Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1965) to streamline and ensure onshore energy permitting, provide for onshore leasing certainty, and give certainty to oil shale development for American energy security, economic development, and job creation, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2728) to recognize States' authority to regulate oil and gas operations and promote American energy security, development, and job creation.

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

Mr. Speaker, for this body to spend the final week before a week-long break, one of the final weeks of the year, the third-to-last week of the legislative year, considering messaging bills that aren't going anywhere is a disservice to this country and one of the reasons that this institution is as unpopular as it is. Rather than taking on immigration reform, rather than protecting Americans from employment discrimination, both of which bills passed the Senate with strong majorities, including many Republicans, we are instead debating a bill to move backward rather than forward.

H.R. 1965 and H.R. 2728, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act and the so-called Protecting States' Rights to Promote Energy Security Act, circumvent future Federal regulations designed to keep people safe and healthy by handing over jurisdiction to States that have any guidance, even a few words of guidance, regarding hydraulic fracturing. We will be talking about the example and what this means in my home State of Colorado in

a few moments. But neither bill will become law. Unlike immigration reform, unlike ENDA, which would end workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians across our country, these bills will not become law.

Similar legislation to H.R. 1965 was considered last Congress. This legislation was opposed by the administration. It was not brought up by the Senate, and yet here we are debating it again in the House of Representatives when we have real business to take care of.

These are not the issues that my constituents are calling in demanding that I take action on. They are demanding that I work to fix our broken immigration system. They are demanding that I work to balance the budget. They are calling in demanding that we work to improve upon health care delivery in this country; yet, instead, we are discussing bills that are detrimental to the economy of the district that I represent and destroy jobs.

Let me discuss H.R. 1965 first. This bill's central premise is to allow oil and gas companies to drill wherever and whenever they want to drill on public lands. This bill is completely irresponsible and prioritizes the needs of the oil and gas industry over every other use of our public lands, including the drivers of jobs in my district: hunting, fishing, skiing, and off-road vehicle recreating.

This bill sets arbitrary deadlines for the BLM to approve drilling applications and requires the BLM to lease at least 25 percent of lands nominated by the oil and gas industry each year.

In addition, the underlying bill offers millions of acres of public lands for lease to companies that are trying to develop a fuel source that has not even proven to be viable--oil shale--without regard to the impact on water or our local economy or environment.

I represent the district that includes popular destinations like Vail and Breckenridge and Winter Park, Colorado. People from across the country come to enjoy our skiing in winter, our outdoor recreation, our hunting, our fishing, and white water rafting. When you use areas of land for extraction and you create oil rigs, the heavy truck traffic and roads associated with the extraction industry, people are less likely to want to come visit for these other purposes. It will hurt our ability to attract tourists from the rest of the country if we don't have adequate safeguards around the Federal lands which are part of Eagle and Summit Counties and on which our economy relies.

Now, on H.R. 1965, I did offer several amendments to try to improve these bills, but only one of my amendments was made in order under this rule. I am pleased at least my amendment with the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) is in order, which requires the National Academy of Sciences to study and report to Congress about the impact of flooding on oil and gas facilities and leaks and spills from tanks, wells, and pipelines.

My district recently fell victim to horrendous floods. We call it our 100-year flood in Boulder, Larimer, and Weld Counties. A number of drilling operations were impacted, and we are continuing to assess the damage, not only with regard to drilling operations and potential contamination, but of course our people are digging out with regard to their homes and their offices as well. The September floods in Colorado caused an unprecedented level of destruction to thousands of oil and gas facilities in northern and eastern Colorado. As a result, over 43,000 gallons of oil and over 26,000 gallons of produced water spilled from the tanks, wells, and pipelines into the floodwater.

That is why I joined Representative DeFazio, the ranking member of Natural Resources, in sending a letter on September 25 to Chairman Hastings requesting a hearing to fully understand the consequences resulting from the flooding. That hearing hasn't been scheduled yet, but I am hopeful that we can resolve this issue, hold congressional hearings, understand how this issue affects my district, but also affects other districts that might be subject to flooding that house drilling operations.

With regard to the oil shale amendment, I am disappointed that the other amendment I offered with Mrs. Napolitano was not made in order. It would have simply required a study. The U.S. Geological Survey would have studied the impacts of oil shale leasing on the quantity and quality of water available in the West. My friend from Utah knows that water in the West is a very important thing. You know, gold is for looking at, and water is for fighting over. Frankly, when we look at the impact and the potential impact that a very heavy use of water would have with some of the extraction techniques that are being explored for oil shale production, we need to look at the impact that would have on water that we need for agriculture, for homeowners, and for recreation. And a simple study would be a first step in doing that.

Unfortunately, under this rule and this closed process, we were not allowed to bring forth this amendment to discuss a study of how oil shale production would affect water uses. Many of the test processes use enormous amounts of water to develop oil shale. It is very concerning because the largest known deposits of oil shale are in the Green River formation, which include portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, all three of our States experiencing over the last several years drought conditions and have scarce water resources that are relied upon by our residents and by our farmers.

Thirty million users of water, including farmers, ranchers, and municipalities, depend on water from the Colorado River basin. My amendment would ensure that we have a better understanding of how much water oil shale would use and could pollute or otherwise impact through the quantities used of the water available for other purposes.

Now, I would like to turn to H.R. 2728. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a national issue. It is something that we need to address here in Congress. It is something my constituents are demanding of me that we address here in Congress, but H.R. 2728 is not what my constituents had in mind.

In this election this month, earlier here in November, four of the five largest municipalities in my district--Fort Collins, Boulder, Lafayette, and Broomfield--passed measures that put bans or moratoriums on fracking.

Never before in my time in public service have I ever seen an issue that has been the number one issue on the ballot in four of the top five municipalities. And I should add, it was scheduled to be on the ballot of the fifth, but it was deferred. The petitions to put it on the ballot were deferred, and we expect it will be on the ballot at Loveland at this point if the citizens continue with their push for an initiative there.

We have seen tremendous growth in natural gas development due to fracking and directional drilling in the last decade alone. That is a great thing. It is a great thing for American energy independence. It is a great thing for American manufacturing. It is a great thing for reducing our energy costs.

In Colorado alone, 50,000 wells have been drilled, and many more have been drilled nationally. These drilling activities, however, in a district such as mine, a district that is an extraction district, are occurring very close to where people live, work, and where they raise families, yet our State doesn't have any meaningful regulation to protect homeowners.

It meets the definition of having fracking rules; it certainly does. Unfortunately, the fracking rules are overseen by an oil and gas commission that is heavily influenced by the oil and gas industry. They don't have at their disposal the independence or the ability to enact real penalties for violations of our laws, and their charge is not first and foremost to protect homeowners and families and health. That has led to this backlash, which is why even very conservative towns in my district--one of the towns that had a 5-year moratorium on fracking elected a very conservative mayoral candidate by a 60-40 margin, which is not unusual for this town. These are folks who are fundamentally conservative voting for a conservative candidate for mayor, who won, and yet, at that same election, that same year, they passed a moratorium on fracking in Broomfield County.

This is of great concern to the people in my district. The growth of fracking without commonsense Federal guidelines, without commonsense State guidelines, has caused an enormous

amount of friction between the American Dream of homeowners in my district and our Nation's need for energy.

State and local rules are an important part of the equation, but we also need standards at the Federal level, particularly as relates to Federal lands--namely, BLM lands--which are an important part of the equation to address impacts that go beyond any particular community, such as keeping our air free from pollution, keeping pollution out of our lungs, our waterways, and our drinking water.

Some State and local laws addressing oil and gas extraction are woefully unprepared. The extraction industry hit before they had the chance to even create a local regulatory framework, or they have one that is woefully outdated and relates to the extraction technologies that were prevalent decades ago rather than the new extraction technologies that are being deployed today.

Colorado is trying to update its oil and gas rules, but they really haven't done anything to create a meaningful framework to protect homeowners and families, which is why four of the five largest municipalities in my district have either banned or put a moratorium on fracking.

We have a State issue, and the State has actually threatened to sue some of these same municipalities for that ban. That is not a Federal issue, but this has been an enormous issue in my district. The citizens in my district want more protection, not less, when it comes to fracking.

The industry reaction has been extremely counterproductive. The desire for my citizens to see more protection--somehow the industry interprets this as the citizens need more information or need more marketing about how great fracking is. That is not what they need. They have got plenty of that. The opponents of these ballot initiatives, the oil and gas initiatives, spent millions of dollars educating my constituents about how wonderful and harmless fracking is. That is not what they are asking for. If we could take some of that money and instead apply it to recapturing gases from the well sites and ensuring that we have closed systems for the water recovery instead of the marketing campaigns, we would actually make progress with regard to increasing consumer confidence and the confidence of my citizens in the process. But that is not what we have seen to date, and this bill will not help bring it about.

For almost 5 years, I have represented Colorado's Second Congressional District. In that time, I have witnessed exponential growth in natural gas extraction in and around our district. I have met with too many families and communities that have been forced from their homes and devastated by nearby fracking activity.

Fracking has occurred hundreds of feet from homes, schools, and playgrounds. I have been powerless to stop it. We tried to ask an oil and gas company not to frack near a school in Erie, Colorado, Red Hawk Elementary, but the response that I got at my office after two letters continues to be a formulaic response from their attorneys that ``we have the right to frack here and we will.''

Many families are fleeing those communities not because of lack of information, not because the oil and gas company hasn't done everything they can to have wonderful ambassadors in our community creating a lot of great literature, advertising all over our airwaves. That is not why families are fleeing. They are fleeing because they don't want to live next to an oil rig or have their kids going to school next to a fracking pad or oil rig. That is just common sense. There is no amount of marketing or information that will change their minds, and that is the fundamental flaw in the reasoning process that many in the oil and gas industry have had to date.

I have heard many stories from families about getting fracked, and as a result, I had introduced the BREATHE Act in the last Congress and the FRAC Act, requiring disclosure of fracking fluids, removing the exemption that fracking has from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the small-site exemption.

I, unfortunately, have gotten to experience fracking firsthand here in this last year. For more than a decade, I have had a peaceful family farm, about 50 acres, near Berthoud, Colorado, where my father-in-law lives. That is our house there. Fracking, without any notice to us, because, of course, it wasn't required under State law, occurred hundreds of feet from our home. In July, overnight, without any warning, a towering drill rig arose, literally across the street from where my father-in-law lives. You can see it right here.

The sounds of the 24-hour-a-day-and-night operation led us to invite my father-in-law to have to stay with us in Boulder in our apartment on our couch during the active phase of the drilling process. The rig was spewing black smog and making loud noises at all hours of the day. And when the drilling rig went up without notice or warning, our little dream and our life became a nightmare and was thrown into turmoil.

Last night, at the Rules Committee hearing, Chairman Sessions and Chairman Hastings spoke about a Web site, www.fracfocus.org, that supposedly reveals all the chemicals used during the fracking process. But FracFocus is actually not revealing at all. It gives operators sole discretion to decide what information they display and what they don't display.

This is actually an example of a well. This is the one that is very close to our house. You will see that, of course, many of the ingredients of the fracking fluids are completely noncontroversial. We know they are largely water, sand, and quartz. We are not talking about that. That is not the issue. As you will see, they have ``proprietary'' listed next to several vague terms. They have surfactants here, proprietary. So people in the neighborhood don't even know what environmental contaminants to measure for or to look for.

Again, from a marketing perspective, the oil and gas companies are saying it is not leaching into groundwater, there are not surface spills; but, at the same time, they are refusing to provide the information that would allow the independent verification of their claims and safety.

When I looked up the drilling site near my house on FracFocus, there were many ingredients that were listed as proprietary, including surfactants and polymers; and because of the lenient policy of FracFocus, the company that drilled near my house withheld the only information that we were actually interested in in terms of what was being used in the ground.

We need to look at a commonsense approach to fracking. The constituents in my district are demanding it. We could have voted on such a balanced approach to fracking. I introduced, as an amendment to H.R. 2728, the BREATHE Act. The BREATHE Act was identical to a bill that I introduced earlier this Congress. It would have reversed the oil and gas industry's loophole to a provision in the Clean Air Act that protects the public from small air pollution sources that might individually be de minimus but, in the aggregate, released large volumes of toxic substance into the air.

We have to talk about the concentration of this operation. In Weld County, Colorado, there are close to 50,000 wells. Again, for any particular fracking pad, the emission profile is small; but, if you have a number, a dozen, two dozen, 100, in a limited area, the emission profile is going to look a lot more like a factory or even a coal- burning plant than it does something that can be rounded down to zero. We need to look at the fact that the concentration of thousands of wellheads in a very limited geographic area has a profound potential impact and cumulative impact on air quality that affects our health and our quality of life.

My amendment is critical because there is significant evidence that oil and gas wells and their associated infrastructure, including heavy truck traffic and diesel engines, contribute to air pollution. Chemicals such as benzene and volatile organic compounds and methane are associated with oil and gas production sites and should not be subject to an exemption from the Clean Air Act. Despite the growing proof that the oil and gas industry causes air pollution, oil and gas operators are still exempt from the basic Federal protection afforded by the Clean Air Act.

I offer this amendment and introduced the BREATHE Act because people who live near oil and gas developments deserve the protections of the

Clean Air Act, just as other Americans do who live near factories, just as other Americans do who live near coal-burning plants. We have 55 sponsors for the BREATHE Act, yet it has not received a hearing or a markup; and on a party-line vote yesterday in the Rules Committee, it was not allowed to be considered as an amendment to this bill.

Another amendment I helped offer to the underlying measure would also improve the legislation. The amendment I offered with Mr. Holt allows the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations to minimize fugitive methane emissions on public lands.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that often leaks during the drilling and transportation of oil and gas. In fact, methane leaks are so common in oil and gas drilling that we have rural areas in the Upper Green River Basin in Wyoming that have recorded higher concentration levels than the worst pollution days in downtown Los Angeles.

Fortunately, there are already control technologies available to minimize air pollution in operations. If the oil and gas companies would use just some of the money that they spend on lobbying and on marketing and on all the wonderful advertising that they are doing on our airwaves in Colorado and, instead, upgrade their facilities to recapture methane, I think we could actually see some progress on this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up for consideration later in the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are calling for real solutions in Congress. The people of the Second Congressional District are for an all-of-the-above approach to energy. We are for solar. We are for wind. We are for oil. We are for gas. We are for hydro. We want to make them all work. And just as there would be a zoning process around creating a windmill in a residential neighborhood that is 100 feet tall right near your home, there should be a zoning process around the extraction of oil and gas, especially near where the constituents of my district live and work.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a messaging bill that might help the majority's relationship with oil and gas companies, but what we really need is a balanced approach that ensures that we can develop our domestic oil and gas resources in a way that doesn't destroy jobs in districts like mine and protects the health of Americans across our country.

These bills fall short on that account. And despite our effort to amend them, the rule doesn't allow many of the most important amendments that would remove the exemption from the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and ensure that we have an extraction industry that is consistent with the public health.

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

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

I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.

To be clear, there is not an effort in Colorado, as the gentleman insinuated,

to somehow prevent the extraction of fossil fuels from occurring in Colorado. In fact, quite to the contrary. Because of the lack of meaningful State regulations, many cities and counties are banning extraction; and four of the five biggest cities I represent have moratoriums or bans on fracking precisely because there are insufficient Federal and State guidelines. So it is really working with counterpurposes and hurting the very prospects for the extraction industry that the gentleman aspires to assist by not having adequate regulation to safeguard people's homes and families.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire whether the gentleman from Utah has any remaining speakers. If not, I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make sure we don't go home unless we finish the budget by December 13.

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

I will submit for the record, as well, a recent poll. The Denver Post published an article this past summer that states that 65 percent of Colorado residents favor protecting wilderness parks and open space and our Federal lands for future generations and 30 percent support more drilling.

It has been 144 days and 13 hours since the Senate passed its immigration reform bill, S. 744. We have introduced H.R. 15 here in the House. Each day that the House refuses to take up reform costs the country $37 million. Already there is more than $5 billion in potential lost revenue so far.

If we can take up immigration reform and pass it, I would even support allowing that revenue to be used to keep the loopholes for the oil and gas industry open--something that I have long opposed. But if we can pass immigration reform, I would accept that pay-for as a way of keeping the oil and gas loopholes open for the next several years.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the comprehensive immigration reform bill would increase our GDP by 3.3 percent, raise American wages by $470 billion, and create an average of 121,000 jobs for Americans each year. So rather than take up a job- creating bill for Americans that reduces our deficit, we are taking up a bill that hurts the economy and hurts jobs in districts like mine.

The longer we fail to act on immigration reform, the greater the cost to the American people. Take the example of the solvency of the Social Security system. As the Social Security Administration estimates, close to two-thirds of the 8 million undocumented people who are here currently work underground. No surprise. They are not allowed to work aboveground in official jobs with payroll deductions, and neither they nor their employers are able to legally declare their earnings or pay their payroll taxes.

Today, only 37 percent of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security taxes. Experts are estimating that our Nation loses about $20 billion in payroll taxes each year. We will continue to lose that money until we pass H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform.

The Senate has acted--with strong Republican support and strong Democratic support--and passed bipartisan immigration reform last June; and yet the House hasn't had a single moment of floor time for any immigration reform bill, despite the fact that four have been passed through the committee.

The time is now. We are here today, we are here tomorrow, we are here 2 more weeks. If we need to come back, let's do it.

The country is demanding that we create jobs. Comprehensive immigration reform will do that. The country is demanding we shore up our entitlement programs. Comprehensive immigration reform will do that. The country is demanding that we reduce our deficit. Comprehensive immigration reform will do it. Securing our borders,

protecting our country from terrorists--law enforcement, the faith community all support immigration reform.

In closing, I want to again state the article I am submitting for the record says 65 percent want to protect our environment and 30 percent are for more drilling.

The people have spoken. These bills are out of touch. It is time to take up comprehensive immigration reform.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the Denver Post]

Poll of Westerners on Drilling on Public Lands: 65% Protection; 30%

Drilling

(By Bruce Finley)

A new poll finds that 30 percent of the residents of

Colorado and the western United States favor oil and gas

drilling on public lands, while 65 percent support protecting

wilderness, parks and open space for future generations.

Results of the poll done by Hart Research Associates were

presented Monday by the policy group Center for American

Progress, which with the Wilderness Society was launching a

campaign for balance.

``This is a case where Washington's policies and rhetoric

are still locked in a drilling-first mind-set, but westerners

want the protection of public lands to be put on equal

ground,'' said John Podesta, chairman of the Center for

American Progress, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

``Voters do not see conservation and development of public

lands as an either-or choice. Instead, they want to see

expanded protections for public lands--including new parks,

wilderness and monuments--as part of a responsible and

comprehensive energy strategy,'' Podesta said.

U.S. domestic oil and gas production has reached record

levels, with more than 37 million acres of public land leased

to companies for drilling. Polling and focus group

discussions were conducted in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico,

Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Nevada in April and

May.

The poll asked participants to state what they regard as a

very important priority, and 65 percent said permanent

protection of public lands. Results showed 63 percent

prioritized ensuring access to public lands for recreation,

while 30 percent favored ensuring access to oil and gas

resources.

The poll found that 29 percent supported use of public

lands for grazing livestock.

Western Energy Alliance officials in Denver cited a

different poll. It found that more than 78 percent of voters

nationwide favor increased development of oil and natural gas

in the United States.

Voters have a favorable view of ``how oil and natural gas

in produced in America,'' said Tim Wigley, president of

Western Energy Alliance in a statement. ``Almost one in four

(24 percent) chose federal lands over state or private

lands.''

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 419 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, as well as for consideration of H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act. The rule provides for each bill to receive 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, except that on H.R. 2728, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will control 20 minutes of the 1 hour provided for.

The rule makes in order eight amendments for H.R. 1965 and five amendments for H.R. 2728. In both cases, the number of amendments to be offered by Democrats outnumber those to be offered by Republicans. A number of those amendments which were filed and not made in order violated the House rules either by not being germane or by violating CutGo. So this is a very fair and generous rule and will provide for a balanced debate on the merits of these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House to support this rule, as well as the underlying pieces of legislation, which are both important bills aimed at making the United States more energy independent.

I appreciate the hard work of the sponsors, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, Mr. Flores of Texas, as well as the work of the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), as well as that of the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). These are significant pieces that will move our Nation forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the rule that we have before us is about two bills. The first bill deals with fairness for those who live in public land States as to the ability to process oil and gas leases. The second bill deals with fracking, the fracturing of oil that is a policy that started in the 1940s in the State of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), who is the sponsor of the second bill, to discuss that particular portion.

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

When Ronald Reagan was first elected President, he talked to his National Security Advisor--I believe his name was Richard Allen--and told him that his policy for foreign affairs was going to be ``we win and they lose.'' It shocked his National Security Advisor because they had always been talking about managing communism or coexisting with communism. This was the first time somebody had actually come up with such a specific and precise rationale and policy for the Nation.

But President Reagan also realized, for him to actually enact his goal, they first had to fix the economy, which, as strange as it seems, was worse than the economy we have today. With double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, he had to first fix that before he could go on to his goal of actually winning the Cold War.

He also recognized that if he was going to fix those economic problems, he had to have a reliable and affordable source of energy, and that, indeed, was one of the problems that caused the situation they were in under the Carter administration.

Earlier this year we brought a couple of bills forward, one for the Defense Authorization Act and the Defense Appropriations Act, and I said at the time that the reason we had those here was because it allowed and empowered our State Department.

Foreign policy is whatever we are willing to fund as far as military growth. They are interrelated.

One of the things this administration appears to have forgotten is the interrelation between improving our economy and improving energy production at the same time, although they have done well in trying to forward green energy solutions.

Unfortunately, as much as that is a positive and proper approach, most of what they have done has failed to reach the goals they established for themselves, and not only that, much of it has also been involved in scandals. Also, it cannot be done at the time you are attacking traditional forms of energy.

So that is why we are here. One of the realities is that, oddly enough, at this particular time, we are producing more energy in America than we have for a long time. And the numbers are always all over the place, depending on what the starting date is with these surveys. Whether you go to an industry like the Western Energy Alliance or a neutral entity like the Congressional Research Service, they are all saying basically the same thing. There is a slight increase in offshore energy on Federal lands. There is not an increase in onshore energy production on Federal lands, depending, once again, on what base you are using, and our increase in production, which is true, has almost all come from private lands, State-owned lands, and Native American lands of this country.

Now, the fact that we are closer to energy independence is nice, but that is not our goal. That is simply an infamous goal that we should have.

The goal should be to reduce the amount of energy coming into this country and becoming more energy independent so we can actually help people, so that we can come to the point where we are producing enough energy from this energy-rich Nation to make sure that we have affordable electricity, so when a family goes into a room, they don't have to worry about turning on the light, impacting their kids' college education fund; so that even low-income families can realize they can heat their homes in the winter; so that one can travel from Point A to Point B in your car and realize it is affordable; so that jobs actually are plentiful, especially spinoff jobs.

It is not those who necessarily are working at the site in which you are developing the energy, but the spinoff jobs: the trucker that goes to and from bringing product into or away from the site, or those who are doing the motels and the restaurants that are feeding the workers, those who are working on Main Street that are providing food and resources to those who are providing the services to those particular workers.

In Western States, like the State of Utah, it is essential, also, to our education fund. If you were to look at this particular chart, the chart on the top, the States in red are the States that have the hardest time, the slowest growth in their education funding.

The chart on the bottom, the stuff in red is what is owned by the Federal Government. I hate to say it, but there is a relationship between the amount of public lands owned by the Federal Government and the inability to try and fund the proper education system.

What that comes to, in gross terms, is over the last 20 years, Western States, the predominantly public land States, have increased their education funding by 35 percent. The rest of the Nation, which has very little public ground, has increased its education funding by 68 percent. They are doubling the growth of it.

What simply matters is that States in the West that are public land States have a difficult time of funding their education system when they are prohibited from being able to develop a lot of the resources which are found in those Western States. That is one of the reasons why we have a difficult time in funding our own education system and why the first bill in this rule is asking for Western States to be treated fairly in this particular process.

Whether one likes it or not, to vote against these bills unintentionally harms kids, and it harms education in the West. If our funding for education in my home State is going to be effectively increased, it has got to come from development of the natural resources that are in my State and not putting impediments in the way of the State moving forward.

This is the map of significance that I showed you. Everything that is red is that which is owned by the Federal Government, and you find-- glory be--we have the predominance of it here in the West, in my State.

There is a difference in how energy is developed in the red areas, as opposed to the basically white areas. If you were trying to develop areas in the white, which has very little Federal land, it simply means a company goes out, they contact a property owner, get the right to do exploration, and then, if they find something which they wish, they buy either the land or the mineral rights and go ahead and do it.

On the red areas, the public land areas, the process is far, far different. It has been said on this floor that this bill would allow oil companies to go wherever they want. That is an overstatement. It is not quite accurate.

In the red areas, what happens is, first, the Federal Government, in this case, the Department of the Interior, will establish a regional management plan to establish which areas are proper for economic development, for drilling, and for mining. Not all areas are, so not all areas become part of the regional management plan, and only those areas that have potential for economic development in oil and gas are the ones that are listed in the RMP.

Then it goes through a NEPA process. Once the NEPA process for the RMP is completed, then the Interior Department decides what areas that are listed as potential energy development areas will actually be leased by the Federal Government.

Then they are let out to bid. That also has to go through a NEPA process before, finally, a company can bid on lands and go through and try to find out if it is worthy to develop. If they wish to develop, then they also have to go through an application for drilling.

Now, in most States, the white area, that application for drilling by itself takes between 15 to 30 days. In the red area, that application has been averaging over 300 days, which is where the unfairness takes place.

The first bill that is in this rule would say, okay, let's split the difference, and we will say you make the decision within 60 days; plenty of time to make that particular decision.

It is also noted that, in all of these processes I went through, from the RMP to the NEPA process, to the lease, to the lease bid, to the second

NEPA process, to the APD, there is opportunity for citizens to have input, free speech access to input.

Now, that costs the Department money to access that, which is true, but it is part of their job, so we accept it.

However, when the bid is actually made or a protest is made to that bid, that is extra work for the Department, which, in every other area of government, we would require a fee when some kind of citizen action requires extra work to expedite the paperwork for that type of protest or that type of policy or that type of request.

The companies that do an APD are already charged that by the Department of the Interior. They pay a fee of $6,500 every time they have a request to drill. This bill codifies that. But also it says that, if you are going to challenge or protest one, this is not the opportunity for citizen input that you have along the process each and every step. But if you are actually going to do a challenge of this, then you also should pay a fee because this challenge requires extra work and extra expense on the part of the Department, and this is put at a $5,000 fee. It is $6,500 to actually request the permitting process to start and $5,000 if you want to protest it.

In my State, unfortunately, we have seen examples where, on what I consider to be a whim, the President or the administration or the Department of the Interior has simply withdrawn leases that have gone through all of those steps I indicated and were effective and were put into motion. The first thing this administration did was to withdraw 77 leases in Utah. It had a catastrophic effect upon the Uinta Basin in my home State, where unemployment skyrocketed immediately after that was done, not only because the leases were withdrawn, but the private companies that were doing their work on private lands also saw the handwriting on the wall and wished to no longer go forward with that because of the implications of the withdrawal of those leases.

I got a letter from one of the kids who was living there. She was in junior high school. She asked me to please do something about it because her father was not working on the wells or the sites of those leases. He was one of the truckers, a private contractor who was taking stuff into those sites and trucking stuff out from those sites. And she was so happy because her family had been situated. They were doing well. They had finally bought a house and bought some property, and she had her dream of finally having a horse. And she wrote to me, pleading to see if we could change what this administration had done with those 77 leases so she could simply keep her horse. It didn't happen. She lost the horse. Her father lost the job. They lost the house. They lost land and had to go back to Salt Lake City to find employment.

Recently, in this same area, once again going through the process, the Interior Department identified 800,000 acres that were susceptible and appropriate for economic drilling development. They were those that were already abutting existing leases or intermingled within existing leases. But there were 800,000 acres. When they came up with the lease process, the administration decided to only offer 144,000; and then before the lease actually went out to bid, they withdrew almost 100,000 of those 144,000 because they had found a question in their minds as to what the impact might be.

Now, I recognize this could be legitimate. I mean, the Federal Government has only owned this land since the Mexican War. Obviously there are things that can slip somebody's attention in the first 180 years of looking at a piece of property. But nonetheless, only 44,000 acres were put out to bid. That is 5 percent of the total that was identified as acceptable for this kind of development.

Now, we are not talking about wilderness areas or national park areas or conservation areas; only areas that were susceptible and appropriate for this concept, which is why the 25 percent figure is really kind of a modest figure of what should be the case and should be taken.

If we were to pass these two bills, it is very easy to realize that the desert could bloom again because that is the purpose. These bills, for the first time, identify Native American interests and make sure that Native American interests on Native American lands are going to be respected by the Federal Government. They take it.

Four score and 7 years ago, we started a fracking process in the United States--give or take a score. But this fracturing process has, so far, been working. We have a list of those from the EPA, from the Interior Department, from both Energy Secretaries, the last two Interior Secretaries, a former EPA Administrator, the current Administrator, former BLM Directors who have all said that there is no identifiable problem with what the States are doing with fracturing. The States do have this experience in doing it.

The language is very clear. Sometimes people say, well, there are no regulations because they can't find a specific regulation. It mentions the word ``fracturing.'' But to be honest, and not trying to be too wonkish, if you have rules and regulations that talk about wellbore construction or drill site integrity, that is what is necessary to ensure the health and safety of individuals. And States do know how to go do that, and they do know how to protect that area.

The actual question, though, is, if we are coming up with rules for fracturing--and this deals with the bill that Representative Flores was addressing--where should the decision be made on how to implement those rules? Should it be made here in Washington or should it be made in the State where the situation exists?

I have a great deal of empathy for what the gentleman from Colorado was saying was what he wished to see in his home State. I would be more than happy to allow him to do anything he wanted to do. If, indeed, they want to cancel all kinds of fossil fuel development in the State of Colorado, I would be more than happy to allow him to do that. I just don't want that in my State.

And unfortunately, the conventional wisdom is always that only people in Washington, D.C., have the broad view to make decisions for the entire Nation. That is a ridiculous wisdom. That is inaccurate. States are just as competent. There are as many smart people who live and reside in States, their Department of Environmental Quality, which we have in the State of Utah, as live here in Washington. They can make these decisions. They can do it well.

If a State does not want to make these kinds of decisions, does not want to have these kinds of rules, allow a national rule to take precedence. No problem. But if a State is willing to be independent and make decisions for themselves, we should allow them to do it because the States are just as good and, unfortunately, often better than the Federal Government in making these kinds of provisions.

You see, one of the things that is happening--the good gentleman from Colorado did talk about what is happening in his State. And once again, if his State wants to ban all kinds of these activities, if they want to ban all development of fossil fuels, that is fine.

This bill's adoption does not stop Colorado from doing anything that Colorado wishes to do. Not passing this bill will stop the State of Utah from having primacy and doing what the State of Utah wishes to do.

Look, we are not talking about the decimation of enormous tracts of Federal land. Within the Federal campus, there are over 650 million acres. That is one-third of America that the Federal Government owns. Of those 650 million acres, 450 million acres are already set aside for preservation and conservation and will never, never have any kind of development or any kind of drilling taking place on those 450 million acres.

The amount of area that has been identified as potential for economic development is only 38 million acres. But on those 38 million acres, allow the States to move forward to make sure that what the State wants on our local lands is respected and that what happens on Federal public lands is fair and equitable to what happens on private lands in non- Federal States.

With that, I look forward to anything the gentleman from Colorado has to say, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, if I could, simply to say that what the bill does, does not restrict any kind of free speech opportunity for individuals. They still have the right of comment, which is totally free, in any of those processes from the RPM to the NEPA to the lease to the leased bid to the second NEPA to the APD. So that is there only when an effort actually causes an additional expense to the government, which is typical and standard. That fee is actually going to be initiated to try to cover the costs to the Federal Government.

It is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the sponsor of the first of the two bills, who has a bill that will ensure that the standards become fair and equitable for everyone throughout this Nation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I have no further speakers.

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

I appreciate the poll that was presented into the Record; but that is why, I would submit, the Interior Department has a resource management plan. Those RMPs are established in the first place so that incompatible relationships and incompatible entities are not put in the same area. It is why you can actually have both.

What the two bills before us that would be brought to the floor under this rule do is allow States to have a say in what is going on, because States are confident. They are closer to the problem. They should have a say and a stake and make a statement in this particular issue.

If these bills were brought to the floor, public land States in the West--the red areas on my map--would be treated fairly and treated closer to what is happening in the white States, where there is little public land.

This is also, though, one of the things that I want us not to lose focus on. It is not about drilling or not drilling. It is what is the purpose of developing our energy resources, that is, to make sure that people can heat their homes and have lights in their houses, that they can drive from point A to point B and afford it, and so that people can have jobs so that that little middle school girl in my State can actually have a place for her horse. That is what these bills are about.

More importantly, for Western States, the public land States, is to allow us to generate the revenue we need from the resources we have in our State to fund an education system. If these bills are defeated, the ability of Western land States to adequately fund their educational systems will be stymied.

It is important. If you care about kids, you have to provide this kind of resource for the Western States. That is why these two bills are not just rehashes. These two bills are essential for those of us who live in the West.

For the sake of the education system of Western kids, I would encourage everyone to support not only the rule, but support both underlying bills. They are important. This is a fair rule. It is appropriate legislation. They are good bills and a fair rule. I urge their adoption.

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

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.