Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately in what has become a time-honored tradition, the President and my Democratic colleagues that are here in Congress find it more convenient and politically expedient to make targets of energy companies. These are companies who invest their own capital and resources to increase our country's energy supply and the security of our Nation. They want nothing more than to operate in a free market environment without excessive government regulations.

However, in a move to deflect the spotlight from this administration's own failings and the Democrat Party's own failings and their incompetent policies, this administration and many in Congress find it easier to attack the success of the energy companies than to actually confront the challenges that we face, often espousing policies to increase government interference in the marketplace that do more harm than good.

Recently, companies like Koch Industries, which employs more than 10,000 people in my home State of Georgia, contributing more than $700 million to our State's economy, along with tens of millions in community and environmental philanthropic efforts, have come under attack by several Democrats in this body and this administration just because Koch's work provides for an easy red meat target to throw to their radical environmental friends. It's also a sad state of affairs when other energy companies actually post a positive profit report, even though most of these profits go back into more energy exploration as well as clean energy development. I'm also sure that you won't hear many attacks on how those profits help boost the retirement accounts of millions of Americans and put more into our struggling economy than any government stimulus program has or could.

According to the new Washington Post/ABC News survey out today, more than seven in 10 Americans are suffering financial hardship from the skyrocketing gas prices. In fact, we've got a chart here tonight, the first one in a series. This is the gas price, the average retail price in America when Barack Obama took office. The average price at that time was $1.84 per gallon just as recently as January of 2009, a little over 2 years ago. Look what's happened. As of April 25 of this year, the average price per gallon was $3.88. The average price 2 years ago was $1.84; now it is $3.88, $2 higher, over twice. It's over double in just a 2-year period of time.

Gas prices don't just affect the price at the pump. I was talking to a Member just a few minutes ago. She was telling me that she just fueled her pickup truck, and it cost her over $100 to fill the gas tank of her pickup truck. She and her husband own a ranch. They are active ranchers out west. Never before has she had to pay $100 to fill the tank of her vehicle, and I filled the tank of mine, and it was almost $90 in my GMC Yukon that I've used to make house calls as a medical doctor. This is unsustainable.

Our gas prices impact our grocery bills, job opportunities, travel plans, and thousands of other decisions that businesses and families make. In fact, according to an analyst from Cameron Hanover, every penny increase in the price of gas costs consumers, American citizens, consumers, more than $4 million per day. A one-penny increase costs consumers over $4 million per day. And, folks, who are hurt the most by this? The people who are hurt the most are poor people and people who are on limited incomes, our senior citizens.

As the cost of fuel and gas and oil go up because of the misplaced policies of this administration, this winter, fuel prices are going to be out of the roof. In fact, the President said while we were talking about his cap-and-trade bill not long ago, he said that energy prices, to use the President's words, ``would necessarily skyrocket'' for his policies. ``Necessarily skyrocket.'' Under President Obama, the cost of energy has skyrocketed. That's what he has said in a national speech.

The national average price of gasoline, as I just mentioned, was $1.84 when President Obama took office. Today it is $3.96. Rising gasoline prices are hurting families and small businesses. They are costing jobs. In fact, I just talked to a manager of a restaurant in my hometown of Athens, Georgia, just this last weekend. He was telling me that when he orders food for his restaurant, his suppliers are adding a fuel surcharge, a fuel surcharge onto the cost of groceries, food for his restaurant. That's happening in all the grocery stores, and that's happening all across this country. It's threatening our economy and our economic recovery.

While the new House majority is taking steps to address gas prices and help create jobs with the American Energy Initiative, the Obama administration's anti-energy policies are driving up prices, and they are threatening our economy by blocking American energy production. We have had a 16 percent decrease in American energy production under this administration. It is 16 percent lower than it was projected to be. Future projections show continued decreases in domestic production and more and more reliance upon foreign imports for our energy sources, particularly for gas and oil. We're getting those energy resources from countries that hate us, that hate our American free enterprise system, that hate the liberty we have here in this country.

More than a 200,000-barrel-per-day decrease in Gulf Coast energy production, this is according to the Energy Information Administration's March 2011

short-term energy outlook. Production from the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 barrels per day in 2011 and a further 200,000 barrels per day in 2012. A reduction. And 27 billion barrels of oil are under lock and key in Alaska. According to a recent FOX News report, the EPA's refusal to grant permits for energy production in Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf has limited access to an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. With Alaskan oil production already decreasing by 7 percent annually, continued delays could force the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to shut down.

What's that going to do to our cost of gasoline, heating oil, natural gas and all of our other energy sources? What's that going to do to the cost of food? It's all going to skyrocket.

More than 40 American energy projects have been stalled by this administration. As the House Natural Resources Committee notes, 10 months after the Obama administration's official moratorium on American energy ended, over 40 projects remain stalled, and people are left without work. This administration's energy policy is killing jobs in the Gulf Coast, as well as all over this country. We're sending American jobs overseas. Twelve rigs have already left the Gulf.

Before we change, let me go to this quote here from Michael Bromwich, the Chief Regulator of U.S. offshore drilling. Even if we permitted the hell out of everything tomorrow, every pending permit, some permits that haven't even been filed yet, it would not have a material effect on gas prices, Bromwich said. That's the simple, clear reality.

The simple clear truth, the simple truth is Michael Bromwich is absolutely wrong. And, in fact, as soon as the first drill bit starts hitting dirt or ocean floor, you will see oil prices plummet in this country, in my opinion. Why? Because OPEC will get a message that we're going to produce our own energy resources here in America.

Mr. Speaker, I submit any country that is not energy independent, if it cannot produce its own energy resources, if it cannot produce its own food and its own clothing, is not a secure Nation. And the American people need to know that we are not a secure Nation today, and it's because of policies of this administration that are making us less secure. We need to go in the opposite direction of the direction we're going today, that this administration's taking us.

According to James W. Noe, Executive Director of the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition, at least 12 offshore rigs have already departed the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in a significant and precipitous reduction in domestic employment and energy production.

In January, the moratorium forced seven oil rigs to abandon the Gulf and head overseas, costing American jobs and forcing the U.S. to import more foreign oil. These rigs have left. You see where they've gone. Nigeria, Egypt, the Congo, Brazil, French Guyana. They won't be coming back. Thousands of American jobs left with them. In fact, as many as 12,000 American jobs have been lost, and more than 36,000 jobs are at risk.

I hear my Democrat colleagues talking about it's jobs, jobs, jobs. In fact, we heard that just today in the Science Committee. One of my Democratic colleagues talked about jobs are the number one issue. Well, she's absolutely right. But it's her party's policies that are running jobs overseas. It's this administration's policies that are making these rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico and go to Nigeria and Egypt and Congo and Brazil, French Guyana.

According to the study at Louisiana State University, monetary economist, Dr. Joseph Mason, the Obama administration's de facto ban, and it is a ban, he says he's lifted the moratorium but they're not putting out the permits. It's a de facto ban on American energy production, could cost as many as 24,532 jobs in the Gulf Coast and 36,137 jobs nationwide.

By the administration's own admission, the first 6 months of the official moratorium alone has resulted in as many as 12,000 American jobs have been lost. They're gone. They've left the Gulf Coast. They've gone to other areas. They've gone to produce energy, if you look at this chart, in the Middle East, in Africa, South America and Brazil.

In fact, the President just sent billions of dollars to Brazil for them to produce their energy and create Brazilian jobs at the cost of American energy and American jobs. It makes no sense, absolutely no sense.

Recently, in a trip to Brazil in March, President Obama pledged to help with technology and support to develop the Brazilian oil reserves so that America could become one of Brazil's, quoting Barack Obama himself, Brazil's best customers. He wants us to become Brazil's best customer.

How about those American jobs that he is killing and his administration is killing?

His Energy Secretary, Dr. Chu, a couple of years ago said, we have to find some way to make gasoline prices in America the same as they are in Europe. We'll talk about that in a bit, and remind the American people that the President himself said that energy prices under his policies that he's promoting would necessarily skyrocket. He wants Americans' energy prices to skyrocket, putting people out of jobs, costing all these thousands of jobs, costing our economy millions and millions and trillions of dollars in all probability eventually. Certainly billions.

He just gave a loan to Brazil, $2 billion to produce jobs and produce oil in Brazil instead of producing oil in the Gulf Coast and off Alaska. And his EPA just denied any production off Alaska. It makes no sense.

According to stories from the Gulf Coast residents shared at a recent Natural Resources Committee hearing, the President's policies already are helping make good on his pledge, with one offshore boat company employee reporting that his employer is sending 100 vessels overseas to Brazil to keep them working, Brazilians working. With those transfers go many American jobs.

This administration's policies are destroying jobs. The Democrat Party policies under the former Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, the Majority Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, are destroying jobs, destroying our economy. And they want more of the same. They want more stimulus, more government, less American jobs in the private sector, less American energy production.

Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know very clearly, they need to know the simple truth. They deserve the truth; that the policies created by this administration, the policies created under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are building a bigger government but destroying our energy. They're building a bigger government, even higher prices for housing in Washington, D.C. to destroy jobs in the private sector all across the country. And their energy policies are going to harm the most vulnerable Americans, poor people, people on limited incomes, our senior citizens.

Recently, President Obama and Washington Democrats trotted out two blame-shifting strategies that Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to use in the past to deflect blame for their failed anti-energy policies.

Just last month, Democrats recycled their so-called ``use it or lose it'' argument that has already been debunked as nothing more than a hoax. It is political fodder that they are utilizing. And I have heard it in our Natural Resources Committee. I have heard it on the floor of the House. American people are sick and tired of this kind of political dialogue.

Americans are demanding all over this country, not only in the 10th District in Georgia, my district, not only in the State of Georgia, but Americans all over the country deserve for this Nation to be energy independent. They are crying out for energy independence.

The Carter administration established the Energy Department to make us energy independent as a Nation. The Department of Energy has failed miserably, failed miserably in that task, and has failed miserably in that task under both Democrat as well as Republican administrations.

Now, President Obama is trying to shift blame to oil speculators just as he did back in 2008. And this is in spite of the fact that, as Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin notes: It is the administration's own policies that are contributing to yet another drain on the wallets of average Americans.

The Washington Post has not been a particularly conservative newspaper that has promoted conservative policies. That is what Jennifer Rubin said: The administration's own policies are contributing to yet another drain on the wallets of average Americans. And she is absolutely correct in that assessment, and I commend her for saying so.

Earlier this month, the House passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act, H.R. 910, to stop the Obama administration from imposing a backdoor national energy tax that will further drive up gas prices. President Obama says he is going to veto that legislation, proving that he won't let skyrocketing gas prices get in the way of his administration's job- crushing anti-energy agenda regardless of the cost to American families and small businesses.

I have got a small business in the timber industry in Lincoln County, Georgia, and the owner of that business recently told me he parked all of his trucks because he cannot afford to put fuel in those trucks, and that has cost several jobs in Lincoln County. Lincoln County has an unemployment rate that is way, way higher than the national average. In fact, the State of Georgia's unemployment rate I think just recently was reported to be over 10 percent.

This administration's anti-energy policies are crushing jobs, crushing small businesses, crushing family budgets, and it is anti- American. House Republicans are making strong efforts to create jobs and lower fuel prices in this country.

Recently, CNN did a poll. They found that seven in ten Americans support increased offshore drilling for oil and gas--seven in ten. I wonder about the other three in those ten. Forty-five percent strongly favor.

Here is the question. They asked how Americans feel about increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore U.S. borders, and here is how they responded: 45 percent said that they strongly favor us doing increased drilling for our own oil and gas in the gulf coast offshore, 24 percent mildly favor, 16 percent strongly oppose, and 15 percent mildly oppose.

Now, that 15 percent and 16 percent, I wonder if they have looked at their checkbook. I wonder if they have looked at the cost of bread and milk, cabbage and potatoes in their grocery store. Because the prices of those goods that we all depend upon when we go to the grocery store are markedly affected by the cost of gas and oil in this country.

Increasing American energy production will help create new jobs, and it addresses the rising gas prices. And Americans know it. The House is prepared to vote on legislation to boost offshore energy production.

As I said, seven in ten Americans support offshore drilling for our oil and natural gas. It belongs to us, it belongs to the American people, and we are being prohibited from tapping into that by this administration and the Democratic Party policy.

Implementing a comprehensive plan to build a more stable supply of petroleum from our own North American resources, along with reforms that end litigation, the endless litigation, and reveal policies that artificially inflate cost will provide immediate relief to the price of gasoline. The market knows that more energy means lower prices.

When President Bush removed the executive moratorium on offshore drilling in 2008, as a good example, crude oil futures by the speculators fell more than $9 almost immediately. It is not the speculators that are causing the rising cost of oil. It is not the speculators who are causing the rising cost to Americans when they go to fill their cars and pickup trucks. It is failed policies by the Obama administration, failed policies by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their cronies here in the House and in the Senate.

We can create good jobs. We can insulate the economy from energy price shocks by actively producing our own energy resources here in this country. And we can do that, we must do that, while we are good stewards of our environment, repealing Federal mandates and the prohibitions that artificially drive up the cost of gasoline and stopping the EPA's backdoor energy tax. They are trying to implement what I call tax-and-trade by EPA edict in a dictatorial manner when they could not pass that bill through Congress in the last Congress. And by halting the President's drilling permatorium, as some of us call it, it has been described, and unlocking our own energy resources that God has given us here in America both on- and offshore, all these will help alleviate the pain at the pump, the pain at the grocery store, the pain for every good and service, even the pain in the doctor's office and the pain of all the higher energy costs and the pain of all the increased costs of every good and service in this country.

Through the American Energy Initiative, House Republicans are actively working to increase American energy production in order to do a number of things: to lower the cost of gasoline, to create American jobs, to generate revenue to help reduce the debt and this deficit that's unsustainable, and to strengthen our national security by decreasing our dependence on foreign energy, particularly on foreign oil.

As I mentioned just a few minutes ago, I believe very firmly that, if a country is not energy independent, it is not a secure nation. We are not secure today. We must make America energy independent, and we do that by developing our own energy resources--all of our energy resources, not only oil and gas but coal. We need to develop clean coal technology. We need to look at alternative energy resources, such as wind and solar and waves, and all of those things. We need to have research and development on nuclear energy and on all of the things that are critical for us to be energy independent as a Nation.

Republican bills would create 250,000 jobs short term and 1.2 million jobs long term, according to Louisiana State University's Joseph Mason. We've got to create jobs, but the energy policies that this administration and our Democratic colleagues are promoting are killing jobs, not creating them. Republican policies want to create jobs.

Under the Republican bills that we have introduced, one of which is H.R. 1230, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, we would expand American energy production and create jobs by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico as well as offshore of Virginia that have been delayed and cancelled by the Obama administration.

H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, will end the Obama administration's de facto drilling moratorium in a safe, responsible and transparent manner, and it will put thousands of Americans back to work, increasing American energy production to help address the rise in gasoline prices that Americans are facing every single day. Every single day, we see gas prices jump.

H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act, will lift the President's ban on new offshore drilling by requiring the administration to move forward on American energy production in areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources.

Many organizations support the three bills I just mentioned: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Prosperity, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Limited Government, the National Federation of Independent Business, the 60 Plus Association, the American Trucking Association. I could go on and on and on. Gulf organizations are supporting the passage of the Outer Continental Shelf legislation, and I could list organization after organization.

I won't continue with those right now because I've been joined by a good friend who is stalwart on this issue and who, I think, has probably done as much or more than any other Republican Member of Congress to try to help make us energy independent as a Nation and to help us create jobs here in America.

My dear friend, John Shimkus, I yield to you.

Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. I appreciate it. And I appreciate your efforts over many Congresses since I have been here. I am in my third Congress, as you know. You have been a stalwart fighting this issue all along, and I appreciate the hard work you have done for the people in your district in Illinois and for this Nation. So thank you so much for what you have been doing.

I have also been joined tonight by another friend of mine who has been very active in this issue because he is from Louisiana. He has been on the floor many times talking about the moratorium and the permatorium that has been going on, as some have called it. This has cost people jobs in his home State of Louisiana.

I yield to my good friend Steve Scalise from New Orleans.

Mr. Speaker, the rules that were presented by Mr. Bishop from Utah from the Rules Committee are the two bills that Congressman Scalise was just talking about that will start forcing actually this administration to start letting out leases and helping us to develop our own energy resources here in America.

But I wanted to ask Mr. Scalise before he leaves, I am on three committees. I am on Natural Resources, I am on the House Homeland Security Committee, and I am also on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Just today in Science, Space, and Technology, I heard Democratic colleagues talk about the number one issue in America today. One lady said, it is jobs, jobs, jobs.

And I have heard it in my other two committees. I've heard that from Democrat after Democrat. I know the gentleman is on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the question I wanted to ask Mr. Scalise is, Have you heard in that committee, one of our eight committees--one of the most important committees dealing with energy production--have you heard that same mantra from our Democrats on Energy and Commerce? Has it been jobs that we need to be focusing upon?

Absolutely. In fact, I'm not a good lawyer--I'm not even a lawyer. I'm a medical doctor, as the gentleman knows. In law school they teach you not to ask a question if you don't know what the answer is. And I didn't know what your answer was going to be, but I felt sure you were going to answer the way you did, for the simple reason that we hear our colleagues on the other side, the Democrats, keep talking about wanting to create jobs. But their policies are destroying jobs--American jobs, private pay jobs. Their policies are developing bigger jobs, bigger government here in Washington, D.C., so much so that the only city in this country that real estate prices have not gone down is Washington, D.C. They've gone up.

Why? Because this administration, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their colleagues in the House and the Senate in the 111th Congress are creating bigger government, more regulations, more taxes, more attacks on jobs in the private sector, more attacks on small businesses, and it's creating a bigger government. Thus, higher real estate prices here in Washington because we've created government jobs. They claim about all the jobs created with the stimulus bill, et cetera, but it's government jobs is pretty much what we're creating.

We've got another problem. In fact, I introduced H.R. 1032, the RELIEF Act, because we have excessive and frivolous lawsuits against our own energy production and it has significantly delayed and in many cases prevented our

energy resources from reaching the American marketplace. H.R. 1032, the RELIEF Act, doesn't stop people from having their day in court. But what it would do is it would allow the environmental wackos that are trying to stop energy production here in this country from having this endless plethora of lawsuits that stop the permitting and stop the production.

What it would do is it would require that all lawsuits be filed within 60 days and that the courts would have to have a determination or solution to that case within 180 days, and that if the district court ruling was appealed, that it would go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court would have a ruling within another 180 days. It would also allow some relief from the frivolous lawsuits by allowing the prevailing party to be able to seek legal fees and other expenses under the Act. This is the kind of bill that we need to pass. I've been asking Members of Congress to cosponsor this because we need to pass this kind of legislation.

We hear from our colleagues, Let's stop the subsidies to the big oil companies with all their billions of dollars of profits. I would like to stop subsidies to everything, including ethanol, which has not made sense. I'm a good southern boy. I love my grits and cornbread. And it makes no sense to me to drive down the road burning up my grits and cornbread in my Yukon. It's destroying engines, it's destroying food prices, it's destroying jobs here in this country. We need to stop all of this. We need to start developing our own energy resources.

Mr. Speaker, what can the American people do? What American people can do is contact their Members of the Senate and the House and demand that we start producing American energy. America is not secure as a Nation because we're not energy secure. We've got to start developing our own energy resources here in America. All of them. We need to have an all-of-the-above energy policy. It's up to the American people to demand that from their Members of the House as well as the Senate.

Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen one time said when he feels the heat, he sees the light. The American people absolutely must contact their Senators and Congressmen to say: We need American energy. We've got to start developing our own energy resources--all of the American energy resources--coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear energy. Every single energy resource. It's absolutely critical. It's critical for us to lower the cost of American energy, lower the cost of groceries in the grocery store and in restaurants, lower the cost of all goods and services by lowering the cost of energy production, make us secure as a Nation. It's up to the American people to demand it from your Member of Congress, from both your U.S. Senators as well as U.S. House Member. If we get enough heat upon Members of Congress, particularly heat upon our Democratic colleagues in the House as well as our Democratic colleagues in the Senate, as well as the Obama administration, we can be a secure Nation, we can be energy independent. We must. And it's up to the American people to demand it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the national average price of gasoline has gone up 10 cents in just the last week, and is now about 1\1/2\ cents nationally from $4 a gallon. By comparison, the price was $1.84 a gallon when President Obama was sworn into office.

In my home district in Central Washington last week, I heard from farmers, the foundation of our region's economy, who are finding it harder and harder to pay these high energy prices. And I have no doubt that my colleagues from other parts of the country have heard similar stories from their constituents.

The pain being felt today has been exacerbated by the actions of this administration, this administration which, for the past 2 years, has repeatedly blocked, hindered, and raised the cost to access to our American energy resources.

The House Natural Resources Committee recently passed three bills, H.R. 1229, 1230, and 1231, with bipartisan support, all of which reverse specific actions taken by the Obama administration to block offshore energy production. These bills will increase American energy production. They will create jobs, and they will lower energy prices. These are the first of an array of bills that will be introduced by our committee as part of the American energy initiative that will focus on expanding renewable energy, onshore production, hydropower, coal, critical minerals, and address offshore drilling revenue sharing and other needed reforms.

Today we are debating H.R. 1230, the Restarting America Offshore Leasing Now Act. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that have been delayed or canceled by this administration.

The Virginia lease sale, for example, was scheduled to happen this year; but due to the Obama administration actions, the earliest this lease sale could occur is now 2017.

This bill will create thousands of jobs and, according to CBO, it will generate $40 million in new revenue to the Federal Government over the next 10 years.

I will note that very soon after this bill passed out of committee, with bipartisan support, the Obama administration announced that it would move forward on one gulf lease sale. Prior to this sudden action, the Obama administration was on course to make 2011 the first year since 1958 that the Federal Government would not have held an offshore lease sale.

Squeezing one conveniently timed offshore lease sale does not undo the Obama administration's long track record of blocking and delaying American energy production. This bill that we are considering today is necessary to hold their feet to the fire and to ensure that these lease sales move forward.

Americans instinctively understand the pain inflicted by rising gasoline prices, but yet we continue to hear the same excuses on why we shouldn't act. And let me give you several examples.

My colleagues across the aisle will say that expanding drilling will do nothing to lower gasoline prices. The truth is, and this is the important part, it will send a strong signal to the world markets that the U.S. is serious about

producing our own resources and bringing more production, American production, online. Furthermore, this argument has been used by opponents to American energy production for decades. We can no longer delay and prevent access to our own American resources.

My colleagues will also propose increasing taxes on American energy production. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. They will also propose increasing taxes on American energy production. I have to ask: When has raising taxes lowered the price of anything? And of course the answer to that is never. And it won't happen with energy. Whether it is taxing American energy producers or imposing a cap-and-trade national energy tax, the Democrats' plan will only further increase the price at the pump and ultimately cost jobs.

We are also likely to hear my colleagues reiterate the old ``use it or lose it'' myth, claiming that there are thousands of acres of nonproducing leases. Mr. Chairman, in reality, ``use it or lose it'' is already the law of the land. The moment a company pays for and receives a lease, the clock starts ticking. Leases have a time line. If action doesn't occur on that lease, the lease is lost, according to the lease.

In addition, and this is important, too, only about one-third of the leases contain oil or natural gas. Sometimes we think we are very powerful, but one thing we can't do is mandate production where there is no oil or natural gas.

And, finally, my colleagues will undoubtedly attempt to claim that these bills ignore the need to ensure safety in offshore drilling. Nobody has forgotten the tragic Deepwater Horizon accident. And I hear that especially from Members of the gulf, and, Mr. Chairman, I heard that when I was down at the gulf at a hearing only 2 weeks ago. However, we must not forget the fact of the economic threat that high gasoline prices have to our economy and our need to move forward.

The administration has slowly started to issue deepwater permits in the Gulf of Mexico, which is in direct recognition, by the way, that it can be done safely and responsibly or they wouldn't have done it. Yet my colleagues act as if nothing has changed at all as far as safety reforms. But by doing so, they are completely ignoring reality and the actions of their own party's administration.

They are ignoring the facts that regulations have been enhanced and strengthened; that standards have increased; and that new technologies have been developed, tested, and deployed. And, I might add, Mr. Chairman, we heard this at the hearing that I alluded to a moment ago in Houma, Louisiana, 2 weeks ago.

Furthermore, H.R. 1229, which we will debate next week, improves safety by making two reforms to current law. Number one, it requires that the Secretary issue a permit to drill; and, two, requires that the Secretary conduct safety reviews. Neither of those provisions are in current law today.

In 2008, the last time gasoline prices reached $4 a gallon, Congress stepped up to the challenge and took bold action to end a decades-long ban on new offshore drilling. Although this administration has effectively reimposed that ban, the American people are once again calling on Congress to act. By passing H.R. 1230 today, Congress can show the American people that we have heard their concerns and that we are taking actions.

So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill that will create American jobs, lower gasoline prices, and strengthen energy independence.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The answer is that it will absolutely be a focus and a priority. When I first introduced the bill before us today, I stated that these are only the first steps in this Congress' efforts to increase American energy production.

The committee will continue to move forward on an array of bills that will be introduced in advance as part of the American Energy Initiative. Coming soon will be bills focused on expanding renewable energy, offshore production, onshore production, hydropower, coal, critical minerals and revenue sharing.

Today, only a few select States receive revenue sharing from OCS activities. This committee will be working to reform OCS revenues to ensure that there is a fair treatment to all States that produce oil and gas in the OCS. Revenue sharing will be a priority, and action will be forthcoming.

At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I would just note that the two Democrat Senators from Virginia and the Governor of this State are in favor of this legislation.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes I am absolutely baffled by the rhetoric that I hear here. Let me remind my colleagues that 2\1/2\ years ago, in 2008, when gasoline prices went to $4 a gallon, we Republicans came into the House, even though we weren't in session, and talked about the potential resources that we have in this country to make America self- sufficient. And the American people got it. They got it and they said, you know, we ought to utilize those resources. And they said we should drill; we should drill in the Outer Continental Shelf and we should drill onshore.

The American people get it. Yet the rhetoric we're hearing here is entirely different from the economic issues that we face. Here is the whole point:

When America ended the moratoria on offshore drilling, the prices went down. See, that has never been explained by the other side, but it's pretty darned obvious. When you send a signal to the markets that you're serious about becoming less dependent on foreign energy, the markets respond. They responded 2\1/2\ years ago, and they will respond the same way. Yet all we hear from this side is you have to have a bogeyman. There has to be a bogeyman. Everybody is against us.

Baloney. The market is what drives the price of oil, and it's in our best interest in this country to become less dependent on foreign energy, and that's what these three bills do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), a valuable member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another valuable member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

I advise my friend I am the concluding speaker, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate, and there's been a lot of rhetoric thrown around, some of which doesn't even apply whatsoever in any remoteness to the bill that's before us today. H.R. 1230, which we are debating today, simply tells this administration to go through with the lease sales that were already authorized by a previous administration. In other words, all of these lease sales had gone through whatever process they had gone through. Three of them were in the Gulf of Mexico. One of them was off the coast of Virginia.

We are simply saying with this legislation, let's send a signal to the international markets that America is serious about becoming less dependent on foreign oil. And we do that by saying, this administration should go through with these lease sales, which, I might add, Mr. Chairman, we have heard about loss of revenue from the other side of the aisle. These lease sales themselves would provide the general fund with $40 million over the next 10 years. So what we're doing is really kind of ironic: We are telling this administration to do something it should be doing by law anyway. That's what the scope is. So I urge my colleagues to vote on this bill. We can have other discussion on the other bills in the ensuing days.

As far as the discussion talking about Big Oil, I could probably count the number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle that didn't say something about Big Oil rather than those that did. But what is interesting, you would be led to believe that the only Big Oil in the world apparently are American companies. I would suggest that that is entirely not true. In fact, when you talk about Big Oil, Mr. Chairman, really who you should be focusing on is OPEC, because crude oil is an international product, or is a global product. There's no question about that.

Yet OPEC controls 45 percent of the market. It is a cartel, Mr. Chairman; there is no question about that. We all know simple economics. If there is a cartel on any commodity, on any commodity, the way that you break the cartel is by increasing the supply. And that's what the combination of these three bills do. It simply sends a signal to the markets--and I have said this over and over--that we are serious about utilizing the resources we have. Several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, The United States doesn't have any resources. Well, nothing could be further from the truth because if you look at government data on what the potential resources are in the Outer Continental Shelf--and I'm going to say onshore because it's all American potential resources--the potential resources of oil equivalent per barrel, when you combine OCS and onshore, the potential resources are in excess of 2 trillion barrels of oil. That far exceeds what one of my colleagues earlier, Mr. Fleming from Louisiana, said. It far exceeds what they have in Saudi Arabia. In fact, in other OPEC nations.

This is rhetoric about trying to blame somebody when the issue is really something as basic as having a supply out there that consumers can utilize. What we are saying here is threefold. One of them relates directly to American jobs. Energy sector jobs are good-paying jobs. So let's encourage the energy sector in this country to expand so we can have those good-paying jobs. That's good to get the funk out of our economy. Secondly, we become less dependent on foreign sources because energy is an important part of our growing economy. And if we have a stable source of that in the future, our economy can grow with the surety we will have a stable source of energy.

But probably more important in the long term, Mr. Chairman, the reason why we should pass these bills to send the signal to the market is a national security issue. I mentioned OPEC. There are some countries in OPEC that are outwardly hostile to the United States. One of them is in South America, Venezuela. Why are we relying on them for the supply of our energy when we have these resources that I just pointed out to you in excess of 2 trillion equivalent barrels of oil?

So, Mr. Chairman, this is the first step. This is the first step of starting the process of becoming less dependent on foreign energy, and it is the first step to get our economy recovering by creating good American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1230.

Mr. Chair, I also want to mention that two members of the House, Congressman Gerlach and Congressman Culberson had wanted to cosponsor this bill but because we had to file the reports on the bills on Monday, they were unable to. I appreciate their support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. The EIS work conducted thus far for the lease sales, and keep in mind, these lease sales were already okayed, is complete, thorough and sufficient to safely and responsibly conduct these lease sales.

It is important to note that this is only one of many environmental analyses that these leases will undergo before any drilling can start. At each of multiple stages, additional detailed environmental and safety reviews will be conducted.

The language in this bill, underlying bill, allows the administration to move forward with these lease sales in a timely manner, but does not allow drilling until at least several more layers of thorough environmental assessments and reviews are conducted on each lease sale sold at these sales. I think that's what the gentleman was getting to. The underlying bill allows that to happen.

These additional environmental studies will allow for the latest and best available information following the oil spill to be included in the studies and applied to any drilling that will take place.

In totality, the library of environmental reviews will end up totaling tens of thousands of pages, Mr. Chairman, and hundreds of hours by environmental scientists, engineers, biologists, and other professionals.

But this amendment isn't about environmental protection. This amendment is about removing the timelines in this bill to conduct these four lease sales. Keep in mind, these lease sales were already agreed to by a prior administration. The real effect of this amendment is to allow President Obama to block increased energy production by continuing to push these lease sales off past 2012 or 2017, in some cases. The real impact of this amendment is that we are right back where we started when the President canceled these lease sales, sending jobs and energy production overseas.

This administration's actions to delay these lease sales and their long record of anti-energy roadblocks is why 2011, this year, may be the first year since 1958 that no lease sales will occur in the OCS. It is for this reason that OCS revenues in 2011 will fall by more than $9 billion compared to 2008.

By validating the existing EIS work, the bill ensures that these lease sales will move forward this year, generating revenue for taxpayers and ensuring that our leasing program continues in a timely manner, while also allowing for additional safety measures to be taken.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to recommit.

Quite frankly, this amendment is redundant, unnecessary, and another attempt to divert attention from the real issue of increasing energy production in order to create jobs, lower energy costs, and improve national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

First, Mr. Speaker, exports are already subject to the Export Administration Act. Before any oil or gas can be exported, the President must find that the exports will not diminish the total quantity or quality of petroleum available to the U.S. and the national interests and are in accord with the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1969. If the President finds that exports are in violation of the Export Administration Act, an executive order can halt all these exports if Congress finds that the exports are in conflict with the national interests, and they can act accordingly.

Now, having said it is covered under law, let's really get to the bottom line. This is another distraction from the same people that brought us cap-and-trade. Now, that should probably say everything right there because I find it absolutely ironic my good friend from New Mexico making this argument that if we went out and talked to our constituents if they would like to buy American-made energy, he suggested they would say overwhelmingly yes. Well, of course, they would. They would also say why aren't we drilling for sources here in the United States, offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and onshore; and that's what these three bills do.

So I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit and pass the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today the House considers the BP respill bills. That might not be what they are officially called, but it's a much more accurate title for this legislation. It's clear that the authors of these BP respill bills did not learn any lessons from the Deepwater Horizon disasters. These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for offshore workers, 11 of whom died on the Deepwater Horizon. These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for the environment, which was coated with 4.1 million barrels of oil along the Gulf Coast and is killing fish and wildlife in the area to this day as a result of BP's recklessness.

These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for our national security because they reinforce the complete myth that America can somehow drill our way out of dependence on oil. And these bills are more dangerous for the economy, risking destroying fishing and tourism jobs in affected areas.

But one thing these bills do not do is make filling up at the pump any more affordable at all for American families. According to the American Petroleum Institute itself, the main advocacy group for oil interests, even if we opened all Federal land to oil drilling, including offshore areas, including Alaska's wildlife refuge and all Federal land that is in the national parks, they can't even say that it would reduce gas prices or oil prices. In fact, the cheap oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for AAA, the motorist organization, said: ``This drill, drill, drill thing is tired. It's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't exist.''

So if this legislation isn't about reducing the price at the pump, what is it about? It's about exploiting our legitimate concerns about high gas prices to deliver another huge giveaway to Big Oil, an industry that made over $35 billion in profits in the last quarter alone. Meanwhile, the majority refuses to end Big Oil's nearly $50 billion of special interest tax breaks.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern brought forth a bill that would have ended the giveaway of tax revenue to Big Oil. Unfortunately, the Republican majority chose not to allow that amendment in this rule.

Had that been allowed under the open rule that Mr. McGovern proposed, I would have brought forth an amendment on the floor to use those $50 billion of revenue to reduce the corporate tax rate to help create jobs in America. Instead, the Republican majority is continuing to seek to keep American taxes high, to keep corporate taxes high, and this is another example of a job-destroying bill that keeps taxes high while picking winners and losers in the economy and using government subsidies to aid an industry that is one of our most profitable industries.

We should allow American businesses of all sizes to compete. The America corporate tax rate of 35 percent is higher than most of the rest of the world, which is why many companies continue to engage in operations overseas. If we can reduce it from 35 percent to 30 or 28 or 26 percent--and we could have done had Mr. McGovern's amendment passed in the Rules Committee yesterday, and that is one of the reasons I oppose this rule today--that would create an enormous engine of economic growth.

While frequently the Republicans give lip service to lower taxes, they continue to use special interest tax breaks to keep taxes high on small- and middle-sized American companies that don't have the same lobbyists here in Washington to lobby us for special interest tax breaks.

We know that Big Oil would rather do without the fuss of showing that they can drill safely; but that's what this bill, in fact, delivers. This legislation states that the Interior Secretary must act on any drilling permit within 60 days, or it's automatically approved. What should be a very serious process to ensure safe drilling, to ensure that there aren't further disasters, and to ensure that jobs are not destroyed turns into little more than a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp for the further degradation of our economy and of our environment.

The second bill this rule makes in order claims to restart the process, or issuing, of oil and gas leases. Now, what the majority is doing in this is essentially validating what the administration has already done. The administration has already restarted offshore drilling in February. In fact, the administration has announced plans to offer all three Gulf of Mexico lease sales that are mandated in this bill this year or early next year. Again, this particular policy is one that I don't agree with fully with the administration, but I am glad to see that the Republican majority is validating President Obama's leadership on this energy issue.

Together, these bills will not relieve pain at the pump, but they will increase the chances of another Deepwater Horizon disaster, costing lives, livelihoods, and hurting some of our precious natural resources. Why? Because that's what Big Oil wants. If Big Oil wants to keep taxes high for American companies, if Big Oil wants to destroy jobs, then the Republican majority is giving them that. In fact, even the problem the majority purports to be addressing with these bills, the speed of permitting in the gulf and restarting offshore oil drilling, doesn't even exist.

Here are the facts: Following the temporary pause on deepwater drilling last year, what Secretary Salazar listed in October, the oil industry wasn't able to demonstrate that it possessed the capacity to contain a deepwater blowout until February 2011. Once oil companies demonstrated that they had the capability to contain a blowout, the first permit was issued 11 days later, February 28, 2011. There have now been a total of 10 deepwater drilling permits issued since that time. In addition, there have been 39 shallow water permits approved since last October, matching the number from before the spill. Let me repeat that: matching the number of permits from before the spill. If anything, the majority, by acting through this bill, is effectively congratulating the administration on its leadership for speedily approving permits.

In addition, in the gulf region, the number of jobs that depend on tourism and fishing is five times the number of jobs related to the oil and gas industry. Gulf jobs related to oil and gas and other resource extraction total about 154,000. The total number of jobs for tourism and fishing are 777,000 jobs. So with this bill, the majority is putting at risk those 777,000 jobs for the benefit of 154,000. We should not put them at risk just to make the permitting process easier for Big Oil to exploit.

Passage of these bills is not good for the gulf coast's economy or its ecology, although it is best for Big Oil.

Again, while I appreciate the Republican majority's efforts to validate the leadership of President Obama on energy issues, this rule could be a lot better. Rather than keeping corporate taxes high, we could help make America more competitive by reducing corporate taxes and helping make American businesses more competitive, including the critical tourism and fishing industries in the gulf coast.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the subsidy issue, the simple fact of the matter is that the Republicans are not for free markets. But what they are for is Big Oil co-opting free markets. In fact, 70 percent of all energy-related subsidies go to fossil fuels like oil and coal. Less than 5 percent of subsidies go to renewable energies like wind and solar.

The gentleman from Utah pointed out that many of these subsidies help small drillers, and, in fact, that can be true. But it is easy to apply changes only to the Big Oil companies and not even affect independent producers.

There's simply no excuse not to end this corporate welfare which keeps taxes for all Americans who pay their taxes artificially high. In fact, at the same time that BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the Deepwater Horizon rig, it turned out that the company was using the tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon. That tax subsidy cost American taxpayers $225,000 a day since the lease for Deepwater Horizon began. And that's just one example of many.

I also want to address some misperceptions regarding President Obama's policies regarding oil resources. The Obama administration is allowing, on average, more drilling than the Bush administration did. In fact, the Obama administration approved more leases in 2010 than the Bush administration did in any year except one of his presidency.

Again, in moving forward and reissuing permits, which the administration has already begun to do, this bill helps validate President Obama's leadership on this issue.

The real issues at hand are the subsidies that the industry continues to receive. As long as we continue a policy of using taxpayer dollars to artificially pick winners and losers in the economy, the winner here being Big Oil, the loser being American taxpayers, we will continue to hurt energy security, destroy jobs, and continue to put our environment at risk.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, we will bring up H.R. 1689, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2011.

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

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, in its analysis of the administration's budget, stated that the repeal of oil and gas preferences are ``likely to have no effect on the world price of fossil fuels, and any increase in prices for domestically consumed fossil fuels are likely to be attenuated.''

Again, when we talk about ending the giveaway to Big Oil and Gas, it will have no effect with regard to actual energy prices.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

With regard to the last comment, it is the oil cartels that drive prices, not the normal functions of the market and supply and demand.

With regard to the oil subsidies, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here today to see where the Republicans and the Democrats in the House stand on deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, we can and we will reduce the deficit by over $12.8 billion. We have the chance to have the discussion around the continuing resolution, around the budget, around deficit reduction. And here we have an opportunity, without impacting the price of oil, without impacting what consumers pay at the pump, to reduce the deficit by $12.8 billion by defeating the previous question. I think that's what the American people want to see.

The American people spoke out in the last election. Let's reduce the deficit. Let's work across the aisle to see what we can do to cut unnecessary government expenditures, to make those decisions to help make sure that we can leave something other than a legacy of debt to the next generation.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this is an easy one. Let's defeat the previous question and reduce the deficit by $12.8 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a document from the Treasury Department which states that the manufacturing deduction for oil and gas effectively provides a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of income. In fact, it distorts the market by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral system.

Again, by returning to the free market, we are able to reduce the deficit by over $12.8 billion instead of having Big Government trying to pick winners and losers in the economy with regard to tax policy.

General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 Revenue

Proposals--Department of the Treasury, February 2011

Repeal Domestic Manufacturing Deduction for Oil and Natural Gas

Companies

Current Law

A deduction is allowed with respect to income attributable

to domestic production activities (the manufacturing

deduction). For taxable years beginning after 2009, the

manufacturing deduction is generally equal to 9 percent of

the lesser of qualified production activities income for the

taxable year or taxable income for the taxable year, limited

to 50 percent of the W-2 wages of the taxpayer for the

taxable year. The deduction for income from oil and gas

production activities is computed at a 6 percent rate.

Qualified production activities income is generally

calculated as a taxpayer's domestic production gross receipts

(i.e., the gross receipts derived from any lease, rental,

license, sale, exchange, or other disposition of qualifying

production property manufactured, produced, grown, or

extracted by the taxpayer in whole or significant part within

the United States; any qualified film produced by the

taxpayer; or electricity, natural gas, or potable water

produced by the taxpayer in the United States) minus the cost

of goods sold and other expenses, losses, or deductions

attributable to such receipts.

The manufacturing deduction generally is available to all

taxpayers that generate qualified production activities

income, which under current law includes income from the

sale, exchange or disposition of oil, natural gas or primary

products thereof produced in the United States.

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to

phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so that the United

States can transition to a 21st-century energy economy. The

manufacturing deduction for oil and gas effectively provides

a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of

income. The lower rate of tax, like other oil and gas

preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts

markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas

industry than would occur under a neutral system. This market

distortion is detrimental to long-term energy security and is

also inconsistent with the Administration's policy of

supporting a clean energy economy, reducing our reliance on

oil, and cutting carbon pollution. Moreover, the tax subsidy

for oil and gas must ultimately be financed with taxes that

result in underinvestment in other, potentially more

productive, areas of the economy.

Proposal

The proposal would retain the overall manufacturing

deduction, but exclude from the definition of domestic

production gross receipts all gross receipts derived from the

sale, exchange or other disposition of oil, natural gas or a

primary product thereof for taxable years beginning after

December 31, 2011. There is a parallel proposal to repeal the

domestic manufacturing deduction for coal and other hard

mineral fossil fuels.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a July 3, 2010, New York Times article regarding oil subsidies.

Again, this talks of the oil subsidies that continue to benefit this industry to the detriment of the American taxpayer and to the detriment of future generations of Americans who will continue to suffer under an increasing mountain of debt unless we defeat the previous question here today.

[From NY Times, July 3, 2010]

On Subsidies

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that

oil production is among the most heavily subsidized

businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every

stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional

Budget Office, capital investments like oil field leases and

drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9

percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25

percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually

any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on

capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated

by various credits. These companies' returns on those

investments are often higher after taxes than before.

Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce

opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has

spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the

nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors

political spending.

Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when

they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of

rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently

produced only dry holes. Because of one lingering provision

from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil

companies based in the United States can claim deductions for

the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the

companies actually paid for the oil rights.

Other tax breaks were born of international politics. In an

attempt to deter Soviet influence in the Middle East in the

1950s, the State Department backed a Saudi Arabian accounting

maneuver that reclassified the royalties charged by foreign

governments to American oil drillers. Saudi Arabia and others

began to treat some of the royalties as taxes, which entitled

the companies to subtract those payments from their American

tax bills. Despite repeated attempts to forbid this

accounting practice, companies continue to deduct the

payments. The Treasury Department estimates that it will cost

$8.2 billion over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year after the national tragedy of Deepwater Horizon, the majority party has decided not to address a single problem that led to this economic and environmental tragedy. Instead, the majority is pushing through these bills, simply rubber-stamping offshore drilling and maintaining taxpayer subsidies and giveaways to Big Oil, which increase the deficit.

During a Special Order speech just the other night, a Member on the other side of the aisle said all you need is an eighth grade understanding of supply and demand to understand why gas prices are high and how we can lower them by drilling more. Fortunately, for those of us who have more than an eighth grade education, like economists and other experts, we know that America cannot drill its way out of high gas prices. Even the American Petroleum Institute, the mouthpiece for Big Oil, is saying that we cannot drill our way out. ``Drill, Baby, Drill'' may look good as a bumper sticker, but it's not a serious energy policy.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and to defeat the previous question so we can reduce the deficit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 245 provides for the consideration of two very important bills, H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, and H.R. 1230, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, both under a structured rule. With many amendments, all of which are Democrat amendments having been made in order, this is a very fair rule.

I commend the sponsor of the two bills, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, for his leadership in bringing both of these bills to the House.

H.R. 1229 is a bill that goes to the heart of the bureaucratic delays, which are preventing the approval of drilling permits within the Gulf of Mexico; and it modifies the standards and procedures governing Federal leases and permits in order to streamline the process, making the development of these domestic resources a reality instead of the status quo of paying lip service to drilling and then stifling drilling through bureaucratic inaction.

H.R. 1230 is a bill that would direct the sale of oil and gas leases within the Outer Continental Shelf, reversing a failed administration policy of canceling and delaying those processes.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years, many Republicans have come to this floor and have sung the same refrain of ``show us the jobs.'' It was, indeed, a nice song and a catchy tune--so catchy that the minority of today seems to have been picking up on that kind of song as well. I don't expect to hear that today, or at least we ought not to hear it today, because the two bills before us under this rule are real bills that create real jobs for people.

Unlike the bills we have seen over the past couple of years which have led us to a situation where today there are twice as many workers in the government as there are in all of manufacturing in this Nation, which is an exact reverse of the situation this Nation was in in 1960, these are not going to be government jobs which attack the taxpayers and suck the money out of their wallets to fund them. These are going to be real jobs that grow the private sector, that expand the economy, that provide wealth, and that will provide, actually, millions of new government revenues coming into this country.

The situation we find ourselves in today with regard to energy is one that is detrimental to everybody. Everyone who goes to the pump to fill their cars recognizes the cost is increasing and will continue to increase. They recognize that the situation we are in puts all our jobs in jeopardy, and it is because of the inaction of this particular administration. The President has continually said that he wants to do action, to move forward, to develop American energy, but the actions of his administration have, quite frankly, failed to meet the rhetoric of the administration.

The problem has always been a fundamental flaw in our Nation's energy plan. Last May, the Deepwater Horizon accident occurred, which was a tragedy; and we must thank all of those who helped to solve that particular problem; but, unfortunately, the administration's response to that tragedy has turned it into a catastrophe and one which destroys jobs.

Immediately, a moratorium on all sorts of development was put into place. Prior to that moratorium being put into place, there were 52 approved and pending permits, and that moratorium was lifted in October; but of those 52, only 10 permits have been issued since that time. Two of them are new in deepwater and are eight of the 52 that were originally done. That means there are over 40 still approved and still stalled in what has become a de facto moratorium, caused by a foot-dragging of this administration that, what one columnist said, is moving at a glacial pace. More rigs have left our shore--12--to go to other places in the world where they are welcomed and where they are developing energy sources, where they don't have to face the red tape and the foot-dragging than have actually been approved by this administration.

A perfect example is Seahawk Drilling, a company that had over 500 jobs and 20 rigs that went into chapter 11 bankruptcy. The president of that company stated only one reason for that bankruptcy and that loss of jobs, which was the de facto moratorium of inaction done by this administration in this area in 2008 in a response to an arbitrary drilling ban that was lifted by both the President and Congress. It created a 5-year plan. Virginia was supposed to start the exploration process in 2011, but the Secretary of the Interior delayed that until 2012 and then later delayed all exploration on the Atlantic coast until after 2017.

In the Gulf of Mexico, two other sales were canceled and moved out from this year, which was when they were supposed to begin, once again into next year. It became so bad that a judge in New Orleans gave the administration 30 days to start moving on these projects, saying that what was happening by this administration was increasingly inexcusable and that not acting at all is not a lawful action.

The result of this has simply been catastrophic for jobs in America. The Obama administration has admitted in its official memorandum that, for those days of its official moratorium, 12,000 jobs were lost; but what is more significant is the de facto moratorium there. An LSU study simply said, if this were sustained for 18 months in the gulf area, there would be 24,532 jobs lost and in the Nation 36,137 jobs lost simply because of what we are not doing in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is very simple to understand how this works. Each platform that is out there drilling has 90 to 150 employees. If you add the production team as well as the exploration team, you can multiply that by a factor of four. So you have almost per every drilling up to 1,400 jobs that are tied to that particular project with $1,800 a week as the average wage.

That means for every one of those drills that is not put back into production, it is $5 million to $10 million per month per platform that is lost to this economy; and the ripple effect within the economy for our energy uses as well as jobs is, once again, staggering as this administration is, indeed, going at a glacial pace. In Virginia alone, 2,000 jobs will be estimated to be lost if the de facto moratorium that pushes everything to 2017 is allowed to take place.

Now, this action, or inaction, by the administration costs every American. It costs us at the gas pump as we see the cost of running our cars increasing almost daily, and this hurts the poor worse than anyone else. It is estimated that every American will pay $700 more this year for gasoline than least year. Obviously, those at the lower end of the economic scale are the ones who are hurt the most. For every cent that is increased in gas at the pump, that is $1 billion that is taken out of household incomes in this country; and it makes sure that Americans are then put at the mercy of foreign oil development and foreign energy sources, which may not necessarily like us, and sometimes they're just flat out bad guys.

It also has other areas in which it has affected everyone--once again, those at the lower end of the income scale the most. For every dime that diesel goes up, that is $400 million that is added to the agricultural industry, which is what we eat, which is tacked onto our food prices. You have to have oil for fertilizer. As that goes up, the cost of fertilizer goes up; the cost of running machinery goes up; the cost of food goes up; the cost of pharmaceuticals, plastics. If you go into the emergency room, everything that is not metal has some element of oil that developed it, and all of those are increasing.

Now, there are only two ways that we can handle this situation. First, you can go with the old concept of supply and demand and simply increase production, which is what these two bills are trying to do; or you can go to the approach that this administration seems to be asking us to do, which is to cut our standard of living, accept gasoline prices at the European level, and beg Saudi Arabia to be nice to us--to put our futures in the hands of OPEC and then amazingly say we can also solve these problems simply by taxing oil companies at a higher rate.

Since 2010, the domestic production of energy in this country has decreased 16 percent. In this year, next year and the year after that, we estimate, unless we make changes, that a quarter of a million barrels of oil will be decreased in our production rate in each of those years. The only area in which any energy production has been increasing is on private property. Unfortunately for this country, almost all of the energy that we have, most of the energy that we can develop, is on public lands, which is controlled by the government, which is doing nothing now to help develop that.

This is a time where pragmatism is much better than a failed ideology of restrictions. Now, what these two bills do is to simply reverse the job-killing delays that have been taking place. In H.R. 1229, it reforms the law to require leaseholders to receive permits to drill before they start drilling; and it will do it for the first time by law, not simply by a regulation. It demands that the Secretary of the Interior conduct and approve safety revenues, once again, for the first time in history.

More importantly, it ends the de facto moratorium by demanding prompt guidelines and action. It says that the Secretary of the Interior will have 30 days in which to deal with these issues and then can have up to two 15-day extensions--a total of 60 days to do the review.

Now, while that may seem to some as a quick path, it's not when you look at the history of what has been done. Before the moratorium went into effect, it was taking 5 to 15 days to do the drilling leases and permits.

One company was done in nine days just recently. What the problem is is that most of these are simply not being done simply because of inaction. It also says for those that were approved prior to the May 27 moratorium, you've got 30 days to get them going again. This is plenty of time to do the work.

It also does something else for the first time. It provides an expedited hearing process so that legal rights are not lost--they are protected--but you will not go back into a concept of a never-ending lawsuit moratorium.

In 1230, the bill recognizes that this year will be the first time since 1958 that we have a possibility of no offshore lease sales. And it wants to reverse that action to proceed promptly with the 5-year plan so that things, for example, in Virginia will be in effect within 1 year, and those that were scheduled in the gulf can be done within 1 year of the passage of this bill.

This bill simply will create billions in Federal Reserve revenues coming in, and it will create billions in our economy, and it will create jobs.

I hate to say this, but under President Obama, the cost of energy has skyrocketed. The administration has actively blocked and delayed energy production. It's cost jobs. It's raised energy prices. It's made the United States more reliant on unstable foreign countries for our energy. Through the American Energy Initiative, this House is actively working to increase American energy production to lower gas prices, to create American jobs, to generate revenue to help reduce the deficit, and to decrease our dependence on foreign energy.

The United States Government has had a long history of sporadic attempts to respond to oil and gas prices. Usually, we have missed the mark. But, unfortunately, oil is still the lifeblood of the world and will be for most of our lives. That is why 70 countries and 31 States in the United States are involved in the process. Prices are influenced by the signals that are given by worldwide circumstances and also by government policy.

These two bills are the first of several signals that this House wants to send to the world and to the economy that says our goal should be to come as close to economic and energy self-sufficiency and independence as possible. We are not an energy-poor Nation; and we need to be developing the resources in every way possible, including in the gulf, including in the Outer Continental Shelf, and including on our land sources. That is our future if we want to do anything to create jobs and help the American people. That is specifically what these two bills are aimed to do.

With such, Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule and a fair rule; and the underlying piece of legislation is entirely worthy of our support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of very quick points, if I could.

Once again, the purpose of these two bills is to start our process going towards Americans having adequate energy supplies to live their lives. And it's one of the things that you either increase production or you try to cut back. Our goal is to increase the production.

The idea that what we are doing is in some way making safety less significant is silly. There are new safety rules that have been in place. They are ready. They are prepared. They are ready to go forward.

The myth of subsidies to Big Oil is one of the things also that we need to talk about because even my fellow Democrats have admitted that the President's plan to push a tax hike on energy taxes does result in the loss of American jobs and higher taxes on independent oil and gas companies.

I love the fact that we always spin things by talking about Big Oil. But the nonpartisan Politifact.com noted that a majority of the U.S. oil production comes not from the biggest multinational oil companies but from independent firms. American production activities are dominated by these independent producers who drill 95 percent of the Nation's natural gas and oil wells, accounting for as much as 67 percent of the total U.S. natural gas and oil production.

Often we try to find some kind of straw man which to attack, and the idea of Big Oil is one of those easiest ones to do. But in reality, if those tax hikes were to go into place on production, you would not be hitting the Big Oil companies; you're going to be hitting small companies which have 100 or fewer employees, not only offshore, but on the shore as well. That is the attack.

I'm sorry. I am not validating President Obama's leadership on this issue. To me, leadership means you do something. Inaction is not leadership.

It's not the government picking winners and losers. What this administration is doing by the de facto moratorium, the inability to move forward on this issue is simply picking losers, losers in the field, losers for America, losers in jobs, and that is wrong.

This tries to get us going ahead in an area and in a way in which we can do it, we should do it, we have the capability of doing it. All we simply need to do is do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

For the moment I will reserve the balance of my time and enjoy the spin.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), who lives in this area and understands the situation firsthand.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry). He is a member of the Resources Committee that provides a great deal of insight from his personal background.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), another great new member of the Resources Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the minority is asking us to walk down a tangent issue by using negative cue words like ``subsidy,'' so let me walk down that for 30 seconds.

Please realize the U.S. oil and natural gas industry does not receive subsidized payments from the government. The word ``subsidy'' is inaccurate. Tax deductions should in no way be confused with the concept of subsidies. There are, though, tax deductions that go to all industries. Section 199, which has been talked about by the Democrats, is the domestic manufacturers'

deduction. Every industry--manufacturing, producing, growing, extracting--gets a 9 percent of earned income deduction, not a credit, except for oil and gas; but they are limited to just 6 percent. There is similarity.

They've also asked us to try and walk down a tangent in talking about safety, but the ideas of safety are codified in the legislation before us. They then say let's increase our production by raising taxes. What a non sequitur. Even if you raise taxes against somebody else and try to create some kind of straw man to attack, that is simply a non sequitur, because we do not have a tax problem in this country. We have a production problem; we have a jobs problem. These two bills go directly to that problem. They increase production and increase jobs.

We are not trying to pick winners and losers. We want the Americans to be winners, and that's what our choice is to be. These are two good bills in a time of $4 and $5 gasoline prices that are devastating jobs and our economy. These bills surely should be something that every Member should support.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One year ago today, we were 2 weeks into the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We were 2 weeks into what would ultimately become the worst environmental disaster in our Nation's history, with more than 4 million barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf. And since that disaster, we have learned many things about the safety of offshore drilling.

We learned that the blowout preventer that the oil industry touted as fail-safe could in fact be sure to fail if an actual blowout was under way. We learned that the only technology the oil industry had been relying upon in the event of a spill was a Xerox machine. The spill response plans for major companies were so similar that they contained plans to evacuate walruses from the Gulf of Mexico even though the walruses had not called the Gulf home in more than 3 million years. And they were such dead ringers for each other that they contained the same name and phone number of the same long-deceased expert.

We learned that the oil companies had neither the resources nor the ability to stop a deepwater blowout. BP spill response included an attempt to shoot golf balls and bits of rubber into the well. When we were told that the industry was relying on the most sophisticated technologies, we assumed that they meant technologies developed by MIT and not the PGA.

And we learned from an independent BP spill commission that the root causes of the Deepwater Horizon disaster were ``systemic'' to the entire oil and gas industry.

And yet here we are debating legislation that would do nothing to improve the safety of offshore drilling and could actually make drilling less safe. The legislation before us represents a return to the pre-spill mentality of speed over safety.

H.R. 1230 would force the Interior Department to rush to hold new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico by ``deeming'' the shoddy environmental analysis conducted by the Bush administration's Mineral Management Service before the BP spill as sufficient for future lease sales in the Gulf.

Just looking at some of the conclusions contained within the Bush administration's 2007 environmental analysis exposes the absurdity of deeming this work as sufficient for new leasing in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

In its 2007 multisale Environmental Impact Statement completed in April of 2007, the Interior Department determined, ``The most likely size of an offshore spill greater than or equal to 1,000 barrels that is predicted to occur is 4,600 barrels'' of oil. The BP Deepwater Horizon disaster led to more than 4 million barrels spilling into the Gulf. That is 1,000 times the size of the largest spill this analysis concluded was likely to occur.

In 2007, MMS analysis concluded that the total volume of oil that would be spilled from all spills in the central and western Gulf over the next 40 years would be roughly 47,000 barrels of oil. That is less than what was spilled in the Deepwater Horizon in 1 day.

MMS concluded that, in 2007, a worst-case scenario, only 19 to 31 miles of Gulf coastline would be impacted by a spill. The Deepwater Horizon disaster resulted in oil reaching over 950 miles of Gulf coastline.

And MMS determined that a deepwater blow-off would not present a cleanup problem because the oil would rise in the water column, surfacing almost directly over the source location, but in fact the oil spewing from the ocean floor remained in enormous subsurface plumes that spread across the Gulf.

The Obama administration is already moving forward to hold these lease sales in the Gulf later this year and early next year, and they are going to be more responsible. Even the Congressional Budget Office analysis of H.R. 1230 concludes, ``CBO estimates that implementing the bill would have no significant impact on proceeds from lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico because the proposed schedule is similar to the plan included in the DOI's budget for 2011.''

So, really, all the majority is accomplishing with this legislation is ensuring that we don't do any new environmental review of the impacts of these lease sales. Instead of actually reviewing the lessons of the BP spill, the majority wants to lessen the environmental review.

In addition, this legislation would force the Department to move forward with a lease off of the coast of Virginia within one year. Well, I have very bad news for the majority. The overwhelming majority of the area that would comprise this lease sale would infringe on critical training areas for the U.S. Navy. The Department of Defense concluded that 78 percent of the area offered in the Virginia lease sale would occur where military operations would be impeded by drilling structures and related activities. Moreover,

much of the remaining area is comprised of a major shipping channel.

This bill is really a solution in search of a problem. The bottom line is that oil production is at its highest level in nearly a decade and natural gas production is at record levels. We should instead be debating legislation that would protect the lives and the livelihoods of the people in the Gulf and that could actually help consumers at the pump this summer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Santa Barbara, California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield myself 3 minutes.

This is the wrong debate to be having here today. The Republicans are debating more drilling without more safety even though the BP spill commission that examined what went wrong last year concluded that there was a ``systemic'' failure in our country to deal with the safety issues that confront the offshore drilling industry. In fact, they concluded that there are four times greater fatalities in drilling for oil off the shores of the United States than there are in Europe--four times more fatalities. We should be number one in drilling but we should be number one in safety as well.

What the Republicans are doing here today is they are saying that they believe in ``all of the above.'' But the truth is that with this bill they are saying once again it is really an agenda of ``oil above all.'' They have nothing out here on renewable energy resources--wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, plug-in hybrids, all-electric vehicles. None of that is part of their debate. They just go back to the same old agenda of oil above all.

And do we need to give more to the oil industry? We have $10 billion in profits for ExxonMobil in January, February, and March--$10 billion they made. Shell, $8 billion; BP, $7 billion; Chevron, $6 billion; ConocoPhillips, $3 billion. Shouldn't we talk a little bit about safety as we're talking about new drilling off of our shorelines? But no, that's not the Republican agenda.

Should we be talking about taking away the tax breaks from the oil industry, the $40 billion which the American taxpayer gives to the oil industry? Do we really need to have the oil industry in the consumers' pocket at the gas pump and then in their other pocket as taxpayers to give even more money to ExxonMobil? That's what the Republicans should bring out here for a debate. They do not do that.

The New York Mercantile Exchange, that's where they trade for oil futures. Computerized Program Trading is now 45 percent of the oil futures trading on the commodities-futures trading floor of the New York Mercantile Exchange.

What do the Republicans do to deal with the fact that it has turned into a crude oil casino where gambling is going on as the speculators of our country and the world look at Saudi Arabia, look at Libya, as the price of oil skyrockets, as Goldman Sachs concludes that $20 a barrel in the increase of the price of oil just comes from the speculation, from the gambling that's going on in the NYMEX? You might as well put ``Las Vegas'' over the New York Mercantile Exchange. It is a crude oil casino, ladies and gentlemen. What do the Republicans do? They have slashed the budget for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, who are the cops on the beat. They're

saying we need fewer cops to police these speculators. They slash the wind and solar budget by 70 percent in their budget that just passed last month.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

This is their agenda. Nothing on safety; nothing on wind and solar; nothing on corralling the speculators. And what do they say? What they say is they're going to in fact go into the Medicare budget of Grandma and Grandpa and cut their programs and then put an oil rig on top of Medicare to suck out the money like a pipeline out of the pockets of Grandma and Grandpa and put it into the profits of the oil industry with more tax breaks for them, even as they report the greatest profits in the history of any companies in the history of the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I would defer to the chairman of the committee. If he is the concluding speaker on his side, I am prepared to close on our side.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

So here's where we are. Republicans take over, Republicans say they're ready to put together a plan for our country. It's 1 year after the BP catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in our Nation's history.

Last year, the Republicans blocked passage of any safety legislation that would learn the lessons of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. The BP spill commission has come back. They now say that fatalities on U.S. rigs are four times higher than those on European rigs. We should be number one in drilling, and we should be number one in safety. The Republicans refuse to deal with the endemic, systemic problems with safety that have been identified in the American oil industry.

The oil industry is now garnering the largest profits any corporations in the world have ever been able to enjoy, but the Republicans refuse to bring out here legislation which will take away their tax breaks. Oil companies don't need to have tax breaks to do something they are doing anyway. It's like subsidizing a fish to swim or a bird to fly. We don't have to give them taxpayers' money. The Ryan budget slashes benefits for grandma and grandpa, then takes that money and gives it away in tax breaks to millionaires and to the oil industry. Do we really need to tell grandma we're cutting back on her medicare benefits and then taking that money and giving it in oil breaks to the biggest companies in our country? They don't need tax breaks.

And finally, what we should be talking about is the deployment of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was used by both President Bushes. It was used by President Clinton. It does work. The New York Mercantile Exchange is where oil futures are traded. It is a casino of crude oil right now. On one day back just 2 months ago, 45 percent of all of the oil futures trades were computer- generated trades. Those trades were twice the value of all of the oil consumed in the world on a single day. That's what we need to do, to deal with those speculators. And the way to do it is what we have done in the past, deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, deploy it now. Send the fear of losing fortunes into the hearts of those speculators, and you will see the price of oil drop like a rock. That's what we need to do. That's what the consumers need as they are heading into the Memorial Day weekend. That's what people all across our country are wondering--what is going to happen to our economy?

Ten of the last 11 recessions in our country are tied to the rise in the price of oil. That is 10 of the last 11 recessions, ladies and gentlemen. What we saw in 1990 was, President Bush won the war in Iraq in '90 and '91, but because he never deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until it was too late, a mini-recession went through our economy, and President Clinton was able to defeat him. Let's learn this lesson of the link between the rise in the price of oil and recessions that are created in our economy. Deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Ignore this agenda of the Republican Party.