Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentleman from Michigan for his words. We all may disagree how to get there, but we do want to be sure that the final goal is reached, and that's a stronger, better America, an America that has a strong economy that's putting people back to work.

This is the 31st straight month where unemployment has exceeded 8 percent. It's got to end. It's got to stop. This country needs to get an economy that's back on track.

In August, I spent a lot of time visiting with businesses around my district in eastern and northern Colorado, and one of the initiatives that we launched was an initiative called the ``One More Job'' initiative. The idea was to learn from job creators, those people who are on the front lines of our economy, what it takes for them to create another job, what would help their business grow and expand to the point where they could hire somebody else so that their customers are returning, so that they're able to sell their goods, their products, their services so that that business could expand and grow again; because, in Colorado, if just 10 percent of businesses in Colorado hired one person, if just 10 percent of Colorado businesses hired one person, we would create 60,000 jobs in the State of Colorado alone, in my home State, 60,000 jobs. That's not by telling businesses that they have to hire people. That's not by telling people that

they've got to do X, Y, or Z. But it's saying, all right, if we can get this economy growing again, what is it that would allow you to expand? And so I'm excited to share with the Congress, my colleagues, ideas that job creators in Colorado have about what it would take to get their businesses hiring again.

An independent consultant and business owner had this to say in response to our ``One More Job'' initiative:

``As a startup consultant and owner of my own business, I see the day-to-day regulatory burdens and uncertainties that many employers, both small and large, face. It seems to me that small businesses, including high-tech startups, are operating on the edge of knowing. They operate month to month or even day to day only to find out that a government fee or regulation or tax threatens to close their doors.''

We have a kerfuffle every day on this floor about what it will take to move this economy forward, about what it's going to take to start creating jobs again. Let's listen to a car dealer. Tourism. Many jobs here. Build a strategy of promoting the State's beauty on a consistent basis. I'm glad to say that last night this body, the House of Representatives, passed a bill to increase the opportunity for tourism in Colorado around our ski resorts, our ski slopes in Colorado, the opportunity to not just generate jobs during the ski season itself, but to allow off-season uses, multiple seasons of use, zip lines, alpine slides, creating jobs in tourism in Colorado. This body passed that bill last night. I hope the Senate will pass it soon so that we can start creating jobs.

When I hear from my colleagues around Washington, D.C., around the country saying that the House of Representatives hasn't passed a jobs bill, we passed the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. That would create 54,000 jobs. Last night, we passed a bill that would add to tourism jobs in Colorado, across the State, across the country. And so we are passing these bills. They need to move through the Senate. They need to be signed by the President.

The fact is we've got a lot of work to be done, and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for allowing us to be here today to share that message.

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas.

And to your point, what you are talking about, the direct consequences that legislation and regulation is having on job creators throughout the United States. In another email that I got from a business owner in Longmont, Colorado, he makes comments about how the Dodd-Frank bill is affecting his business. And he ends his comments with this, ``Right now, Dodd-Frank appears to have completely killed my business.''

We dealt earlier today and we will continue to deal with the Cement MACT rule that talks about what we're going to do to basic manufacturing elements in our country when it comes to cement. If we are going to pave the road to a better economy, we'd better

not do it without cement because this government is about to say, No more cement in this country.

So I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his passion for job creators in this country.

I think in that same conversation we talked about an editorial or an op-ed piece that was written by Charles Schwab, a very well respected voice when it comes to the economy in this country. In The Wall Street Journal editorial, it said basically this, a quote from Charles Schwab, What we can do and absolutely must is knock down all hurdles that create disincentives for investment in business. And that's exactly what you were talking about in terms of making sure businesses have the ability to grow and have the government getting out of the way.

My colleague from Arkansas has a great point, that steeplechase economics will not work. It's when you remove the barriers, it's when you get things out of the way of this economy to grow, that's when we can create jobs. But if you're making people jump over walls and through water hazards, again, steeplechase economics have proven time and time again that they are failures.

Our colleague from Kansas has shown a great visual aid of what every business owner in this country is facing when it comes to their own business, when it comes to creating jobs, when they have to decide where they're going to invest their hard-earned capital. They've got to go through pages and pages and volumes and volumes of tax codes and regulatory decisions and court decisions about what it is they can or cannot do in their business, making this economy so that it actually is unable to unleash the innovators and entrepreneurs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Martha Gustafson, the Principal of Walt Clark Middle School in Loveland, Colorado.

In 2011, Ms. Gustafson was given the Colorado Middle Level Principal of the Year award by the Colorado Association of School Executives.

Just two years after being named Principal of Walt Clark, the school has improved significantly, most notably with strong growth by students in math.

In the Thompson School District of Colorado, Walt Clark Middle is a leader in academic growth for reading and writing. The tremendous leadership of Ms. Gustafson has provided the highest quality standards of learning.

Ms. Gustafson has utilized new and creative measures to motivate teachers. Walt Clark's academic achievements prove that Ms. Gustafson's plan is succeeding.

Each week, teachers analyze data regarding student performance and discuss strategies on how to improve. Ms. Gustafson's direction is innovative and illustrates that Walt Clark is consistently striving to better their students and surrounding community.

This dedication to public education is moving and I am privileged to have such an outstanding educator in my Congressional District.

Her commitment to public education gives inspiration to all educators that want to make a difference in every student's life.

I am proud to recognize Colorado Middle Level Principal of the Year, Martha Gustafson on the House Floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 175th anniversary of the founding of Fort Lupton, Colorado.

The city was originally founded as a trading fort by LT Lancaster Platt Lupton. The post thrived as trappers bought furs and other supplies from Native American tribes.

Settlement around the fort continued throughout the mid 19th-Century and the town of Fort Lupton was incorporated by 1889.

By the 1900s, Fort Lupton was transformed from a simple trading post to a thriving community with a rich agricultural economy.

With the addition of strong oil and gas industries moving into the area, Fort Lupton flourished into a vibrant town in Eastern Colorado.

However, when the manufacturing community moved to Fort Lupton, the old Fort had to be torn down to accommodate the growth. There are very few original artifacts remaining from the original foundation.

To coincide with the 175th anniversary, the South Platte Valley Historical Society worked to create an exact replica of the adobe fort that was originally built in 1837. It will open to the public as part of the 175th anniversary celebration.

I am proud to recognize this historic city on their 175th anniversary. Many people of Eastern Colorado call Fort Lupton their home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sister Mary Alice Murphy for her dedication in Ft. Collins, Colorado to serving the homeless and the poor.

For the last 26 years since Sister Mary Alice moved to Ft. Collins she has worked tirelessly to help the vulnerable populations of the state.

She opened the first soup kitchen in Ft. Collins and with the help of St. Joseph's Parish, an overnight homeless shelter was eventually attached to the soup kitchen.

When this homeless shelter opened, Sister Mary Alice ensured that the facility had a separate area for women and families who were seeking shelter.

In 1992, Sister Mary Alice founded CARE Housing, a non-profit organization, whose mission was to provide affordable rental housing and supportive services to working families. Over 85 percent of the residents were single women with children.

Just last year, the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center for Hope opened. The mission at the Center for Hope is to help families and individuals achieve stability and long-term self-sufficiency. The Center is of tremendous value for the less fortunate families in Colorado.

A plaque on the Center for Hope reads the following ``For her relentless effort to quest better the lives of those less fortunate. Because of her earnest, fearless, and untiring interest in those who are vulnerable, weary or forgotten. In appreciation for her unwavering commitment to people who have no voice. This building stands as a dedication to Sister Mary Alice Murphy, a great friend to many, and the embodiment of service to others.''

It is my honor to recognize Sister Mary Alice on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, thousands of local community banks operate across the country, making a valuable contribution to America's economy. Colorado has a rich history of community banking, where small business owners and employers can do business with a bank they know and trust, and people know that the money they deposit is being redeployed into the community by an institution that wants to see the community succeed as much as they do.

That shared interest in the community has traditionally led local banks to act in a responsible manner and shield themselves from systemic problems, but they are not immune from tough times. Unfortunately, federal regulators are forcing community banks in particular to fight through the rough economy with one hand tied behind their backs.

In short, we must increase bank lending to improve the economy, but regulators are preventing such lending by forcing banks to hoard capital, and by prohibiting community banks from effectively working with their borrowers. We cannot expect to reinvigorate the economy while this is the case.

Congress has been considering this problem since 2009, and it is time for action. It's been two and a half years since the fall of 2008, and yet we are still facing high unemployment, a weak dollar, and a sluggish economy. It is time to move forward, and we know that to move forward we need to stimulate lending. That is why I support this bill.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Today, I rise to speak on the importance of the Keystone XL pipeline, H.R. 1938. One of my goals here in Congress has been to help advance projects like this--projects that will help advance domestic sources of energy. I'm continuously awed at how much potential we have here at home--and our neighbors--and how relatively simple it would be to advance policies that would make us more energy independent. However, I'm continuously baffled at how difficult this administration has made it to wean ourselves off Middle East oil and to create more jobs here at home. In fact, this bill alone, in committee I learned that it will create 6,000 new jobs in Colorado

over the next 4 years--good-paying construction jobs, for example.

I'm appalled at the regulatory burdens or, almost worse sometimes, the inaction on the part of our administration that has led us down the path of insecurity and dependence on many countries that have animosity towards us. Not only do we have the resources in our own backyard, but we have the ability to utilize friendly and willing neighbors like Canada to import oil into the United States.

H.R. 1938, the Northern American-Made Energy Act, would direct the President to simply make a decision on the Keystone XL permit and hopefully move us in the direction of energy security. American jobs, American made.

I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise before you to recognize the hard work and dedication of Archbishop Charles Chaput, who has served the Colorado Catholic community for over a decade. It was announced this week that he has been reassigned to lead the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. While I am saddened that Archbishop Chaput will be leaving our great State, he leaves behind a legacy of defending the innocent and helping the weak that we can all celebrate with pride.

He first came to Colorado in 1977 to be pastor of Holy Cross Parish in Thornton. After many years of ministry, and having held various important positions in the Church, in 1977 Pope John Paul II appointed and installed him Archbishop of Denver. He has fought against anti- Semitism and other forms of intolerance, working tirelessly to advance religious freedom around the globe. His outreach to the Hispanic community is second to none.

I first met him at the Colorado State Legislature where I came to know him as a man of high integrity and deep, deep faith. I admire the archbishop's dedication to all people of faith.

I'd like to offer him my most sincere thanks for all of his work in Colorado and wish him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

I thank both the gentlemen from Kansas, my neighbors to the east of Colorado.

When you talk about the Holcomb plant, you're talking about something that affected Colorado, my constituents, directly. My district borders western Kansas, and many of the farmers/ranchers who rely on rural electric supplies for their energy were going to rely on that plant. Their ability to get cheap, abundant, affordable energy from that plant was critical to the future of their operations. I know they continue to work on it and will continue to work with their neighbors in Kansas on that. So it doesn't just affect one State. This is a national issue: the ability to generate abundant, affordable energy.

I'll also point out that those same communities in southeastern Colorado were hoping to build wind farms. Do you know what? They also rely on transmission lines, and with that power plant came transmission lines--the ability to get power from point A to point B, from where the resource is to where the people live. So, once again, we have a need for a source of abundant, affordable energy.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 7, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

I thank the gentlelady from Alabama for her leadership on this matter and for the time and opportunity tonight to speak about jobs, our economy and what's happening to our country.

Something that really startled me a little bit tonight was when the gentlelady from Washington made this statement. In speaking to her constituents, in speaking to businesses around her district, she mentioned that one of them said, Let us succeed. I was taken aback when she said that, that somebody would actually come to her and say, All we want the government to do, all we want our policymakers to do, all we want our regulations to do is to let us succeed.

Isn't it amazing that we have transformed our economy from a time when people could go out and achieve what they wanted to achieve by working hard, by sacrificing, by taking risks, and now they're concerned because their government is in a place where it won't let them succeed. I'm glad that you mentioned that tonight because I think that's at the very heart of what every single one of us has talked about tonight and what we will continue to talk about over the next months and years to come:

How do we make sure that the policies that we put in place in this country aren't government-driven decisions that dictate what we're going to do for people's businesses or lives?--but instead get government out of the way so that we can let our businesses, our families and America's working families succeed?

Yesterday, a report was issued by the Congressional Budget Office, but I don't know how many people saw or took the time to listen to or to read what the Congressional Budget Office report had to say. It talked about the fact that we have a $1.6 trillion deficit in this country and that we have a $14 trillion debt, all of this at the same time that our unemployment levels in this country have crept back up over 9 percent--unacceptably high.

Those of us in the Chamber tonight were sent here in November because we believe that we have more important work to do than simply spending money that we don't have, than passing regulations that kill jobs. The work that we were sent here to do in November is work to get our economy back on track.

The report from the Congressional Budget Office indicates that the situation of our economy is actually worse than many have been led to believe. Our national debt will grow to be larger than the entire U.S. economy this year. We officially owe more than the entire country produces in a year. That will happen at the end of this year. If this isn't a wake-up call to what is happening in our economy, to what is happening in our spending, I don't know what will be. We cannot afford to wait and delay. We've got to solve this problem now.

I want to read a quote from the Congressional Budget Office report: The sooner that long-term changes to spending and revenues are agreed on and the sooner they are carried out once the economic weakness ends, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from the growing Federal debt.

The report didn't say we can avoid the damage. The report didn't say there won't be any damage. The report said the smaller will be the damage. A $14 trillion debt. A $1.6 trillion deficit. That is damaging our economy; it's damaging our country, and it's damaging our opportunity to create jobs and long-term economic stability. It is a clear call to action from the Congressional Budget Office. We've got to be bulldogs around this Chamber when it comes to reducing our spending. We have to make sure that we are standing up to the regulators who want to put people out of business simply because they're sitting behind a desk and think they can.

Tom Blach is a constituent of mine who came to me 2 years ago and said, I'm worried that I'll lose my business because of overregulation. Do you know what he saw over the course of the last 2 years? He saw the people he did business with, the people he partnered with leave the State of Colorado because of overregulation.

Last Saturday, I had the opportunity to tour Roggen, Colorado, Haxtun, Colorado, Akron, Colorado, in the Eastern Plains to talk to farmers, wheat growers, cattlemen, ag businessmen, all who came to me with a similar theme: what is happening to them with overregulation and their concern that they won't have the opportunity to pass on their legacies to future generations because of a government that has decided it knows best and knows more than they.

I want to talk a little bit about what the gentlelady from Alabama said when she was referring to the tombstone that we saw shown earlier by the minority, which said ``ending Medicare'' on the tombstone.

Today in committee, we had an opportunity to vote on an amendment that said we will oppose and vote against any amendment, any bill, any legislation that would end Medicare. Do you know what our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle did? They voted ``present.'' They voted ``present,'' refusing to stand up for Medicare because they know, when we ask where their plan is, they don't have one. When we ask them where the jobs are, they don't know. When we ask them for leadership, they run and hide. Why?--because they're voting ``present'' when it comes to saving Medicare.

I thank the gentlewoman.

And what's amazing about the argument, today the President releases the oil from our emergency reserve. Yet yesterday on this very floor, a number of people were arguing that, no, we don't need new expansions in production. We don't need more oil being put online in this country because that won't lower the price of fuel. So yesterday they were saying that more supplies won't reduce the price of fuel, but today they're saying release this strategic petroleum reserve because it will reduce the price of fuel. A very confused argument.

I thank the gentleman for the recognition.

I rise in support of this rule to bring more American energy online.

This is a bipartisan bill, H.R. 2021, and it deserves debate on the floor today. Everybody in this Chamber ought to vote for this rule if they care about our gas prices, about our national security, about our energy security, and about job creation.

This bill has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs annually, over $100 billion in payroll over the next 50 years, and 1 million barrels of oil a day. That's nearly enough oil to replace our imports from Saudi Arabia.

This bill would reduce our dependence on Middle East oil significantly, and that ought to be our goal. Foreign nations--some of which have serious animosity towards the United States--are in control of the vast majority of oil that we use day in and day out. Is dependency on these foreign countries not one of the biggest threats that our country faces today? It's a scary reality that this bill directly addresses.

The energy security bill will streamline the process of offshore permitting. Current impediments have delayed development of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for over 5 years. These are areas that have already been approved for drilling. The revenues for the leases have already been collected by the Federal Government, and yet over 5 years drilling is yet to occur.

The bill will make a number of minor changes. First, it will clarify that a drilling vessel is stationary when drilling begins and, therefore, should only be regulated as a stationary source at that point. It clarifies that service ships are not stationary sources by the simple virtue of the fact that they do not stop to drill. They are mobile sources regulated, as such, under title II of the Clean Air Act.

Third, the bill clarifies that emission impacts are measured onshore, where the public resides.

Lastly, the bill eliminates the needless delays, the constant ping- pong between the EPA and the Environmental Appeals Board when it comes to exploration clean air permits. And it requires final agency action to take place in 6 months, to give them an up-or-down approval--denial of proof within 6 months.

Alaska holds tremendous potential, and this bipartisan bill achieves great things by allowing a responsible and efficient process to take place.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee that brought this bill before the body today, and I thank the chairman, Mr. Upton, for his work on this piece of legislation. Energy security, job creation, working to reduce the pain at the pump, that is what H.R. 2021 is about, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011. I thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor today.

This is an important bill for our country and a step in the right direction when it comes to weaning ourselves off of foreign, Middle Eastern oil. It allows us to utilize the resources that we have in our own backyard--American energy for American jobs--responsibly and environmentally friendly.

Gas prices are fluctuating near historic levels that can send our economy into yet another recession. Millions of Americans are out of work. The unemployment rate has ticked back above 9 percent. Unrest in the Middle East has highlighted our vulnerabilities that stem from dependence on oil half a world away and from many countries that seek to do us harm. In the face of seemingly intractable problems, it is our duty as elected representatives of the people of this country to pursue solutions that benefit our neighbors and our Nation as a whole. One such solution is unlocking America's vast energy potential. The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a bipartisan approach--a bipartisan bill-- to bring a massive domestic resource online and create tens of thousands of jobs.

I am delighted to have my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) as the coauthor of this legislation.

In this bill, we move in a nimble and elegant manner to tie the loose ends in EPA's permitting process and the Clean Air Act, itself, to expedite decisions on EPA's issued air permits for offshore oil exploration. The needless red tape inherent in EPA's current permitting process has blocked access to a truly enormous reserve, a reserve in our own backyard, Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

Taken together, we have been told that upwards of 1 million barrels of oil a day can be brought online as a result of the responsible development of these resources, entirely offsetting our imports from Saudi Arabia. Doing so will create and sustain over 50,000 jobs as massive projects get underway to bring this resource to American consumers. Such a vast amount of oil will not only reduce prices at the pump in the future, as testimony was given before the Energy and Commerce Committee, but keep us more secure by eliminating imports from hostile regimes abroad.

For these reasons, the President agrees that we should be moving forward with permitting exploration off Alaska's coast. This bipartisan bill is the most efficient way to get the job done.

Through two exhaustive hearings on this bill, we heard testimony from numerous stakeholders and citizens of Alaska. We believe we have created a solution that balances both environmental protection with public priorities, a balance that does not exist with current EPA procedures.

During our subcommittee and full committee markups we debated numerous amendments, giving members the opportunity to propose substantive changes to the underlying bill. I'm glad that we had a very serious and thought-provoking discussion on this bill during those meetings, and I look forward to the debate today.

The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a serious bill with serious implications for our economy and our energy security. I am delighted to be here today working with my Democratic colleague to move forward with an effective solution to regulatory problems experienced in Alaska and Alaska's offshore areas.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.

We've heard all kinds of arguments today, red herrings that would make the Fulton Fish Market proud of this debate.

This bill is not about jobs, my colleagues on the other side of this debate said. This bill is not about pain at the pump, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said. This bill won't create jobs, I've heard in the arguments today. That it is a massive excuse for people to do incredible things to the environment, unthought-of things. Again, red herrings that the American people are tired of.

The American people are asking for jobs. They are asking for relief at the pump. This bill is nothing more than creating economic opportunity for not only people in Alaska but throughout this country with the creation of 50,000 jobs. When we access our resources,

evidently, there are some who believe it doesn't create jobs. When we create 1 million barrels of oil a day coming into our supplies, apparently that doesn't create jobs. When we build operations for our workers in the north shore of Alaska, the supply facilities in the lower 48 States, apparently that doesn't create jobs.

Apparently we don't lose jobs when people are beginning to pay nearly $4 a gallon for the price of gas. That seems to be the argument that I hear against this bill.

My constituents are paying $3.50, $3.60 for a price per gallon of gas. And apparently, as energy prices increase, some believe that doesn't cut jobs, that doesn't hurt our economy. I have heard time and time again, through testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, through town meetings, constituent calls and letters, they are tired of paying $50, $60 every time they fill up the tank with gas. They are tired of paying their hard-earned money for rising gas prices because this Congress has failed to pass energy policies that rein in the bureaucrats and regulators.

We have an opportunity with H.R. 2021 to create jobs, to create opportunities for energy security in this country. And I would remind my colleagues that these permits, the rights to explore have already been leased, paid for. I ask that Members support this bill, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.

The issue that we are discussing here was actually brought up in debate at the time of the conference committee, this very language, the very title that we are discussing. I will read some language from the conference committee report.

Of primary concern is the fact that OCS air pollution is causing or contributing to the violation of Federal and State ambient air quality standards in some coastal regions.

We are dealing with onshore. The debate is on onshore. The debate at the time was over onshore regulations, on coastal regulations.

In addition, the testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee focused on this language in the regulations dealing with the rational relationship to the attainment and maintenance of Federal and State ambient air quality standards and the requirements of the PSD program, and that the rule is not used for the purpose of preventing exploration and development of the OCS, going directly--directly--to the interpretation that the focus on OCS requirements, as the regulations themselves state, is onshore, that the onshore air quality represents a rational relationship between OCS sources and obtaining and maintaining air quality standards.

California, this was the language, this was the conversation. The debate took place during the very conference committee about coastal regions, about onshore regulations.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment, which mixes two basic concepts of stationary title I issues and mobile title II sources. What we are talking about here is something akin to requiring the employee of a factory to overhaul his engine simply because he parks next to the factory. It is requiring a re-engining of service vessels simply because they happen to be in the area of a stationary source.

So basically what we are talking about in the bill is saying that once a drilling ship starts to drill, that is when it becomes stationary. To require the vessels that service that drill ship, to require them to be stationary would be like requiring the UPS truck to fall under the same regulations as the factory that it is delivering to, or treating an emissions testing facility like it has wheels and ought to be moving around to everybody else because it is testing the emissions of a stationary source. So I rise to oppose this amendment, again, because of issues it is trying to deal with, mixing stationary and mobile sources.

The issue of foreign-flagged ships is dealt with in international law under our treaties that we have in this country. It is dealt with in the MARPOL Treaty. If we want to increase those regulations on U.S. vessels, Congress can do that. However, to increase regulations on service vessels only because they were hired to service an OCS vehicle makes no sense.

It was said in debate earlier too, I believe it was said we are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by

producing more oil. I guess that argument means the same thing as we are not going to have more food by producing more food; we are not going to have more appliances in this country by producing more appliances. The arguments we have heard against this bill are off point, off subject, and are simply on claims that don't make any sense.

So when it comes to this particular amendment, delivery trucks aren't regulated as stationary sources, nor should the service vessels to a stationary source, the drilling ship, as will be considered once this legislation becomes law

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, once again, we are faced with the question of whether we want to focus on the issues that this bill is intending to address--the issue of job creation, the issue of energy security-- and whether or not we are going to take advantage of the resources that we have in our own backyard, which is American energy for the American people.

This amendment presents, once again, one more distraction from the very purpose of this bill. It is a distraction for our colleagues. I understand that they want to oppose this bill, but I believe they ought to oppose the bill on its merits. If they want to oppose the bill, vote ``no'' on the bill. If they want to offer constructive amendments, then introduce amendments to try to improve the bill, but presenting red herring amendments in amendment after amendment ought to be defeated.

Aside from the distraction that this amendment creates, there is no real need for this amendment from a practical perspective. If an interested person wants to know the amounts of bonuses paid to an oil company executive, the information is available. As it is a publicly owned company, it's already available. I don't believe we require bonus disclosure when environmental groups apply for grants. When a staffer helps out on a particular piece of legislation when we introduce the bill, I don't believe that we have disclosure on a bonus to a staffer. Again, this is a red herring on a bill that focuses on jobs and job creation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Who benefits from this bill? The American people benefit from this bill.

In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, it was made very clear that the west coast could import less oil because of the development of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Testimony was received before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that this could reduce the price of gasoline when we create more supplies, particularly for areas along the west coast, because of the presence of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea reserve. So the American people are the beneficiaries of increased American production.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So my colleagues can understand what this bill is about, this does not repeal the ability of the Environmental Appeals Board to hear issues relating to production, production permits. This simply addresses the issue at hand of whether or not the Environmental Appeals Board can be used as a stalling period for exploratory permits.

Let me say it again. Exploratory permits are for a very limited duration. We're talking an activity that may last 30 to 45 days.

Unfortunately, what has happened, the EAB, which is by all accounts litigation with judges in robes in Washington, D.C., that are appointed lifetime bureaucrats, unaccountable, created by the administration, the EAB would still be able to hear appeals related to production. They will not be a part or allowed to delay exploratory permits. Why? Because we believe exploration of our resources is important, that it should not be delayed for 5 years.

In the time that it has taken to reach this point, 400 wells have been drilled by the lessee around the world. That's job creation, but certainly not in the United States. That's energy production, but certainly not in the United States. This bill presents a solution, an up-or-down, yes-or-no answer to a permit within 6 months, without going to the EAB for a ping-pong delay back and forth, EPA, EAB, delay after delay, and says we are going to focus on an issue of national importance, developing our resources, getting exploration performed, so that we can indeed make sure that we are heading down the path toward energy security.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm getting confused by some of the arguments I'm hearing against this bill, because I hear that 6 months isn't enough time even though the average permitting time is 5 months, some will say. I hear that this is only dealing with two permits, although I hear that California, Delaware, and Massachusetts are at risk with this legislation. I hear the argument that some say this is ecosystem-destroying.

Let me read a quote from Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the EPA, testifying before the United States Senate:

``I believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no public health concern here.''

``I believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no public health concern here.''

Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator of the EPA, did not rebut this testimony that was given by the administrator herself, Lisa Jackson, before the Senate. Gina McCarthy didn't refutes it before the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The arguments seem to be confusing and grasping for straws. This is about energy security, about economic opportunity and making sure that we can deliver energy that's produced right here in the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from California for being a part of this debate today.

We had, I believe, this amendment or a similar amendment in committee. We discussed this amendment. As I mentioned, we've had two separate committee hearings on this particular piece of legislation. We had a markup where a number of amendments were offered. A tremendous amount of debate took place, and I believe debate took place on this very amendment.

One of the concerns I have with this amendment is the practical impact it would have in what could best be described as a balkanization in the regulation of Federal waters, creating a patchwork quilt, so to speak, of regulations as it applies to the Federal areas in the OCS. The amendment allows States to promulgate any regulation for the OCS as long as it can be deemed no less stringent. This will result in chaotic regulation of Federal waters, many of which may conflict with interstate commerce.

But perhaps even more important is the dramatic expansion of State jurisdiction that this amendment would have. And this was also an issue that was discussed back and forth during our markups both at the subcommittee level and at the full committee level, whether or not this would create challenges for the expansion of State jurisdiction.

The current law only allows for the delegation of the exact authorities of the administrator and not the flexibility to create the State's own laws to implement the act. I think that's one of the distinctions that we have sort of walked over during this debate.

It's also important to recognize that the Federal OCS is different from onshore State borders, where the States do have this type of flexibility in setting their State implementation plans. We talked in committee, once again, about the Submerged Lands Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. They were enacted for this very reason: to federalize and provide harmony in the offshore.

So State regulations of the OCS will be used, I believe, unfortunately, by those who would try to obstruct and stop domestic energy production. The policy of this bill, of the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, is to provide a clear process so that resources can be explored, and I am afraid this amendment would cause the opposite.

The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a bill that was brought forward because of significant delay in a bureaucratic process through an Environmental Appeals Board that was not created by Congress but was created as an administrative construct; something that was designed, I'm sure, with good intentions. But unfortunately, in its applicability, in the way it is working, the way people have used it, it is now being part of a great delay.

In the time that it has taken for the EAB to work on this bill, 5 years, the company that has the lease in the Beaufort-Chukchi Sea area right now has drilled over 400 wells around the world, not in the United States, not creating U.S. jobs here, not creating U.S. energy, but working abroad.

And if we are going to set this country on a path toward energy security, I've said it before and will continue to say it, if we are going to set this country on a path to energy security, then we have to recognize the national importance of allowing exploration to occur, exploration permits activities that will take 30 to 45 days.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.

Reclaiming my time, it's frustrating too because we continue to hear statements from the administration, from others who wish to pursue a vibrant energy policy for our country that they too agree that we need expanded resource development in the United States, expanded U.S. energy opportunities. But it's almost like lip-synching. They are talking about it, but not actually doing it. And, unfortunately, what we are seeing is conversations by the administration without the action to back up that conversation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.

This issue of studies, this issue of blue ribbon commissions, it doesn't address the actual fact that price is very much dependent on supply. That's the testimony that we have received. If we have 1 million barrels of oil coming into this country from our own resources, American resources, we know from testimony at the hearing that it will impact price, testimony at the hearing that said the west coast of this United States would have to import less, that it would reduce the price at the pump in California.

We don't have time to create commissions that don't actually relieve the American consumers' pain at the pump. They're paying for it now. I too represent farmers, businesses that are paying $3.50 a gallon--they were paying higher just a few weeks ago--and none of them have come to me and said, you know, I wish you could study whether or not high prices are impacting me or not. I wish you could study whether American production will actually reduce the price at the pump because they know intuitively that increased supply--American energy resources, when we develop them, will add to our supply, and it's a function of supply and demand.

We have the opportunity in this country to create American jobs. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that you have to get an air permit for the energy production that my colleague was just discussing. You have to get an air permit for the offshore wind development, for the wave development. So I believe opposition to this bill actually hurts the very projects that he is promoting.

And so, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it basically puts this country in a situation where you can go get a lease, you can achieve an energy lease, but you can't then get a permit for it. So does that create additional liability for this country? Are we going to end up entering into an area where we can get sued because we've issued a lease but then said you can't get a clean air permit-- not only for oil and gas development, but for the very projects that my colleague was addressing?

So here we are in a situation that gets back to the fundamental question at issue: Are we going to allow a bureaucratically created board in Washington, D.C., wearing robes and hearing basic judicial proceedings--are we going to allow them to stall an issue of national importance?

Five years it has taken. Five years it has taken in this one particular instance. Access to Federal offshore areas is not determined by the EPA-issued air permits. It is determined by the President of the United States when through the Department of the Interior lease sales are or are not held for Federal lands and waters.

This is once again an attempt to shut off exploration activity in the Pacific. The matter is not to be decided through air permits. It is to be decided when and if lease sales are proposed for those waters. If lease sales are proposed in the future, Oregon's interests and concerns will no doubt be represented by our colleagues who are proposing this amendment, by the opportunities that remain to debate and provide comment through the NEPA process, through the leasing process.

There are five opportunities for public comment to provided on exploration activity, 30 to 45 days' worth of activity. There are five opportunities for the public to comment.

We have got to get this country into a position where we recognize that it is a good thing for American-produced energy to have opportunities to be developed.

We heard testimony from the State of Alaska. This bill has bipartisan support. It is an effort to say, you know what, we have resources and reserves. We have facilities like the Trans-Alaska pipeline that right now has 650,000 barrels of oil going through a day when it was designed to bring in 2 million barrels of oil a day. If it gets any lower, it is going to create mechanical problems transporting the oil. If it gets below 200,000 barrels a day, it will be decommissioned, torn apart. The potential to bring 2.1 million barrels of oil a day into this country will be gone if the Trans-Alaska pipeline is removed.

The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, H.R. 2021, gives this body the chance to say we are going to utilize our resources in a responsible manner. We are going to tell the EPA that they have got 6 months to do the analysis. Approve it or don't approve it, but make a decision because the American people deserve a decision.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time remains.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just to clarify a point when I was seeking the opportunity to ask the gentleman to yield, section 328 applies to any offshore project authorized under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. So under the OCSLA, all offshore energy projects must have a permit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I oppose the amendment. We have an opportunity with the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act to get this country on a path toward a secure energy future. It is a matter of national interest. It is not just a matter of Oregon or just a matter of Colorado or just a matter of Alaska. Everyone who is suffering through the pain at the pump realizes that the resources we have been blessed with in this country, when used responsibly, can be used for the benefit of our country and the benefit of all.

The 112th Congress has continued to focus on job creation, just like the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, job creation and long-term economic well-being. It was said before, somebody on the other side said we are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more oil. That doesn't make any sense at all.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion.

Energy security and job creation, that's what the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is about. The amendment, the motion to recommit that has been offered, is something that we talked about today: whether or not a study actually results in lower prices at the pump.

Colleagues, I don't think our constituents will appreciate it if we put a big sign on the pump at the gas station that reads ``you're going to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas; you're going to pay $4 a gallon for gas'' while we study it, while a blue ribbon commission proceeds.

This bill will allow our domestic resources to be accessed in a responsible manner, in a timely manner to help relieve the price at the pump. Americans are tired of overregulation. Americans are tired of job-killing regulations. Americans are tired of the pain at the pump that they face each and every day. This bill presents an opportunity to create 54,000 jobs. In the time that it has taken to get a permit approved in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, 400 wells have been drilled around the world. They created jobs in other countries; they created energy in other countries, but they didn't do it in our own backyard. This is our opportunity to get American resources online in a responsible manner.

This amendment is one more stall, one more study, one more way to tell the American people that we're not interested in helping relieve the pain at the pump. We're going to study it. We're going to commission it. Then we're not going to do anything. This is 54,000 jobs and 1 million barrels of oil a day brought online from Alaska, creating jobs not just there but throughout the 48 States.

The other day, I heard people talking about making it in America. ``Make It in America.'' Do you know what we need to make it in America? We need an energy policy that allows an abundant, affordable energy resource. To make it in America, we need opportunities to secure policies that don't overregulate and kill jobs. If you want

to make it in America, reject this motion to recommit; develop American resources; put America back to work; and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment moves funding over to the integrated activities account. I am very concerned about our work when it comes to animal disease and food safety issues, especially when it relates to issues like FMD, chronic waste and disease, mad cow disease, other infectious animal diseases, prion-based diseases.

I want to make sure that we are not imperiling the U.S. livestock industry, especially when it comes to our livestock exports. If we were to delay even just 3 to 4 days in terms of finding or responding to an outbreak of FMD, it could cost our country $135 billion in agriculture and possibly destroy our export markets.

Madam Chair, I would just ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for organizing tonight's conversation with the American people about what our plan for job creation is all about and how we're going to, once again, restore the greatness of this country by getting America back to work, by creating an economy for job creators.

The gentlelady from Washington reminded me of my visits throughout my district this past week in eastern Colorado and northern Colorado, Colorado's Fourth Congressional District. It's around 6 o'clock back home, and there are probably a lot of people who are just now coming home from work or

who are about to get off work. They're worried about how they're going to continue to pay for their daughter's education, how they're going to make ends meet, what they're going to do to afford that car payment.

I and every single person here tonight will assure them that we have a plan for jobs, that we have voted on our plan for jobs and that we will continue to pursue policies to create jobs in this country, not because they're created by government but because we get government out of the way and allow the private sector to flourish.

This last week in Colorado, I met with a number of businesses. I toured a number of businesses in northern and eastern Colorado, and I had the opportunity to talk to the leadership of those companies and to the people who work on the lines in the factories. I was struck by one statement, one statement by an individual who said, It's time that we let loose the innovators and the entrepreneurs in America.

What are we doing to let loose the innovators and the entrepreneurs in this great country?

I know what the Republicans have been doing to make sure that we're reducing regulations, to make sure that we have an energy policy that, instead of strangling the American working family, helps the American working family and that opens up our resources. We can do so in an environmentally responsible manner. We have done it, and we will continue to do it. We will continue to pursue tax policies that are fair and that don't chase businesses overseas but that allow those jobs to be created right here.

Another business owner in my State gave me a call last year, and said, You know what? My number one competitor just moved to Ireland, and I'm left with a choice. I can either stay headquartered here in Colorado and pay 30 percent more in taxes than they do or I can go overseas and find another place to do business and take those jobs with me.

That's not the kind of choice that we ought to be presenting in this country to the men and women who create business in the United States. Instead of deciding where to go, the question they ought to be asking is, How much can we grow right here in the U.S.? Along these lines, of the factories that I toured and of the manufacturing plants that I toured, I spoke with one employee who came up to me and said, I'm just glad this business is located in Colorado. I'm glad they chose Colorado.

It wasn't that long ago that I was a State legislator. I remember one of the debates that we were dealing with was a particular regulation that many small businesses were struggling with. They were trying to figure out whether or not they could survive under that regulation. While the debate in the Colorado State Legislature was taking place on whether or not this regulation was good for job creation or not, there was an advertisement on one of the State's largest radio stations from our neighbor to the north, the great State of Wyoming. Their Chamber of Commerce and one of their municipalities said, Come to Wyoming, a business friendly place. They said that because Colorado was forcing a regulation on its business owners that was going to put the men and women of our State out of business. They saw an opportunity. They said, Come to us. We'll take your jobs. We'll take your businesses. You can do it right here, and you'll be better for it.

That's not the kind of policy I want for Colorado, and that's not the kind of policy I want for the United States. The policy of this country should be this:

We will make sure our government gets out of your way to let you do what you do best--run your businesses, your families and your lives. We're not going to foster policies that force you to make a decision to go overseas because of an arbitrary decision in our Tax Code or a regulatory scheme that says, Don't do business here because we're going to make it too tough on you to do business.

Our plan for jobs in the 112th Congress is clear. Unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the Democratic side seem to have labeled their 112th Congress mission the ``kick the can down the road'' tour.

It is the kick the can down the road tour because they're not going to present solutions for Medicare. They're not going to present solutions to solve our energy crisis. They're not going to present solutions to solve our debt and deficit, but no, they're going to pass it on to the next generation. They're going to kick the can down the road and say, You know what? If you're 50 or 55, we're going to go ahead and put the burden all on you, all on you.

That is not a solution for this country. That is debt, doubt, and despair, as my colleague from Illinois just a few minutes ago so eloquently stated. Debt, doubt, and despair. I haven't heard a campaign theme of debt, doubt, and despair, but that is certainly what they are running on.

We can do better, and I'm glad to be part of the 112th Congress and the Republican majority that has said we will create jobs in this country, we will get back to economic opportunity, and we will start by taking care of future generations, and that work begins today.

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRIFFIN from Arkansas. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

A group of us had the opportunity today to discuss with one of the Nation's leading economists job creation and what's happening to our businesses around the country. And he made the observation, he said, You know, there are a lot of businesses--exactly what you had said--there are a lot of businesses out there that have money on their rolls, but they're not investing into our economy because of what he called and used the term ``government activism,'' policies that relate to government activism. I said, What do you mean by government activism? I am assuming you are not talking about somebody going out from government with a picket sign. And he said, No, no, no. Government activism in terms of the policies that they are pursuing that result in uncertainty, whether it's a regulatory approach that is an activist approach that takes away the certainty business has for the tax structure, for business environment regulations. And the conversation you had was, If we could bring back certainty, if we could get this country back to a point where businesses know what's ahead tomorrow, they know what's ahead next year, then they can plan, and they won't be afraid to invest that money. They'll start creating jobs now. That's one of the Nation's leading economists who said exactly what my colleague from Arkansas is saying tonight.

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. And I too have heard the President talk about his desire to increase trade and the exports of this country. In fact, I believe I've heard the statistic quoted, something to the effect that if we could increase trade in this Nation by exports by 1 percent, we'd create tens of thousands of jobs.

We talk about what we're going to do to get this country moving forward again, how we're going to get this economy back, and there is a perfect example of what we can do, not only from my home State of Colorado, but for this country. The goods that we produce, to share them with the world, to make not just U.S. consumers, but world consumers of the excellence in manufacturing that this country used to be, can be, still ought to be and should be into the future.

And so again, I think you talk about the opportunities that we have missed. The other night we came to the floor, and there was a group talking about make it in America. Well, you know what we need to make it in America? We need a business environment that fosters job growth. We need a tax policy that doesn't penalize people for choosing to work in the United States.

To make it in America we need an energy policy that doesn't force people to pay $60, $70 every time they fill up a tank of gas just to get to work. To make it in America we need regulations that are pro- business, not anti-business.

To make it in America we need a government that actually represents the American working families, not just bureaucracy. That's what we need to make it in America. And when it comes to trade agreements, I believe that we can and we ought to make it in America, and we can sell it abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from H.R. 1380.