Some will say we have to make tradeoffs and sacrifice our air quality for lower gas prices, but with this project, we would be sacrificing our air quality for higher gas prices.

I refuse to believe that we can't address some of the specific problems Shell points to without creating much bigger problems elsewhere.

Let us get the FCC out of Washington and on the road more frequently.

If you just devoted more resources to it, would EPA be able to evaluate a permit application, set source-specific air pollution limits, allow for public comment, and provide for administrative review within a 6-month time frame?

If it is good enough for Congress, the courts, and Holy Mother Catholic Church, it ought to be good enough for the FCC.

Chairman Genachowski should be commended for his significant efforts and commitment to improving agency operations and boosting employee morale.

I hope we listen closely to their advice.

The bill sets an extremely tight deadline for issuing an OCS permit, just 6 months before the date a complete application is filed.

What happens when EPA doesn't have enough time to do its job properly?

It is not clear to me that Interior's approach provides any meaningful air quality protection.

I want to applaud Congressman Anna Eshoo and Congressman John Shimkus and Congressman Mike Doyle for the introduction of their FCC Collaboration Act.

He has sought input from all of the Commissioners and Republican and Democratic committee members, and he is committed to explore proposed process reforms in detail before we proceed toward possible legislation.

I hope as this subcommittee moves forward we will try to improve the current process, not turn back the clock.

If the goal here is really to let Shell and other oil companies get out of Clean Air Act requirements, that is something I would strongly oppose.

If an administrative process is good enough that Shell wants to keep it for its appeals, it is only fair that we keep it for everyone else.

We should be guided by a few basic questions about each proposed change to ensure that we are promoting smart regulation.

This proposed legislation is a modest, commonsense, and much-needed reform to modify the closed-meeting rule.

This act is a prudent, balanced proposal that recognizes the benefits of permitting the Commission to do its business collectively.

I am wholly opposed to this legislation, and urge its defeat. We have a lot of challenges in this country: high gasoline prices, high unemployment, an economy that is not growing strongly enough, crumbling infrastructure, a growing threat…

As we look at the ways to change the incentives in order to truly fix the payment system, we have to be sure we do no harm the quality of care in the process and hopefully rebuild incentives that actually improve the quality of care.

Republicans claimed then--just as they do now--that the solution was to produce more oil domestically.

Too often we have been forced to the edge of the brink only to scramble at the last minute to avoid drastic cuts that would jeopardize access for Medicare beneficiaries and the military families under TRICARE.

I think we should make sure that all of these analyses used the best available data and incorporate realistic assumptions.

I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, noes 191, not voting 6, as follows: [Roll No. 290] AYES--235 Adams…

It is essential that we find another way to get this done.