Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Madam Chair, speeding up the permitting process and thereby making it easier to drill off our country's shores in the manner that this bill does will do little to help Americans at the gas…
Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Madam Chair, speeding up the permitting process and thereby making it easier to drill off our country's shores in the manner that this bill does will do little to help Americans at the gas pump.
According to the Energy Information Administration, even tripling our current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we continued at the current levels.
At maximum output, the United States holds less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, not nearly enough to significantly impact the price per barrel, which is set on a global level primarily by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries that we reference as
Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
Let me respond to my colleagues first by saying that I hope no one in the gulf is sitting out there holding their breath waiting for this named bill here, H.R. 1229, ``Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work.''
Let me talk real here about what is getting ready to happen. The Republicans will pass this particular measure. It will go to that black hole over in the Senate and never become the law of the United States. And the administration has made it very clear that if this measure were to pass, it is not going to in fact be permitted under the aegis of the President's veto, which they cannot overturn.
So while people in Mississippi and people in Louisiana are suffering floods right now, compounding all of the circumstances that they have had to put up with with the BP oil spill, here we are dillydallying, making like we are going to do something to create work in the gulf. We are not going to do one single, solitary thing, and if we could do nothing more, we ought to tell the people the truth.
If we drilled everywhere you say drill in America, we still would only have 1.97 percent of all of the oil in the world. Canada has more oil than we do, and we get plenty of it from them. Mexico almost has as much as we do. How dare we come here and talk about 2 weeks of oil that ain't going to reduce gas none and suggest to people it's going to put people back to work. Balderdash.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
As a former judge--and as a State and Federal judge--I would urge my colleague from Colorado to understand something. Circuit judges don't of necessity have specific specialty in the area they live. A judge may go on the bench in the Fifth Circuit and have studied patent law all of his life and know nothing about oil.
Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment as the designee of the maker of the amendment at the desk.
Madam Chair, this amendment, the scrivener of same, is Jared Polis, our colleague from Colorado. I can't resist, however, departing from the preparation that he has undergone to suggest that if my other friend from Colorado's logic is followed, then I gather that the circuit courts of the United States, all 13 of them, must be the courts of last resort. And if you followed your logic to its conclusion, I guess we would eliminate the United States Supreme Court because, of course, those nine people wouldn't know anything about what the circuits had done, wherever they came from.
Madam Chair, when reading this bill, and particularly the section on judicial review, the phrase ``rush to judgment''
came to mind to Mr. Polis, because that's exactly what this bill directs our courts to do. Instead of hearing and deciding a case based on the case's merits, this bill tells the courts that speed, not justice, should be their top priority.
Madam Chair, the integrity of any law enforcement is only as good as the court's ability to review and enforce it. We all learned in civics class that one of the strengths of our Nation is its system of checks and balances. Passing legislation that tilts the courts in favor of one side or another is hardly in line with this most fundamental of American values, yet this is what much of what H.R. 1229's judicial review section does.
Mr. Polis' amendment that I offer as his designee is a modest amendment that promotes the integrity of that review and the integrity of our Nation's principle of fair and impartial courts. H.R. 1229 as a whole gives an even greater handout to the well-funded legal teams employed by the big oil companies, at the expense of protecting our health, our communities, our environment, and justice in general.
The underlying bill in section 204 states: ``The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered civil action as expeditiously as possible.'' Exactly who does it help when the courts are directed to make decisions in haste at the expense of research and deliberation? It only helps those who can afford teams of high-priced lawyers and lobbyists who know where and when to push the pressure buttons of influence.
My colleague's amendment simply replaces the word ``expeditiously'' with the word ``justly,'' as the courts should be deciding cases based not simply on speed but on the law. Undoubtedly, the judicial review provisions in H.R. 1229 have been included to promote the misleading argument commonly used by the majority party and the big oil companies alike that frivolous lawsuits by local communities and environmentalists strangle the industry and stall domestic drilling. Yet quarter after quarter, oil companies continue to reap record profits and are developing more domestic energy than ever before. Exxon actually is ahead of us. They're in the business of talking about gas while we around here are dilly-dallying about oil.
Furthermore, this misleading hard-luck story leaves out a critical fact--that the industry is just as active in using the courts to get its way as any public health or environmental watchdog. But the industry has much more money for such legal actions, already giving it an unfair advantage.
In fact, recent lawsuits have been filed against the government by Alaskan oil companies to overturn critical habitat restrictions, by oil companies against the EPA for ethanol standards, and numerous suits against the Department of the Interior by industry over the temporary ban following the BP disaster.
Let's remember that the point of judicial review is to ensure that the law is followed and to provide a check and balance when it is not. The underlying bill is, in effect, saying that following the law no longer matters. It doesn't matter if justice is served or if a case is heard properly. It only matters if it appears that way.
Madam Chair, the east front of the Supreme Court building contains the following inscription: ``Justice, the guardian of liberty.'' Should any company in our country have the right to pursue profits and the prerogative of our capitalist system? Of course. But even our Founders recognized that this should be done within the confines of the law. Justice, meaning impartial courts and stringent checks and balances, is the guardian of our liberties and freedom as Americans. Instead of promoting a rush to judgment and a blind rubber stamp within the courts, we should, instead, promote integrity and a system of rigorous checks and balances, as these are truly fundamental American values.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Madam Chair, H.R. 1229, in my opinion, is an irresponsible giveaway to the oil industry, which has taken enormous profit at American taxpayer expense. Section 207 of the bill repeals the Equal Access to Justice Act, thereby eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees to litigants bringing successful legal challenges, be they expeditious, just or not, to offshore oil and gas activities, making this kind of litigation prohibitively expensive.
As the BP oil spill demonstrated, there has been a lack of Federal oversight of the drilling industry. Consequently, legal challenges have become the only enforcement mechanism for many related laws and regulations. Removing the judiciary system from the equation makes it even less likely that large oil and gas companies will comply with environmental and safety standards. Let me insert something here.
As to the commission that was set up under BP, a colleague of mine on the Rules Committee said that BP has been accountable. Only 3.8 percent, $3.8 billion of the $20 billion, has been left to 177,000 claimants. That ensures, among other things, that by 2013, at the expiration of the commission's term, there will be money left over.
Guess what my friends at Fox News reported? They reported that the money goes back to BP. How crazy can we be around here?
Eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees means the traditional groups that bring lawsuits on environmental
or safety grounds, such as fishermen, small business owners and environmental groups, will no longer be reimbursed for the cost of successfully litigating these kinds of claims. The idea that the bill will somehow eliminate an excess of lawsuits is ridiculous. Since litigation is by its nature so expensive, these cash-strapped plaintiffs usually only bring those lawsuits with the most likelihood of success. Without the possibility of receiving attorneys' fees, legal challenges will effectively become impossible.
Madam Chair, section 207 of H.R. 1229 only helps large oil companies avoid having to comply with U.S. law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, when you're flabbergasted, the easiest thing to do is to not say anything else. I just can't believe that we're doing this useless legislation while people in the gulf are hurting the way that they are. It's senseless.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.