Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from New York for his time today and his leadership on this important issue. I know you have a young family, as do I, and you're here today to make sure that we talk about those matters that are important to our families, those things that will lead to a better future for them. But it's been a disappointing day today when we saw colleagues on the other side of the aisle who had an opportunity to reject one of the largest tax increases in American history, when they could have voted to repeal and begin the replacement process on the health care bill, the President's takeover of health care, but, instead, most of them, the vast majority of them, decided to move forward with the tax, a tax that they pledged they would never commit and carry out on the middle class of this country. Growing up in a little town of the eastern plains of Colorado, I will never forget my hometown doctor. At times, he was the only doctor in a town of about 3,000 people. His name was Jack Pierce. Dr. Pierce was somebody that's still looked up to in my hometown. He's moved away, lives in Texas now, but he's somebody who parts of the new hospital is named after, somebody who delivered me and was there when my mom, in my hometown, was delivered as well. Dr. Pierce was my doctor's name. With the health care bill, the rest of America gets Dr. Washington. Dr. Washington is now going to make health care decisions for the American people. If you're sick and you need help, you better have the approval of Dr. Washington first because Dr. Washington has a board of bureaucrats that will decide for you what kind of treatment you may or may not receive. Dr. Washington is going to ensure that you have a $1,200 increase in health care premiums if you're the average American family. That's just what happened after the first year of enactment of the President's health care takeover. Dr. Washington will see that, in 2016, you'll have a 13 percent increase in your premium for individuals and families who can buy coverage on their own compared to if the law hadn't been enacted at all, a 13 percent increase if the law hadn't been enacted at all. Going back to Colorado and talking to business owners, they talk about what their costs will be. Families talk about the insurance that they'd like to have now, the insurance they wanted to keep but are concerned they're not going to be able to under the President's takeover of health care. This tax increase will cost Americans dearly. It will cost them the doctors that they wanted and it will cost them the insurance that they'd like to keep. We know that this bill is going to cost even more than it was anticipated to cost. As recently as June 27, 2012, they said that this health care bill would cost $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Today, we see numbers with new estimates over $2 trillion, nearly $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years to pay for this. How is it going to be paid for? A tax on the American people. In a letter to the Governor of Texas, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary Sebelius, wrote, saying: We encourage you to participate in this new, expanded health care opportunity because of the generous Federal benefits that are being offered. How is this country going to pay for those generous Federal benefits? Deficit spending? borrowing? tax increases? The answer is: All of the above. In fact, that may be the only thing this administration agrees with when it comes to all of the above--taxes, spending, and debt. Ladies and gentlemen, the people that I represent in Colorado, the people that we represent in this country are asking for real health care solutions. They're asking for solutions that will improve the quality of care while decreasing the cost of care. The President's takeover does none of those. We have an obligation to this country, to the people we represent, to make sure they understand that when the chief actuary of Medicare says that the two primary promises that were made in this health care bill will never materialize, that it will decrease costs and that if you like the insurance you have, you get to keep it--the chief actuary, independent actuary, has said those two primary promises will not be realized. And yet today, the vast majority of people in the President's own party said move forward with the tax and say good-bye to the health care that you and your family is hoping to secure. So with that, I would again thank the gentleman from New York for the opportunity to be here to talk about ways that we can move this country forward and our obligation to the American people.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. The gentlelady is correct on one point: that it is up to us. It is up to us to protect and defend the middle class. It's up to us to work toward the development of American jobs. It's up to us to reduce the reliance on foreign oil. It's up to us to make sure that we have an opportunity to buy American from North Dakota, from Pennsylvania, from New York, from Colorado. We have an opportunity to buy energy from those States. What about Ohio? What about Pennsylvania? This will allow us to produce energy in this country, to buy energy from this country instead of growing our dependence on overseas energy, the Keystone XL pipeline, opportunities to look at our Federal resources for coal, for solar, for wind, traditional and renewable energy. This bill is about American jobs, about lowering the price at the pump. We have seen over the past 3 years as gasoline prices have gone up nearly 100 percent. We talk about putting people back to work. We talk about protecting the middle class. You know what will help people rise above it? You know what will help people move forward? It's making sure that they can afford the gasoline that they put into their tank, that they're not trying to sacrifice groceries for gasoline. A one-penny increase and the price of gasoline will cost American consumers and businesses millions and millions of dollars a day. You want to talk about things that we could do to help this country, it is an abundant and affordable energy policy, one that weans us off of foreign energy, makes sure that we are producing it here, and one that makes sure we are taking advantage of all of our energy-- renewable, traditional--in the sense that we're not just looking at quick-fix politics, but we're looking at long-term supply solutions. But once again, we are met with opposition that includes more politics, less energy; more rhetoric, less opportunity. This isn't about smoke and mirrors. This is about putting Americans back to work producing American energy and making sure that we are watching out for our constituents, lowering the price of energy so that they can improve their lives and that of their families. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this motion to recommit. Let's move forward with American jobs, American energy, and support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GARDNER

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

Mr. GARDNER. Again, analyzing rules is part of its job. That's part of the EPA's job. It's part of the DOE's job. The DOE has a budget in excess of $26 billion. In fact, we found out just a couple of days ago that one program at the Department of Energy is costing $1.2 million per job created. It has the resources to do it within existing funds. This isn't going to cost any new money. What it is going to do is to make sure that we're protecting the American consumers before cost increases occur. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I've enjoyed serving on the committee with the gentlelady from California, but I must oppose the amendment. Talking about the process that we're going through on regulations, you know, this is the very heart of the bill, to understand the cost feasibility, what pressures regulations can put on the price of energy, the price of gasoline, and whether or not these regulations are going to cause price increases. In fact, we know very well that they are going to cause price increases because we've had testimony from the Environmental Protection Agency admitting that some of these regulations, proposed regulations that they have on the books, or that they have promulgated contemplating will increase the price of gasoline and other prices in other energy areas. These have real effects on consumers. In fact, if you just increase the price of gasoline by a penny a gallon, it will increase the daily cost to the American consumers and businesses millions and millions of dollars each and every day, one penny a gallon costing our economy millions and millions of dollars a day. And so with this we're trying to actually say let's take a look at it to understand. We're not stopping them from going forward with their plans or developing rules. Certainly, we want to encourage the protection of our environment and make sure they're doing their job to protect our environment. But we also need to have our eyes open and make sure that we have a chance to look before we leap when it comes to these regulations. Delving down into the EPA's own process, though, if you look at what happens under the regulatory process, the cumulative impact analyses are feasible and already required by President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 and President Obama's Executive Order 13563. As recently as March of this year, just a couple of months ago, the White House issued a memo reiterating that ``agencies should take active steps to take account of the cumulative effects of new and existing rules.'' The EPA's own action development process, the internal process of the EPA, requires that the analysis start early in rule development. That doesn't say you wait until the rule is developed. It doesn't say you wait until it's all done, complete, out there. Early in the rule development process, action development process, taking a look at it. This information's available. They've got the data. They've got the studies. It's time that they use that information to understand the impact that it will have on our constituents back home who are finding it increasingly difficult to balance the cost of energy with costs like paying for their home mortgage, putting food on the table. And that's why we have an opportunity, with this bill, to create American energy security and to create jobs in this country. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GARDNER. I urge opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. I have great respect for the gentlelady from California who joined this Congress in the class of 2010 election and served as Speaker of the House in California. It's great to work with you on the House floor, but unfortunately I am going to have to oppose the amendment. The best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to increase our energy opportunities right here in our own backyard. That's what the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act is all about. The components and pieces, the seven parts of this bill, are designed to reduce red tape to increase opportunity for American energy production--those productions occurring on our Federal lands, including renewable energy; the opportunity to create wind energy, solar energy on our Federal lands, making sure the Department of the Interior is planning for that, taking a look at. But, again, the best way to reduce our reliance on oil imports is domestic production, the opportunity to increase that production right here in our own backyard. That's what this bill is about. It's about creating jobs and opportunity for the American people. It's about making sure that we can reduce the price at the pump. And let me talk just a little bit about reducing the price at the pump. The gentlelady from California mentioned the issue of CAFE standards, increasing efficiency in cars. Well, you know, you're only going to achieve those higher efficiencies through CAFE standards if you're able to afford a new car. But we know that that is going to make cars more expensive. It's going to cost $1,000 in the near term. It's going to add $3,000 by 2025 to the cost of a vehicle. That's going to be higher if you talk to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the NADA. So if you're not struggling under the burden of higher gas prices, then I guess you can afford a new car. Maybe you can, I don't know. But the fact is, if we continue to allow energy increases to increase nearly 100 percent, as they have over the past 3 years, the American people, our constituents, will be priced out of the ability to even contemplate the purchase of a new vehicle, continuing their struggle to make ends meet, to heat and cool their home because of the cost of energy prices. We know that we have opportunities right here in our own back yard: the Keystone XL pipeline, North American energy, energy from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota. The cause of gasoline price fluctuation is already known. The gentlelady from California mentioned the CBO study. The CBO study talks about demand as a factor in price, but seems to neglect that there is no supply connection. Supply matters. Supply and demand matters. Let's take a look at natural gas. Production of natural gas right now, the price is at low levels because we have almost a glut of natural gas. As a result, the price of natural gas is low. Supply matters. Secretary Chu testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee that supply matters. It's not just a demand equation. You can't just turned around and say as more people consume oil that increases the price of oil without taking a look at the other part of the equation: supply. More supply. Secretary Chu said so. With that, Mr. Chairman, the best way to reduce our reliance on foreign imports is to create American jobs with American energy. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is trying to deal with the rising prices of energy by addressing the very important issue of supply and demand. While I think there's nothing wrong with looking into the possibility of market manipulation, I do think this bill is trying to address another very important part of the price equation, and that is supply and demand. This issue has been studied, and it will continue to be studied. But I'll remind the gentlelady that we're dealing with an agency that has over $200 million already in its budget, and this amendment adding $128 million would be a significant increase in funding for FY12 for the CFTC budget. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. If you would just look at what the CFTC has said, going back in 2008: The task force's preliminary assessment is that current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between January 2003 and June 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors. In 2009: We find little evidence that hedge funds and other noncommercial (speculator) position changes cause price changes; the results instead suggest that price changes do precede their position changes. So we can go on and on about what the CFTC has already said, but this bill deals with the issue of supply and demand. With that, I would yield 2 minutes to a great leader from the State of Texas (Mr. Conaway) who has done tremendous work on this issue over at the CFTC and in commodity issues.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank my colleague from Colorado for giving me the time on this amendment. I want to tell a little story. A year ago, I had the opportunity to visit a hydraulic fracturing site in my district, a county called Weld County in northern Colorado, and when you're dealing with hydraulic fracturing, what happens is about 2 or 3 in the morning the crews that are overseeing the hydraulic fracturing--at least in this particular area--get up, they go to their trucks that actually have this panoramic view of the well site so they can monitor everything that's taking place. They can monitor all the equipment. They have computers inside the truck that explain and expound upon what's happening in the operation at that point. It's filled with engineers. And on this particular tour site that I went to, the hydraulic fracturing, the production engineer was a woman. And I'm pretty sure that I would have been rejected by her college for the engineering program before I even applied. So it was an incredible opportunity to learn from her the work that she was doing. There were many other women members of that particular crew. And so I think the best way that we can get more women and more minorities hired and working in this country, whether it's energy or not, is to create more opportunity. More opportunity means more jobs. More jobs means more hiring. And when you have more hiring, we're going to put more people back to work: Men, women, minorities. That's the opportunity that this bill presents. It's an opportunity to create jobs, an opportunity to lower the price of gas so that men, women, and minorities are able to afford the price of a gallon of gasoline to get to their job.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, again, we have to understand that the best thing that this Congress can do to drive down the price of gasoline is increasing our supply opportunities right here, to drive down the cost of energy by increasing our production right here. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the Chair and I yield myself the balance of my time. Sixty four thousand eight hundred five jobs, $4.3 billion in wages, $14.9 billion in annual economic impact. That is the number of jobs, the amount of wages, and the economic impact that we would have seen today if not for the backlog of BLM projects over the past 3 years. Sixty-five thousand jobs. There are 22 proposed projects in the Western United States that would create nearly 121,000 jobs. Over the past few years, we have seen gas prices increase dramatically: $3.50, $3.60, $3.70. Since we've heard debate on the House floor tonight, they're going down. Even a flood can be lowered by a foot the next day, but it's still a flood. Our constituents who are paying $60, $70 to fill up with a tank of gas to drive their families to school, trying to put food on the table, to get to work, cannot afford high energy prices year after year. This bill presents us with an opportunity to create jobs to build on American energy independence, to make sure that we are doing the one thing that we set out to do, and that is improve the economic chances of this country, our competitiveness, and the lives of our constituents. But they can't do it with gas prices exceeding $3, $4. What's next? Because here we are again. The policies presented in this bill will allow us to cut through red tape and to increase exploration on our great lands in the Western United States across this country in an environmentally responsible fashion. It will allow us to make sure that when we access the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because of a supply problem that we're also addressing a long-term supply fix instead of just quick-fix politics. We have an opportunity to make sure that when it comes to the regulations that are driving up the price of gasoline--and they have a real impact; we have both heard before our committee testimony from EPA administrators who say, yes, it will increase the price of gasoline--we stop and take a look before we leap to make sure that we are analyzing to understand the impact they will have on our constituents, who continue to suffer. The best way to improve our economy is to make sure that we are unleashing every sector of our economy. And yes, that means renewable energy. This bill includes renewable energy. It takes a 4-year look at renewable energy on public lands, to take advantage of our opportunity with solar on Federal lands, with wind on Federal lands. But we will not sit idly by while our constituents pay thousands of dollars a more each year to put fuel in the tank, competing with the food on their table. And so, Mr. Chair, this bill presents us all with a great chance to increase our energy supply, create American jobs, and make sure that we understand the full ramifications of regulations and drawdowns of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve before we act. And I think it's important that we send one strong message to our constituents that we've heard you. We've heard you loud and clear. And we are going to do everything we can to improve our economy, bring down the cost of energy, create jobs. That's when this Congress will do our job. This Congress will do our job when we pass this legislation, and I urge passage of H.R. 4480. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARDNER. Again, I believe this amendment is unnecessary, talking about ambiguities and the silence in the law when it comes to the Clean Air Act in the determination of cost. Here the issue of cost was silent, and we are simply saying we ought to have the issue of cost brought into this. When the term ``public health'' appeared in the first Federal Clean Air legislation in 1955, its ordinary meaning was ``the health of the community.'' In the American Trucking decision, as you pointed out, the Supreme Court affirmed that the definition of public health is ``the health of the public'' and does not refer to the health of nonliving entities. The Clean Air Act requires that ambient air quality standards be established to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. Nothing--nothing--in H.R. 4480 changes the definition of ``public health.'' Again, let me say that: Nothing in H.R. 4480 changes the definition of ``public health'' in the Clean Air Act or any obligations. It doesn't change any obligations to set such human health-based standards. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my colleague from Texas. We've worked on a couple of pieces of legislation together over the year and a half that I have been on the committee. I have the honor of serving with him on the Energy and Commerce Committee. But I also must rise again to oppose the amendment from our colleague from Texas. Once again, under this bill, nothing in the gasoline regulations act stops the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule. Nothing in this prevents the EPA from protecting the public health and the environment, as the law requires them to do. But as we talked in the previous amendment, consideration of the cost and the feasibility of these major rules is elsewhere throughout the law. And it is warranted because, in this case, a failure to consider those costs could hurt jobs and the economy. We need to know. In fact, costs are required in other parts of the Clean Air Act. And EPA must consider costs in the context of setting New Source Performance Standards, automobile emission standards, aircraft emission standards, fuel additives, and reformulated gasoline standards. And it's also a matter that you have to consider costs when setting future drinking water standards in the Safe Drinking Water Act. And if you hearken back to last year when President Obama decided that he was going to withdraw his last ozone rule, one of the comments that he made when he was withdrawing that ozone rule, which we argued would have greatly imperiled our economy--here's a quote from President Obama: I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. So when the President was talking about the Clean Air Act, he recognized ozone; he recognized the importance of taking a look at our economic uncertainty and the economic uncertainty of his last ozone rule. So I appreciate our colleague's amendment, but I certainly have to oppose it at this time. I urge the rest of my colleagues to oppose it as well. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time my side has remaining.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).

Mr. GARDNER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).