy permitting in local BLM field offices at $5 million each fiscal year. Currently, under existing law, no funds get sent to those doing the work to permit these renewable projects. After the amendment, the amount to help foster renewable energy on Federal lands is less than currently in the bill, but is far more than the zero dollars allocated today.

A vote for this amendment is a vote for an all-of-the-above approach to American energy. It is a vote for more American-made energy, and it is a vote to support renewable energy that uses its own funds and not taxpayers' subsidies; and, Mr. Chairman, it is a vote to reduce the deficit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the 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.

To be clear, nothing in this act prohibits individuals from asserting their rights to petition the government. In fact, it would be ridiculous for us to try to write a statute that would negate the First Amendment, so nothing in this bill does that at all. Let me talk about the process here.

The BLM undertakes multiple layers of rulemaking and environmental review when going through its Federal actions. Nearly every layer of this process allows for the opportunity for public comments, involvement, and questions regarding BLM's actions. Nothing, Mr. Chairman, in this legislation impacts an individual's right to comment, petition, and object to the actions of BLM under this bill. Nothing, by the way, in this legislation stops individuals from filing lawsuits. That is important in this debate on this amendment.

H.R. 1965 simply implements a cost recovery fee for the formal process of filing protests of oil and gas leasing. These formal protests require a direct BLM response, using staff time, energy, and resources to address what is, simply, often a delaying tactic. This paperwork recovery fee will ensure that BLM has the resources necessary to address the protests but that it has the necessary resources to carry out the functions of the Bureau of Land Management, which is for multipurpose use in this country.

So it is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I oppose this amendment, because it does not add anything to what people already have a constitutional right to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, this bill has nothing to do with high- rises, so we should set that apart, and I know the gentlelady was using that as an example.

I have to say this in a larger sense, which is that, in the time that I have had the privilege to chair this committee, we have seen over and over and over what I would call ``frivolous action'' by people with lawsuits who are trying to slow down the process. The gentlelady used her example of high-rises in Houston. I will use another example that, I think, this House needs to address, and that is the issue of the Endangered Species Act and how it affects development in other parts of the country.

In setting that aside for now, this bill simply says that, in going through the process, there should be something up front if you are serious about your issue. It is nothing more than that. This is a modest way to say, if people are serious about the actions that they are trying to take, then there ought to be nothing more than some skin in the game. That is what this bill does. This amendment would take that out. That is why I oppose the amendment and why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This amendment would increase regulatory red tape and opportunities for frivolous lawsuits to stop what we are trying to do here--American energy production and job creation. It would achieve the exact opposite of what our Nation needs and what the bill provides.

H.R. 1965 seeks to streamline and expedite the onshore oil and gas and renewable permitting process, and it does so in a safe and responsible way. This amendment would simply reinject the same uncertainty and bureaucracy into the permitting process that this legislation seeks to do away with.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Mr. Chairman, established in a broad, bipartisan fashion the use of categorical exclusions for energy projects in specific and limited circumstances. This provision was intended to expedite the permit approvals of certain energy projects on disturbed land, on operations with a small footprint, or in areas that were previously approved in recent years. Again, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a bipartisan attempt, and this provision which I just described was part of the 2005 Act.

These pro-energy reforms are designed to allow minor actions that do not significantly affect the environment to move forward without the burdensome and lengthy full costly environmental review.

To the point the gentleman is making and what the gentleman's amendment addresses, this legislation clarifies the Department's ability to use the categorical exclusion tool to quickly permit energy projects. This amendment, unfortunately, would require the Department of the Interior to unreasonably review what we call ``extraordinary circumstances'' which require additional NEPA reviews, thereby essentially negating any value from expediting a project and inserting more certainty into an already uncertain energy permitting process.

The intent of this legislation is to streamline and simplify projects that are held up, often for years, in bureaucratic red tape and regulatory uncertainty. This amendment backtracks

from the goal by injecting more bureaucracy and regulatory hurdles into the process.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think this amendment adds anything to what we are trying to accomplish. In fact, I think it goes the other way. It goes the other way in such a way that negates what the Energy Act of 2005 in a bipartisan manner said.

I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Notwithstanding what my good friend from California said, I just want to make this point, which ironically was not brought out at all in the gentleman's argument. That is the issue of categorical exclusion.

That has been in place on energy projects now for 8 years. If there is something wrong with that or there is an example of where it has been abused, then maybe the gentleman has a case, but the gentleman didn't speak at all--not at all--to the point that that provision in the 2005 Energy Act has been abused. That alone should be enough to reject this amendment.

In any case, I do not believe that his amendment adds to what we are trying to do to streamline the process of energy creation and creating American energy jobs.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as I say, I rise to oppose this amendment.

The Equal Access to Justice Act, or the EAJA, was created, rightfully so, to level the playing field between citizens seeking to do the right thing and a well-funded Federal Government. Unfortunately, wealthy activist groups have been able to distort the intended purpose of the EAJA by exploiting the program as a cash register to file thousands of lawsuits, many based on frivolous technicalities.

Further, Federal payments to lawyers fighting lawsuits come out of each agency's budgets, which, of course, hinders the agency's ability to do their job and forces tighter budgets on the agencies working on behalf of Americans.

Every year, numerous energy projects are held up by burdensome legal challenges by activist groups whose aim is to hold up or simply stop energy production in this country.

Under the guise of ``responsible development,'' these groups file lawsuit after lawsuit that force the government to use Federal resources and millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to litigate these lengthy and burdensome lawsuits. These well-funded activist groups have the resources to hire, in some cases, multiple lawyers to sue the Federal Government.

These unnecessary delays in energy projects result in a domino effect of delays in economic development, of delays, obviously, in job creation, of delays in income generation for local, State, and, indeed, the Federal Government, and delays in making the United States becoming energy independent.

Further, many small communities depend on a robust energy sector to provide jobs for its residents and generate income for their local schools and for their communities. These well-funded activist organizations should not be rewarded, Mr. Chairman, with taxpayer dollars for delaying American job creation and the generation of funds for our local communities.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just simply say that what this bill and the bill tomorrow, for that matter--this bill is designed to create an atmosphere for more American energy production, which I think is badly needed in our economy, because we know that a growing economy by any measure has to have a predictable energy source. That has been lacking on our Federal lands. That is what the underlying bill does.

What we have seen, and what we have observed in our committee, is the fact that the courtroom is used to slow down so many projects on Federal land. This provision in the current bill simply, I think, clarifies and rectifies that we can have some certainty in the law. That, I think, is the important part of creating American energy. I don't think that this amendment adds anything to that.

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

Will the gentlelady yield?

I have no problem with your amendment. As you rightfully said, in the last Congress this was accepted by a voice vote. I think it adds more lands for energy production; and as the gentlelady knows, we are in favor of that. So we accept the gentlelady's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor. I think it adds a great deal to what we are trying to do with energy development in this country, and I am prepared to accept the amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, in light of the recent flooding in the gentleman's home State of Colorado, I can appreciate his concern about this issue. However, this amendment contains no restrictions on the scope and breadth of this study, and it seems to be endless. In fact, the study is not focused on the tragic flooding in Colorado, and it is so expansive it can include all flooding anywhere, and the term ``oil and gas'' facilities is undefined. That is what the amendment says.

``Oil and gas'' facilities could be interpreted to mean many things, much of which is outside of the jurisdiction of this committee. This could include corner gasoline stations or private gas meters. And ``leaking and spills from tanks, wells, and pipelines'' does not have to be associated with natural gas. It can be anything, such as a septic or water or sewer tanks and pipelines.

Further, this amendment does not specify that the study be conducted in conjunction with production on Federal land, which of course is what this legislation specifically deals with. The result is a nationwide study that can touch a variety of sources, right down to private homes, the results of which will have nothing to do with the energy production process that this legislation seeks to streamline.

This study, undoubtedly at the expense of taxpayer dollars, will have no impact on energy production; and, frankly, it has no clear goal.

Finally, the proper place to examine the effects of flooding in Colorado is in Colorado. In testing done by the Colorado State Department of Public Health and the Environment, they found pollutants from oil and gas in the aftermath of the spills at 29 specific sites, but no pollutants in Colorado's waterways. However, the incidence of E. coli and raw sewage was measurable and did have an impact on public health, which is not limited to one industry and is not even covered by this study.

Mr. Chairman, for a variety of reasons, and I think I have tried to touch on the major ones that I just enunciated, I urge rejection of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the author of this legislation.

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

As I mentioned in my initial remarks, this amendment really is very broadly written. And when we had other amendments talking about potential lawsuits, boy, adopting this amendment here would really be a litigant's dream if it were to be part of the legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear that I do oppose this amendment.

This amendment is costly and wasteful. The amendment would redirect $10 billion away from Federal permitting streamlining, which we know would help lower costs and produce more energy, and instead funnel the money to another fruitless study of the unfounded position of somehow market speculation is impacting energy prices.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, researchers Christopher Knittel and Robert S. Pindyck from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, MIT, found that speculation wasn't driving up energy prices. I will quote them, Mr. Chairman.

Back to those pesky speculators for a moment: surely, their

bets on oil have had at least some effect on prices?

According to our latest research, the answer is: not

really. In our recent paper, we explore the link between

speculation and inventory changes. We calculate a series of

speculation-free prices by creating a stable inventory of

oil, providing us with a picture of what the market might

look like in the absence of speculation. We focus on

inventory for a simple reason: if oil prices are changing

because of speculators, then there would have to be

commensurate changes to inventories--a buildup when prices

are increasing and a drawdown when prices are falling.

But when the economy was strong and oil prices were

increasing, we didn't see large increases in inventories. In

fact, they fell somewhat. This means that peak prices would

have actually been higher if you take away any effects of

speculation.

And let me repeat that final part:

But when the economy was strong and oil prices were

increasing, we didn't see large increases in inventories. In

fact, they fell somewhat. This means that peak prices would

have actually been higher if you take away any effects of

speculation.

Time and time again, we have heard from those opposed to oil and gas drilling that it is the shady Wall Street speculator, the man behind the curtain who is driving up energy prices. The truth is that the best way to fight speculators, or foreign cartels, is simply to outproduce them, and that should be our solution here today.

We should be working to figure out how to use more than just 2 percent of our Federal lands for energy development. We should find a way to have Federal lands keep pace with private lands in the revolution of energy production as currently taking place in the United States. Yet the Congressional Research Service tells us:

All of the increase from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year

2012 took place on non-Federal lands, and the Federal share

of total U.S. crude oil production fell by about 7 percentage

points.

Yet, instead of reversing this trend, streamlining permitting, the author of this amendment wants to siphon off money for studies.

The legislation before us today is designed to streamline and produce more onshore energy production. This will create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign imports. It demands an all-of-the-above energy agenda, and I would like to think that the folks on the other side could at least embrace that part of it.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I know there is no truism specifically in economic theory, but one thing we do know about crude oil is that it is subject to international pricing.

We do know that a big part of the international pricing and production is conducted by a cartel, namely, OPEC. The last figure I saw was about 45 percent of the international market. Well, when you have 45 percent controlled by one entity, you are going to have some price pressures that are coming. Indeed, you probably have some speculation.

Mr. Chairman, this is the important part of what this underlying bill and the bill that we will have on the floor tomorrow does.

The only way that you are going to beat cartels is to outproduce them. I don't care if you are talking about crude oils or if you are talking about apples or you are talking about potatoes or you are talking about timber. The whole idea, if you have somebody that controls a big part of the marketplace, the way you beat them is to outproduce them.

This bill allows America to outproduce our foreign competitors. This amendment adds nothing to that. I urge rejection of the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations wrote in The Washington Post earlier this year:

Climate change is the biggest challenge of our time. It

threatens the well-being of hundreds of millions of people

today, and many billions more in time.

Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary, said recently:

There are a lot of really significant monumental issues

facing the global economy, but this supersedes them all.

The Energy and Commerce Committee is the committee in the House that has the power to tackle this monumental issue, the biggest challenge of our time, but we are missing in action. Instead of listening to the scientists and working on a bipartisan basis to protect the planet for our children and future generations, we are considering today a science denial bill that would strip the EPA of authority to stop dangerous carbon pollution.

The venerable John Dingell, the longtime chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is famously known for pointing to a photo of the Earth, which I have here to the right, to describe the committee's jurisdiction. Under his leadership, the committee was known for listening to the experts, tackling the toughest problems, and crafting responsible science-based policies. But today we need a new symbol to represent what we are doing.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has joined The Flat Earth Society. We considered a very similar bill to this one last Congress.

Here is what Nature, one of the world's leading science journals, said at the time:

Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted,

and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists,

let alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing

display, not just for the Republican Party, but also for

Congress and the U.S. citizens it represents.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness--The Flat Earth Society.

The United States is a major contributor to climate change. It cannot be stopped without us. We have a moral responsibility to act, but the Republican majority has brought a bill to the floor that does just the opposite. It makes the problem worse by preventing EPA from acting.

If we pass this terrible bill, we will vote to let China leap ahead of us in the race to build the clean energy economy for the future, and we will be ignoring our moral obligation to protect the planet for our children and grandchildren.

As you might have guessed, I strongly oppose this bill. Future generations will be appalled that we are considering it today. Coal- fired power plants are the largest single source of carbon pollution in the country. Today, there is no limit on how much carbon pollution these power plants can emit. That is why President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to use its existing authority under law, under the Clean Air Act, to require power plants to control carbon pollution. EPA has proposed a rule to require new coal plants to use available pollution control technology to capture and sequester carbon. For existing coal plants, EPA is working with stakeholders to think through the best approach. H.R. 3826, the bill under consideration today, would stop EPA from issuing any rules and allow these plants to continue to keep emitting unlimited amounts of carbon pollution.

Republicans complain they don't like EPA's approach, but they won't even admit climate change is a problem, much less accept the President's invitation to work together on a solution. Instead, they want to pass a bill to deny the problem, block EPA action, and weaken the Clean Air Act.

My message to my Republican colleagues is simple: if you don't like what EPA is doing, tell us your plan. If you have other ideas for reducing carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, let's hear about them. If you don't, you should step aside and let the President lead.

Today is an embarrassing day for our committee on Energy and Commerce and the U.S. House of Representatives if this bill is to be passed. I hope that does not come about.

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

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said that heating oil prices are going up, energy costs are going up. Well, if they are going up, it is not because of what President Obama has done by regulation because he has not adopted any regulations through EPA. The bill before us would stop any regulations from being adopted under current law. They would change the current law and say nothing could be adopted in the future.

The chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy made the statement no coal power plants are being proposed, yet what he is also suggesting is that we not allow them to be built in the future should they want to be built in a way that would reduce the pollution of carbon. What is unfair, it seems to me what is unfair is that coal-burning power plants can burn all the coal they want and put out all the pollution they want, and we are allowing it even though everyone is suffering from the consequences. So I find it amazing to hear the arguments: One, coal burning power plants are not going to be built; on the other hand, we are already paying higher prices and nothing has even been passed by the EPA and put into effect.

At this time I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Chairman, House Republicans are telling us greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the United States. They suggest the U.S. doesn't need to do anything more about climate change, but they couldn't be more wrong.

A couple of years ago when the utilities were switching out of coal and going to natural gas because natural gas was cheaper, we saw some leveling off of those emissions, but what matters most is whether the U.S. emissions are on track to decline in the future by the amount needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

Scientists say we need to reduce carbon pollution by 80 percent by 2050, but will not get anywhere near that level of reductions if we go about business as usual and stop EPA from acting and Congress doing nothing to respond to this emergency.

At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

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

I want to point out that the speakers in favor of this bill describe themselves as part of the coal-producing regions of the country. They are representing, they think, the coal-producing regions of the country because they fear, if the coal industry had to use some technology that would reduce carbon emissions, that would cost jobs.

I want to dispute that in two respects. One, they claim that no one is using this technology, and that is not accurate. In fact, the control technology is already in effect, being used commercially in the United States for decades. There are seven large commercial CCS--that is carbon capture and sequestration--projects operating today.

Dr. Julio Friedmann, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal at the U.S. Department of Energy, recently testified: ``First generation CCS technology is commercially available today.''

So why are they worried about jobs? They are being told by the coal miners that, if they have to use a technology that costs money, that would raise the price of coal and, therefore, coal will lose out to other technologies.

Well, that hasn't been the case. I have been in Congress for 40 years. I remember the coal industry coming in and saying: If we have to put scrubbers on, we will go broke; they will never burn coal again.

The coal industry uses scrubbers right now. The cost of scrubbers has gone down. They overstated how much it would cost. They cried about the lost jobs. It didn't happen.

The other thing I want to point out is that they talk about the coal jobs that will be lost. Well, coal jobs are being lost now because the utilities realize they can burn natural gas. It is cheaper, so coal is losing out in the market.

If natural gas is cheaper than burning coal now, they are going to burn natural gas. That is called the market. It is like cars replacing horse and buggies.

But the reality is that coal is going to be able to compete if we have new technologies imposed on them, just as they have been able to compete in the future. They can't compete if they are expensive, so they have got to figure out ways to produce coal that is less expensive.

That may happen, but we shouldn't subsidize coal to compete by having the world have to deal with carbon pollution.

We decided years ago that we weren't going to help coal compete by poisoning people with toxic mercury pollution when we required they use the technology to stop toxic mercury pollution. We decided they had to use scrubbers. They said they would go broke, that they couldn't afford it, that people would lose their jobs, but we required it because it reduced pollution that harmed people. Carbon pollution harms people on this planet, as we see the impact of climate change continue, because we refuse to require them to use less carbon and spew it out into the atmosphere.

Let me just say that you don't have to buy all of the arguments on climate change, but consider this: if there is a 10 percent chance that carbon pollution is going to cause greenhouse gases and climate change and do all of the terrible things that the scientists overwhelmingly tell us will happen, how many people want to take that 10 percent chance on the only atmosphere that we share on this planet?

I know that the coal people say they are willing to take that chance. They are afraid their constituents will turn against them because the coal companies will tell them to turn against them. They may lose their next elections. I don't think that is the case, but that is their fear. They are speaking from fear. They are speaking from a fear of jobs being lost, but that hasn't been the experience under the Clean Air Act, and we shouldn't repeal the Clean Air Act now as it relates to giving the EPA the authority to regulate these coal-burning power plants.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have on both sides?

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that it was unfortunate to make a reference personally to Gina McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, on her listening tour. The Republicans have not allotted enough money to the EPA to let her go everywhere in the country, so she went to 10 regional offices as well as the Washington headquarters, and she invited people to come in and give their points of view.

That is the full amount of money she had available to her. So it seems to be unfair to criticize her for not going to every nook and cranny in coal country, when she went to every part of the country and had representation for those regions.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the State of California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a great champion of environmental protection.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the underlying bill, H.R. 3826, is a radical rewrite of the Clean Air Act. It effectively repeals the EPA's existing authority to address carbon pollution from coal-powered plants.

It says that EPA cannot set a standard for new plants unless the standard is already being met by power plants using technologies that can achieve that standard.

Well, why would any power plant want to spend the money to use technology to achieve a standard that their competitors do not have to achieve?

So it is a chicken and egg problem. You cannot require them to do what they are not already doing.

Well, this amendment goes a step further and it says, for natural gas-fired power plants, they shouldn't have to do anything that they are not already doing either. They would block EPA from requiring natural gas-fired power plants to install pollution controls.

The problem is, EPA's current proposal for new natural gas plants doesn't require any pollution control technology. EPA is going to set a standard, and then let that standard be achieved however the industry would accomplish it.

So this amendment would preemptively block EPA from ever considering rules that might further reduce carbon pollution from any future power plants, whether they be coal or natural gas.

I think it makes no sense. It is a disaster for the climate. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at what is happening with this bill and this amendment, if both were passed, combined, coal and natural gas power plants emit a third of all carbon pollution in this country. They are responsible for virtually all carbon pollution from the electricity sector.

This amendment would ensure that industry can keep building new fossil fuel power plants without modern pollution controls, whether they be natural gas or coal.

So, in effect, if this amendment is agreed to, and the underlying bill is adopted, it would say, in effect, we are not going to control any of the carbon pollution coming from any power plant.

Now, if we don't control the pollution from any power plant, and we let them emit whatever pollution they choose to emit, and it is obviously cheaper to pollute than to stop polluting, we will, in effect, condemn us to all that pollution which happens to be--let me repeat this again--it happens to be a third of the carbon pollution in this country today.

That would mean there is no chance in hell that we will ever reduce the pollution in this country that we can reduce that is adding to climate change pollution, in addition to all the other pollutants coming from around the world.

Those pollutants don't go away; they accumulate in the atmosphere, and when they accumulate in the atmosphere, we see the impact on the climate.

At some point, we are going to have so many pollutants in the atmosphere from carbon that scientists are telling us we won't be able to do anything. We won't be able to continue to contribute to that pollution without making it impossible to do anything about climate change.

We have a chance to do something about climate change now. We should not lose that chance by adopting this amendment and the underlying bill. So, I would urge that we vote against the amendment and the underlying bill.

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

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

I don't know how to oppose this amendment because it doesn't seem to make the underlying bill any worse.

The problem is this: The bill requires that, before a new standard for coal-powered plants is set, there has to be six coal-powered plants in this country

that are already using this technology; and we have argued: Well, that is not going to happen because no one is going to use the technology if their competitors aren't going to use the technology.

And if there is technology outside of this country that is being used successfully, EPA can't rely on that. Mrs. Capps' amendment would have changed that. That is still going to be voted on later.

Mrs. Capito's amendment says EPA could consider technologies developed in other countries, but only if those technologies are also being broadly adopted in the United States, as I understand it.

Well, in fact, that will lead to the exact same problem as we have in the underlying bill. Under both the amendment and the bill, EPA would still be prevented from proposing a standard based on cleaner coal technologies, such as ultrasupercritical boilers, which can reduce pollution by improving efficiency.

That kind of technology is already being used in more than 100 ultracritical coal units generating power in China, but the United States has only installed one. Well, we can't let that one and all the others that are being used in China allow the EPA to set a standard that would require that technology.

Under the bill and the amendment, that one U.S. plant won't be sufficient for EPA to set a new standard. So even if this amendment passes, EPA will still be prohibited from setting pollution control standards based on effective pollution controls that have been deployed overseas.

Well, I guess if you are going to pretend that climate change isn't happening, why not pretend that clean air technologies used in other countries don't exist, either? So I can't oppose--I am not going to ask for a rollcall vote. I am not going to even--I will even vote against your amendment. I am not going to vote for it. But it seems to me the amendment has a problem that the underlying bill already has, and it doesn't fix anything.

So if people want to vote for this amendment, vote for the amendment because it doesn't make anything any different than the problems that I see with the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment so I can make a few points about this.

I didn't speak on the last amendment. I didn't think that last amendment did anything worse than the bill already does. This amendment modifies a section of the underlying bill which requires EPA to report to Congress on the economic impacts of any regulation of carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants.

Well, this reporting requirement is largely meaningless because EPA already does this analysis, and if this bill were adopted, EPA wouldn't issue any rules to trigger the reporting requirement anyway. But this amendment would add more items to be considered in EPA's report on a rule regulating carbon pollution from existing power plants.

For example, this bill would require EPA to look at the rule's potential effects on capital, operation, and maintenance costs for pollution control equipment. But that is exactly what EPA already does for every significant rule that requires pollution controls. The amendment also requires EPA to analyze how our particular pollution control requirement may affect the global economic competitiveness of the United States. I don't think that makes any sense to add this because it is questionable whether we even have reliable economic models to make this assessment.

If this bill were adopted, EPA wouldn't be doing this report anyway, so it doesn't really matter. I am not going to object to the amendment, and I am not going to vote for the amendment, but it won't have any effect because the underlying bill is going to prevent the EPA from acting whether it is a new power plant or existing power plants.

But I did want to single out this provision which I think is unreasonable to expect EPA to be able to do this global economic competitiveness analysis. That is not what EPA does. They are not in the position to do it, and to add that requirement, I think, is a very bad precedent.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Let me thank Mr. Holt and Mr. Hastings and the Rules Committee for admitting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we could all engage in discussions about our commitment to a national energy policy. I would venture to say that we would not find one Member of this body that was not committed to the idea of individuals being

able to have low costs at the pump and to be able to have heat in the severe winters and air conditioning for those of us in the heat of summer in places like Texas and elsewhere. We are committed to doing so.

I said this earlier this morning on the rule. Let me thank the Rules Committee for this amendment that has been admitted on my behalf, but let me also say that we will do better if we come across the aisle and talk about the issues--again, sustainable environment, sustainable energy policy, the creation of jobs, and addressing the needs of low- income families. That is the American way. The American way is also the ability to petition your government in the system of laws that we have.

My amendment is simple. It indicates that the underlying bill should not be construed to abridge the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances in violation of the first article of the amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

It is important to note that there is a $5,000 fee for anyone who wants to protest the particular structure in this bill, upon aggrieved parties, to challenge the award by the agency of a lease, of a right- of-way, of a permit to drill on public lands. This $5,000 fee is supposed to give comfort because, on the larger entities--the businesses--it is a $6,500 fee. For many parties, that may adversely affect the individuals, who would be homeowners, small businesses, nonprofits, and community organizations. A filing or a documentation fee of this amount, in many cases, is prohibitive and will discourage many injured parties from taking the actions necessary to vindicate their rights.

My amendment seeks to avoid this undesirable result by making it plain that it is not the intent of Congress to discourage parties from seeking relief where necessary or to deny access to justice to any party with a legitimate claim. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. The Jackson Lee Amendment provides that nothing in section 1121 of the bill:

``[S]hall not be construed to abridge the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances, in violation of the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.''

Section 1121 amends the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) to impose a $5,000 ``documentation fee'' upon aggrieved parties to challenge the award by the agency of a lease, right of way, permit to drill on public lands.

For many parties that may be adversely affected by these types of agency actions--individuals, home owners, small businesses, non-profits and community organizations--a filing or documentation fee of this amount in many cases is prohibitive and will discourage many injured parties from taking the action necessary to vindicate their rights.

My amendment seeks to avoid this undesirable result by making plain that it is not the intent of Congress to discourage parties from seeking relief where necessary or to deny access to justice to any party with a legitimate claim.

The Jackson Lee Amendment is intended to provide flexibility to the agency and the courts in considering a request to waive all or a portion of the ``documentation fee.''

It does not direct or require the agency to grant such waivers. The amendment is intended only to permit and encourage such waivers in appropriate cases.

Mr. Chairman, we should never take for granted the precious and unique right--even for democracies--of citizens to hold their government accountable and answerable to the judiciary for redress for legally cognizable injuries.

As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the nation, I have always been mindful of the importance and have strongly advocated for national energy policies that will make our nation more energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.

I am pro-energy independence, ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-growing economy'' and pro-sustainable environment. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I am also ``pro-fairness.''

The Jackson Lee Amendment seeks to establish fairness and restore balance in the application and implementation of this law.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I take issue with my good friend from Washington State.

This bill has a $5,000 documentation fee on the stage of protest and petition. Obviously, our good friends on the industry side don't even pay anything to nominate land, but it is a $5,000 barrier.

My friend refers to the administrative process. I am a lawyer. It is under the APA code. That is different from being able to go to a higher level and to be able to comment under the Federal Register and write that ``I don't like this,'' and then you are ruled against anyhow. Then your next level of protest is to be able to protest at the level that requires you to pay $5,000, not even $1,000. We are scoring this, and we are doing it on the backs of citizens.

My amendment does make sense because what it says is that we are committed as a Congress not to block people from being able to have an equal opportunity to protest. They may not prevail, Mr. Chairman, but they should have an equal opportunity.

I believe it would be senseless for Republicans and Democrats not to go on record to say that we support the opportunity for protest and petition. I am pro-energy independence, pro-jobs, pro-growing the economy, pro-fairness, pro-sustainable environment, and I believe that there are opportunities for us to come together. We haven't listened to each other. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) just made some very important statements. I am making a statement about the idea.

I believe it is egregious to have a $5,000 fee on individuals-- nonprofits, farmers, ranchers, neighbors, et cetera. I will say to you, if you want to understand what it means, in my town, there is a group going to court to fight against a high-rise. That high-rise, Mr. Chairman, went through every process--the planning commission, the city council--and they were rejected, but they are going into a lawsuit. They happen to be a little bit more prosperous. Farmers, ranchers, and others who are having to pay $5,000 and neighbors who are having to pay $5,000, I simply think that is excessive.

My colleagues, since the amendment that I had was to eliminate the $5,000, I welcome a compromise of $1,000; but I offer this simple statement that what we do today shall not be construed to abridge the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances in violation of the first article of the amendment, and it protects the Fifth Amendment as well, which is due process--the right to protect your property.

Frankly, I believe that it is extremely important because there are entities that are near Federal lands.

So, with a generosity of spirit, I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I again thank the managers, Mr. Holt and Mr. Hastings.

Mr. Chairman, I again make the same comment about what I have heard on this floor from Members on both sides of the aisle: that they are pro-energy policy, pro-environment, pro-jobs, pro-sustainable environment. They simply want an opportunity to work on legislation to activate or to ensure that that occurs.

There is a prohibition contained in section 1147 of this legislation with respect to the recovery of attorney fees and costs by a prevailing party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. My amendment removes the prohibition, a prohibition that has been established law for a very long time.

This amendment is needed to level the playing field and conform the bill to current law and practice. I think that if we listen to each other, it will be a simple answer of ``yes'' if we ask any citizen should they have a right to sue, and if they prevail under the Equal Access to Justice Act, that they are able to get attorney fees.

I think the answer, when clear heads would respond, is not whether it is an energy bill or not, or who the defendant is; they would say, Why shouldn't this bill be subjected to the law that exists?

The Equal Access to Justice Act allows individuals, small businesses, and nonprofits to recover attorney fees from the Federal Government. This act is used to vindicate a variety of Federal rights, including access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits, as well as to secure statutory environmental protections.

Therefore, to eliminate that is again to cut into--to cut into--the very Bill of Rights of your right to petition, to the right to counsel, all of that, because it indicates that you have a right to prevail in attorney fees.

It is a simple process that does not undermine, if you will, the question of the energy policy in the United States.

If we look at the first poster, we will acknowledge the fact that, interestingly enough, the average amount of money under these cases was $1.8 million annually over the last 8 years. The EPA only paid out $280,000 annually over the last 5 years. I venture to say with the average payment of $100,000 this is not busting the bank. This is allowing citizens who prevail to be able to have attorney fees. I clearly believe that the legislation that we have warrants a fix, a fair fix, to be able to ensure that anyone that has a disagreement post the administrative process and goes into court can, in fact, utilize.

This is one that shows that, in fact, local environmental groups and national environmental groups are no more than others. The largest amount goes to various State governments, individuals, various unions and workers that got a minimal amount or may not have even prevailed.

So I think it is important to recognize that this is not one that is going to destroy this bill, it is going to enhance the bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment removes the prohibition contained in Section 1147 with respect to the recovery of attorney fees and costs by a prevailing party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 504 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412).

This amendment is needed to level the playing field and conform the bill to current law and practice.

For more than three decades, since its enactment in 1980, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has enhanced parties' ability to hold government agencies accountable for their actions and inaction.

EAJA allows individuals, small businesses and nonprofits to recover attorney fees from the federal government.

The EAJA is used to vindicate a variety of federal rights, including access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits, as well as to secure statutory environmental protections.

The EAJA promotes public involvement in laws have a significant impact on the public health and safety such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

EAJA also helps deter government inaction or erroneous conduct and encourages all parties, not just those with resources to hire legal counsel, to assert their rights.

Mr. Chairman, fee awards under the EAJA are NOT available in any and every case. Rather, attorneys' fees are only recoverable in cases where plaintiffs prevail and the government cannot demonstrate that its legal position was ``substantially justified.''

The amount of attorney fees awarded cannot exceed $125 per hour, a figure is far below the amount currently charged by big city law firms.

No law firm or public interest group is getting rich off a practice relying upon EAJA awards for its attorney fees.

A new report, Shifting the Debate: In Defense of the Equal Access to Justice Act, concludes that EAJA has been cost-effective, applies only to meritorious litigation and that existing legal safeguards and the independent discretion of federal judges will continue to ensure its prudent application.

Moreover, the claim that large environmental groups are getting rich on attorney fees simply is not supported by available evidence.

A recent GAO study (requested by House Republicans) of cases brought against EPA found: most environment lawsuits (48%) were brought by trade associations and private companies; attorney fees were awarded only about eight percent of the time; among environmental plaintiffs, the majority of cases were brought by local groups rather than national groups; and the average award under the EAJA was only about $100,000.

In reality, EAJA ``reforms'' would have the effect of watering down the implementation and enforcement of law enacted to protect the public health and safety.

Much has been made about environmental groups obtaining fees in suits that are ``merely'' procedural.

Both public-interest and industry litigants agree that ``procedural'' litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act is essential to checking executive power on a range of issues.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that procedural requirements and deadlines contained in environmental laws are paramount to ensuring the protections that Congress has enacted.

Indeed, in the case of the National Environmental Policy Act, the nation's foundational environmental statute, following sound procedure is the entire point of the law.

NEPA requires agencies to take a ``hard look'' at the consequences of their actions and to carefully consider alternatives, but compels no particular outcomes.

Mr. Chairman, the provision in the bill that prohibits recovery of attorney fees under the EAJA is not ``reform''; it is a step backwards.

Instead of providing an important tool by which the public can hold the federal government accountable for its actions, Section 1147 wold deny the benefit of this proven accountability tool to unwelcome legal challenges and to prejudice a subset of disfavored plaintiffs.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear that the awards under the EAJA are not available for any and every case. Only when the plaintiff prevails. Is that not fair?

When an individual, a nonprofit, who has sought to even the playing field, who wants to make sure that we have a strong energy policy but they are praying that you listen to them as to how it is destroying their property, their house, their quality of life, they have a right to petition.

So I want to correct the gentleman's interpretation. I heard on the floor of the House that he mentioned the word ``frivolous.'' As a lawyer, and one who adheres to the Constitution, I would like to not think that if you are concerned about an issue, that you cannot get into the court of justice and that you cannot make your case. You may not win, but I want to surprise him with the fact that the large number of cases that went under this act and sued the EPA were trade associations--622; private companies--556. There are a variety of others, not collectively together. State territories and municipalities--297. Should they not recover if they prevail? Should environmental groups not recover if they prevail--only at 388? Should individuals at 185 cases not prevail if they win? Should workers groups and universities and tribes not prevail if they should win?

I think that we are wrongheaded if we simply do not adhere to the existing law; not use the terminology ``frivolous'' but applaud Americans who are willing to stand up for their rights.

My example was correct. It was an analogy. These homeowners are fighting Big Business, but what they decided to do is, after they were ruled against by every administrative local body, they have gone into the courthouse. They happen to be more prosperous than someone else, but why would you fault an individual who is using their meager pennies with an attorney to try and prevail on something that they believe will harm them?

My amendment is very simple. It just indicates, if you prevail, you should not be denied the attorney fees that anyone else would get and, if you will, debunks and rebuts the proposition that only those groups that we might not enjoy their position--trade associations, private big companies--I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment for fairness and justice in America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this misguided, unnecessary, and environmentally harmful piece of legislation and yield myself such time as I may consume.

We all know that under President Obama the United States is in the middle of an almost unprecedented oil and gas boom. Last week, the Energy Information Administration said that for the first time in 20 years U.S. crude oil production surpassed imports. Also last week, the International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. would become the number one oil producer by 2015.

The headlines keep coming. On October 4, EIA reported:

U.S. expected to be the largest producer of petroleum and

natural gas hydrocarbons in 2013.

On October 16, a headline read:

U.S. is already world's number one producer, consultants

say.

Even the Republicans have to admit this energy boom is happening, but they say it has nothing to do with President Obama because they don't want to give him credit for anything. They say all of the increased production--all of it--is coming from State and private lands. President Obama, they believe, is choking off production on Federal lands, and that is why we need the giveaways to Big Oil. That is why we need these attempts in this legislation to stifle public comment. That is why we need drill-at-all-cost measures.

But they are wrong. Flat-out wrong.

What has actually happened to oil production from our public and Indian lands out West since President Obama took office, you may ask? It has skyrocketed. Onshore oil production from Federal and Indian lands, just what we are talking about in this legislation, has gone up every year since the President has been in office. It is now 35 percent higher than it was under President Bush. Yet this legislation would not just reduce environmental productions. It would gut them; it would remove them.

So here is an even more interesting statistic. The nationwide increase in oil production since President Obama took office is 30 percent. The increase on Federal and Indian lands is even outpacing the increase nationwide, including private lands. I believe it is simple enough that anyone should be able to understand this. Oil production for the entire country is up 30 percent. Oil production on Federal and Indian land is up 35 percent.

But the Republicans have this playbook that they just can't get away from, this shopworn 2008 drill, baby, drill playbook. And so they want to try to make things easier for Big Oil while trying to ensure that conservation and hunting and fishing and recreation and renewables, and everything else that these Federal lands might be used for, has to take a back seat to drilling.

The entire premise of this bill is that President Obama is shutting off access to Federal lands and driving oil production down. The premise is false. We are not here because we need this legislation to increase our domestic production of oil and gas, and it certainly has nothing to do with prices at the pump. We are not here because the bill will have any impact on the world price of oil or gasoline at the pump. We are not here because anyone thinks this bill has a chance of becoming law either. We are here because we have a deeply divided Republican caucus, and one of the few things that unites this caucus is the belief that Big Oil should enjoy higher profits, and those profits should come from publicly owned land.

We are here because bills to convert our priceless national treasures into profits on Big Oil's balance sheets are about the only idea that our Republican colleagues can agree on among themselves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a lifelong stalwart supporter of the environment and of energy production.

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

Madam Chair, I gladly yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, let's summarize what is in this legislation.

H.R. 1965 is a compilation of a number of wishful bills, wishful legislation from the other side. It would shortcut environmental reviews, discourage public participation in energy development decisions, and eliminate thoughtful leasing reforms.

It would require that any public entity or individual that wanted to challenge a leasing decision post a $5,000 protest fee just to be able to access the process.

It would require that the Department of the Interior lease at least 25 percent each year of oil and gas nominated areas, whether or not they are suitable for drilling now.

And, Madam Chair, I get this. It would elevate oil and gas leasing decisions above all other uses of public lands, such as hunting, fishing, grazing, conservation, recreation, and other energy uses.

It would also require a plan to crisscross the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska with roads and pipelines, a network that would be a bonanza for some contractor, I am sure, ignoring the management plan that was approved this year. Why? Not for a good reason. We don't need all these relaxations--``relaxation'' is too mild a word--the gutting of environmental review, the removal of public participation, because oil production is doing very well, thank you.

Let's deal with facts.

Federal onshore oil production, which is what this bill is about, has increased 35 percent. It is actually a faster growth rate than oil production overall in the United States. I am not sure why the other side refuses to acknowledge that. I would think they would want to take that as good news. If you look past their talking points at the actual data, you will see that Federal onshore oil production has increased every year since 2008. That doesn't include Indian lands, where production has also increased every year since 2008. So the fundamental premise of this bill is flawed.

There are, right now, 37 million acres of Federal land under lease for oil and gas development, but two-thirds of that is not in production or exploration. Go figure. Let's go ask these companies why they are bidding on these lands. When you lease land, it is because you think it will be productive, yet they are sitting on them. We don't need to streamline. We don't need to remove any environmental controls in order to stimulate leasing, because 37 million acres of Federal land are under lease now.

Furthermore, even if the other side was right about their flawed premise, even if it was a problem in production, onshore Federal oil is only 5 percent or 6 percent of total production. That is all it will be. So if there were a production problem, if it were not the case that we were producing more than we have produced--we are in better shape than we have been in decades--further drilling on Federal land would not be the answer.

So there is no reason for this bill. It sets back the use of these Federal lands to a free-for-all, unprotected state, and this is bad legislation.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip of the Democratic Party, someone who understands the economic importance of protecting the environment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the

minority member of highest rank on our committee, the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon.

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

I would like to address the talking points that have been parroted without thinking by speaker after speaker from the other side.

The fact is oil production on onshore public lands, the subject of this legislation, is up by 35 percent. It is not down. It is not flat. It is up. It is up even more than oil production in the country overall. So what is the problem here?

As for employment, it is worth pointing out that oil and natural gas industry employment has increased.

Clearly, there was a falloff with the recession--or let's call it a depression--but in the last half-dozen years, industry employment has increased by more than 162,000--a 40 percent increase. Oil and gas industry jobs decreased in 2009 as a result of the recession, but now the jobs are increasing at a rate even faster than before.

And I have to emphasize that in connection with this because this legislation says that oil and gas would take precedence over all other uses of Federal lands. Federal lands don't exist solely for the purpose of oil and gas extraction.

As I have said before, there is one thing that the Republicans seem to agree on, that we should give away whatever we can to the oil companies. That is why we are doing this legislation, because they don't have any other legislation that they can agree on well enough to bring to the floor. But multiple uses of our Federal lands, aside from oil and gas production, are important to Americans.

As for jobs, the government shutdown that the folks who are proposing this legislation voted for and supported caused the closure of over 400 units of our National Park Service and cost local economies hundreds of millions of dollars and caused delays in the approval of pending permits, by the way.

It is also worth pointing out that this week the Interior Department announced that, because of revenues from oil and gas extraction, the Department of the Interior was able to disburse $14.2 billion--a 17 percent increase over the previous year--to State, local, and tribal accounts. This money goes for the land and water conservation fund, the reclamation fund, historic preservation, and so forth.

So this is a bill to address a problem that doesn't exist--and to do it in a way that does not address the interests of the people at large. It is a giveaway to the oil and gas industry. I urge my colleagues to vote this down.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I wanted to point out a curious, but revealing, point about this amendment.

In order to get the bill to score properly to fit with the policy of the Republican Conference, it was necessary to cut $5 million out of the authorization in the bill.

So where did they go? To cut $5 million out of renewable energy and let the tens of millions of dollars of authorized funds for the oil and gas to sit untouched.

But I would really like to address something else that the gentleman said that has to do with the whole reason we are here today on this bill instead of doing that important work that Mr. Hoyer spoke of earlier.

The gentleman talked about how we have to increase the supply of oil so that we can drive down prices at the pump and talked about how the policies of President Bush were responsible for the undeniable increases in onshore oil production.

They say that gas was as much as $4 a gallon in 2008. You know whose fault that was.

And then, in 2009, it was $2 a gallon.

Did the supply in the United States change that much in 1 year? No. This shows quite clearly that it is not because of the amount of drilling on public lands. That has nothing to do with it. It has a scant effect on the price at the pump.

It is amazing, Mr. Speaker. When confronted with something uncomfortable, the Republicans always have a convenient excuse.

Gas prices were $4 a gallon in 2008. Oh, that is because Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House.

Gas prices plummet later that year to half that amount. Well, that is because President Bush said we need to drill more.

Then, gas prices shoot up after John Boehner becomes Speaker of the House, but that is because President Obama is in office.

And, now, oil production on Federal lands skyrockets under President Obama, and it is a boom. But that is really because of President Bush.

So if gas prices go down further this year, maybe that is because of, I don't know, was it Eisenhower or Reagan?

Give me a break.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3826.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise this afternoon in support of H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act.

Recently, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University named Jonathan Turley issued a dire warning. Professor Turley said that he voted for President Obama in the last election, that he agrees philosophically with President Obama on many issues, but he said that, if left unchecked, the U.S. President could effectively become a government unto himself. He was referring to the fact that this President has been overly aggressive in the use of executive orders and regulations through various governmental agencies to accomplish his political goals.

The reason that we are here today is, with this legislation, it is our hope that we can overturn one of the most extreme regulations of the Obama administration.

In January of next year, it is anticipated that they will finalize a rule from EPA that will make it impossible to build a new coal-powered plant in America. That is hard to believe that that can be the situation in our great country, particularly since 40 percent of our electricity comes from coal. The reason that it would be impossible to build a new coal-powered plant because of these new EPA regulations is the fact that the emission standards have been set so high, and I might add that it is pretty clear that those emission standards, the way they were set, violates the Energy Security Act of 2005.

We have written a letter to EPA setting out our concerns. They still have not responded to us. We have talked to lawyers throughout the country who are ready to file a lawsuit if this happens because it is impossible to believe that the three plants in America that used to set the emission standards for new coal-powered plants, none of those plants are in existence today. None of them are operating today. So our legislation, we believe, is a reasonable approach to a serious problem for America.

I might add that 41 out of 50 States last year indicated that their electricity rates have gone up under the Obama administration. I know that the President is greatly concerned about the less fortunate in our society. He has talked a lot about the minimum wage bill, for example, but these electricity rates going up hit the most vulnerable in our society the most, particularly those on fixed incomes. Yet it is his policies that are driving up these electricity costs.

So the legislation that we have on the floor today is very simple. First of all, it acknowledges for the first time by legislation that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases. This bill goes farther than any other bill has. So you can regulate greenhouse gases, but when you set the emissions standard, the unit must be in operation for a period of time. It must be commercially available to the utilities to buy it, as opposed to the proposed regulation in which the technology is simply not available.

So our legislation, as I said, we don't anticipate a new coal-powered plant to be built anytime soon in America because our natural gas prices are so low. But in Europe, which it is acknowledged is the green sector of the world, they mothballed 30 gigawatts of gas-powered plants in the last 20 months because the gas prices coming from Russia are so expensive that it is raising their electricity rates to such an extent that it is damaging the area. With our legislation, if those gas prices go up, an option available to the American people, to the American utility sector, is they can go out and build a coal-powered plant with reasonable regulations.

Then the second thing that our legislation does--and when I say ``our,'' I am talking about Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, has introduced this bill in the U.S. Senate. I, along with Democratic support, was able to get it out of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

So this debate is vitally important today because the President is going so fast, in such an extreme way, that it would make it impossible to use coal in America with a new plant, and we have never had a national debate on the issue. So today we can at least have this debate.

The second thing that our legislation does applies to existing plants. EPA said they are going to regulate existing coal plants. We say go ahead and do it, set the standards, but Congress will set the effective date for that regulation.

It is a very simple piece of legislation, one that I think is necessary to protect the American people and to ensure that America remains competitive in the global marketplace.

In addition to that, I want to make one other comment. Emissions from the energy sector in America are the lowest, CO2 emissions are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. So America does not have to take a backseat to anyone on having a clean emission standard and regulation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority whip.

I would just reiterate that America doesn't have to take a backseat to anyone on its emissions from energy sources. Our emissions today are lower than they were 20 years ago. Why should the U.S. unilaterally take this extreme position and other countries around the world, particularly in Europe and in Asia, are using coal and using coal, and we don't even have the flexibility to do that when they finalize this rule. So that is what we are up to today.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you we are not speaking from fear today. I can assure you we are not being parochial about coal. Coal is still the base load for this country--for manufacturing, industrial use, electricity at home, and for our ability to compete in the world.

I have great admiration and respect for the gentleman from California, and I am sorry that he has made the decision to leave Congress after having a distinguished career, but I can tell you there is no power plant operating in America today that is using carbon capture and sequestration, because the technology is not available.

Now, there are some plants being built with government support and would not be built without that government support, but they are not in operation. There is a difference. When scrubbers were mandated by the EPA, scrubbers were already being put in plants at private expense. The government didn't pay for those scrubbers. They were already being used. Unlike this proposed regulation, there is no technology available to meet the emission standard, so there is a significant difference in what has happened and what is being proposed.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Indiana, Congresswoman Brooks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

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

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I would point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle there has been a lot of discussion today about the availability of carbon capture and sequestration. Let's not forget that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 said:

Emission standards will not be set by plants receiving

funds from the Clean Energy Initiative at the Department of

Energy.

To my friend from the west coast, it is costing $5 billion, and the president of the Southern Company said:

This plant cannot be consistently replicated on a national

level and cannot be the primary basis for new emission

standards.

That is because they are artificially concocted.

So our legislation simply says, in the future, if natural gas prices go up, America, like most every other country in the world, will have the option of building a new coal-powered plant.

I think it is a reasonable approach. It has bipartisan support.

This is the first time that we have been able to have a national debate with this President, who has already made up his mind he does not want coal for America. This is our opportunity to express the opinion of the American people that we need coal moving into the future.

I would urge the adoption of H.R. 3826, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I certainly have a great deal of respect for the gentlelady from California, and I might add, we have heard a lot today about climate change.

Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, herself, stated in a hearing:

We will not ultimately be able to change the amount of

CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone.

By that, she meant the United States, and there are a couple of reasons she said that. First of all, 96 percent of CO2 emissions are naturally occurring; manmade is around 4 percent.

I might also point out that, in the recent fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they acknowledged a lack of warming since 1998, and they acknowledged the growing discrepancy between their climate model projections versus actual readings.

So it is not that people are denying. It is that there is a significant difference among the scientific community about what is manmade CO2 contributing and what is naturally occurring

Mr. Chair, what I object to is that the EPA would use that and mandate that private industry build that technology here in the U.S. And I think that your amendment would allow them to do that, and that is what I object to.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the purpose of our legislation is, whenever EPA sets the standard, we want the technology to be in the U.S. for at least a year--operating for a year, and six units have the proof of that; so that is why we object to the gentlelady's amendment, and I would urge Members to vote against her amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the gentlelady from Illinois. I might say, this legislation would never have been necessary if EPA had adopted a standard that had been adequately demonstrated and was not in violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

I would also say in wanting to add this language to the bill, EPA itself, in discussing its proposed regulation, projected that its rule would result in almost zero CO2 emission changes or quantified benefits in cost by 2022. So even EPA does not think that their regulation is going to really significantly reduce CO2 emissions because 96 percent of CO2 emissions are naturally occurring; less than 4 percent are man-made.

I might also point out once again that no one is a denier of climate change, but more and more scientists seem to be disagreeing with the impact of manmade CO2 versus naturally occurring