Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act

Mr. Speaker, we just got off two weeks of working in our districts around this country. At least I held about 10 town hall meetings, and I am sure many of my colleagues held more. We talked about the debt, we talked about the deficit, but one of the things that almost every one of these town halls insisted upon talking about was the high price of gasoline.

Let's start with this first exhibit we have here. This just gives the comparison of what the gas prices were somewhere in the United States, I can't tell where. January of 2009: Unleaded, $1.32; mid-range, $1.42; super, $1.52. Here is a picture taken in April of 2011: Regular, $3.99; mid-range, $4.09; the high powered stuff, $4.19 a gallon.

Mr. Speaker, the only party that can be blamed for this, unfortunately, is the Democratic Party, through the leadership of Barack Obama, President of the United States, because a vicious combination of the Obama administration's moratorium on offshore drilling and the devaluation of the American dollar through the administration's quantitative easing have resulted in the highest seasonal gasoline prices in U.S. history.

We have reached a point where if we don't pay attention, we are going to

give up our ability to produce our own natural resources and be, as the President said to Brazil when he loaned them $2 billion or more, ``We will be glad to be good customers of yours when you find some oil out in the Gulf.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a broken energy policy. In fact, this is no energy policy at all. We are quite aware now that we have found substantial reserves that were unfound in the area of natural gas. In fact, there are those who report that the production of shale gas in the United States could result in us having enough natural gas to operate in this country for at least 100 to 150 years at present or projected usages, and yet we seem to have roadblocks thrown up in front of that production at every step.

We had a deep water accident, a terrible deep water accident, in the Gulf of Mexico. The President and the Energy Department put down a moratorium on drilling in the gulf, both deep water and shallow water. Even though the shallow water, they had had no massive oil leaks in the shallow water, it was included. So the Gulf of Mexico, one of the largest potential oil and gas fields in the world, was shut down for American production. Not for Chinese production, not for Brazilian production, not for anybody else who had an ability to make a deal with Cuba to get a lease offshore to drill, but for American production.

But he promised that after they got all of the cleanup done and after they examined what happened in the BP case, that they would lift the moratorium, and with a lot of outcry from the Gulf States, because for the first time, at least in the State of Texas, until the moratorium on drilling in the gulf, the State of Texas was looking pretty good on unemployment. We were still in the 6 percent range as the rest of the Nation was in the 10 percent range. But when you shut down potentially 250,000 jobs that relate to the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, I don't know how many of those jobs are actually lost, but those were the ones at risk. And as a result of that and other factors, we're now up in the 8 percent unemployment range, which is still better than the rest of the country, but still a really direct cause of the moratorium in the gulf.

When the moratorium was lifted, they refused to issue permits. But first, because the Federal court told them to lift the moratorium, they lifted that moratorium and issued a new one the next day, or maybe 2 days later, which was, I would say, fairly much in contempt of the order of the Federal court in Louisiana. That Federal judge, in turn, made several comments about contempt of court. And so, finally, after years, the moratorium was lifted and another 6 months later, or 8 months later, a few permits were issued so that drilling could begin.

Remember this: Barack Obama, when he became President of the United States, President Obama promised that he was going to open up offshore exploration and enhance nuclear energy. He's failed to do both. The only energy policy that he's dealt with is one that we certainly need to develop. And no one here doesn't want to seek alternatives that are economically viable to make this country run. This country is an energy-driven country. Just look at the lights in this room. Think of the amount of windmills it would take just to power up this room almost 24 hours a day. But we're for--and, in fact, I would say the great State of Texas has the largest wind farm in the entire United States.

So when it comes to energy, we don't shy away from any kind of energy in our State. We are an energy State. We have been producing oil and gas in the State of Texas for I guess close to a hundred years, clear back to Spindletop. We are not the experts, but we're as close to experts as you're going to run into because we've been doing it through generations of Americans.

I remember when I was 17 years old, my big desire was to go work on an oil rig because the great pay those people got paid. My daddy wanted me to keep all my fingers so he told me I couldn't do it. But I always wished I could. It is something we grow up with. We don't think oil and gas are evil products, and we don't think that they are the curse of this country. We think they are the primary clean power source in competition with other power sources of the petroleum age. We think we do a good job of producing clean energy--and energy, we think, that is the cause of the great modern expansion of American Government.

Remember, when we're talking about petroleum products, we're not just talking about power for your automobiles and power for your trucks and power for your power stations and all the other things that we use with oil and gas. We're talking about plastic, we're talking about lifesaving chemicals, we're talking about clothing. There's a list of a hundred different products--I can't even list them all--that have come from the production of petroleum. And now, for some reason, we have an administration that treats petroleum and treats petroleum products like natural gas as if they were some kind of horrible evil poison because of this issue which is unresolved of carbon dioxide.

So we are sitting here on the verge of something that will ultimately shut down our economy. I can tell you from personal experience, because my wife sent me to the grocery store three Sundays ago and one of the things on her list was avocados. And this is in Texas. We're pretty close to Mexico. We're pretty close to California. Two avocados cost a dollar and a quarter. The next week she sent me back to get two more and they were a dollar apiece. So I started watching those things, and holy cow, they have gone up three times since that first purchase of avocados. And you wonder why. Maybe it's weather; maybe it's crop failure. Maybe it's the fact that the cost of energy is going up daily to power the fleet of trucks, to power the diesel-driven trains, to power the automobiles of America. As gas prices go up or diesel prices go up, so do the prices of food. And now the two inflationary prices that we see going forward are food and energy. This is serious stuff.

I'm very pleased to have a fellow Texan join me here today, Blake Farenthold. He's a new Member from down on the Texas gulf coast in a city that grew up with petroleum surrounding it, Corpus Christi, Texas. I'm going to yield to my good friend, Mr. Farenthold, whatever time he needs to talk about his views on energy.

I thank the gentleman.

And reclaiming my time, as an expansion of what you just said, let's talk about some of the things that the Democrats in this House and the President have talked about as the solution to the high price of gasoline. And that is they're going to cut the tax breaks for the oil producers, and they named Chevron, Exxon, BP--what they call the majors. They're going to cut those tax breaks. Therefore, they're going to make sure that those billion dollars worth of profit are not going to be there because they're going to reduce these tax breaks they have given, which they say are billions of dollars.

Well, let's just stop and look at what these tax breaks are about. All the oil and gas produced offshore in other countries is not subject to American taxation, and that's where the majors now produce somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of all their production. In fact, those drilling inside the continental United States, almost all those people drilling shallow water offshore and a few of those people drilling deepwater offshore, none of those people are majors. They're all from, as you were talking about, the entrepreneurial spirit of the wildcatter and the small producer who is going out in an attempt to expand domestic production. By the way, they're the only ones that take advantage of any tax breaks that are there, and they're not billion dollar companies that we use as examples.

So the cuts, the way I understand it, are not even going to affect ExxonMobil or affect Chevron or these big producers from overseas because those tax breaks don't pertain to that production. They only pertain to production in the United States. And those are done by independents. Almost the vast majority are done by independents.

So the only people that get hurt again by the tax policies of the Barack Obama administration are the small business men. Just like everything we see coming down the pike at us seems to be targeted at the small, independent entrepreneur who is trying to make it go.

So don't be misled to think that the majors, where we see all these massive amounts of money they're making, are the targets that are really going to be hit by the shot that our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle have proposed that we should take in getting rid of, as they call them, subsidies, which are really tax breaks, to the producers of domestic production.

By the way, all production offshore, they've shut it down. Just recently, Shell Oil Company, after dumping a couple of billion dollars in an offshore operation off the coast of Alaska, pulled out completely because, before they could even get started, after dumping a couple of billion dollars, with a ``b,'' into that production field out there, the EPA came in with more and more stops and stop orders and other things, and they finally threw up their hands and said, We're going someplace else. We're not drilling in American waters anymore. It's not worth it.

So right now where we know we have production for oil and gas, we have an administration that is fighting that production tooth and nail. This has cost jobs in the industry, as we pointed out. This has made our dependence on foreign oil bigger.

Here's the skyrocketing price of the Obama administration since he's been in office. Here is another chart that shows you the offshore field production of crude oil, thousands of barrels per day. And look at this. This is where that production was: 250,000 barrels up to 400,000 barrels; down again, and I guess that was in 1999 during the Clinton administration that it went down;

and back up in the Bush administration. The end of the Bush administration, down to 100,000 barrels of offshore production today. From 400,000 to 100,000 since the Obama administration.

Nobody can argue that the Obama administration is anything but violently opposed to the oil and gas industry. And they are doing everything they can to throw big roadblocks in front of production.

Then you wonder why the speculators are saying the price of a barrel of oil is going up. Because they're speculating. Do you know how many millions of gallons of aviation fuel a company like American Airlines or United Airlines or Continental Airlines, any of these major airlines, burn every week? Do you know what they have to do in order to stay ahead of increasing prices on fuel? They have to speculate on futures on the cost of fuel. And I'm not blaming the airlines. There are plenty of other people that are speculating because they say, Let's see, what's going on in the world? We're finishing up a war in Iraq, which is one of the major producers, but it's been out of the market for years and is barely getting back in. We're sitting here with a moratorium on all the offshore domestic production. We're not opening up any Federal lands for production anywhere in this country. The Obama administration has shut down the leasing practices on any public lands.

By the way, Texas is the only State in the Union that didn't turn their public lands over to the Federal Government. But the rest of the country, in areas like Idaho, Utah, we know there's production up there, up in Wyoming, up in Montana--all that stuff that the Canadians are now producing across the border, the fields on our side of the border are being curtailed by the administration. They just don't want to produce oil. They just want to buy it from foreign sources.

And about these foreign sources, the people who study the market say, My gosh, Libya is not available anymore; Iraq's not available, and what happens if we've got no production at home?

The market looks shaky. We better buy futures on oil. And guess what, the price goes up. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to say they see a shortage coming down the pike, that competing with India and China, two of the biggest competitors we've got for any kind of energy that's out there, and then we're going to sit here and we're not going to buy the chance to buy fuel at a cheaper price now than what it might be 6 months down the road? Of course, speculators are going to do that. Of course, industry is going to do that.

So as my friend, Blake, was pointing out, the lack of production, the lack of faith in what this government is going to do to this industry, and the fear that the shutdown will be complete, it just sets up any situation for the price to go up. When the price goes up, then the price of gasoline goes up; and by the way, if you either add more taxes to the cost of the oil production or you take away the tax breaks for oil production, who do you think's going to pay that increase in cost for the oil industry? Well, I will tell you. It's going to be the guys and the gals that are filling their cars up with gasoline at the pump.

To the extent that any business has an increase in cost of their production, they do the very best they can to pass that cost on to the consumer. That's the way any company whether it's steel, whether it's widgets, whether it's buggy whips, whatever it is that you do produce, if your cost goes up, the manufacturer passes on, to the extent that he can and still stay within the price limits that are set not by the government but by the demand of the consumer, then the price goes up.

So you're not going to lower prices by taking away subsidies to the oil and gas industry. The only thing you can do is raise prices. They don't want more prices to discourage production. That's ridiculous. If you have the law of supply and demand and we've got a short supply and you are discouraging production, the price is going up. You learned that in the eighth grade, as Blake pointed out. This is not hard stuff. This is easy stuff to figure out. Sometimes I think some of these folks that don't understand the oil business, the only oil they know is what's on the end of their dipstick in the crank case.

But the facts are this product is a major product of the modern society of the American public, and I think the American publics know it, and I don't think they're going to get fooled by demagoguery on these prices.

Does my colleague wish to have more comments?

There are consequences to any action that you take in this town.

I wanted to point out something I said in a committee hearing one time when we were having this debate. I said those people who want to do away with oil and gas and have a wind industry as the solution better strap a sail on their Volkswagen and hope the wind is blowing towards Washington, or tomorrow morning we're going to have a severe employment shortage in the U.S. Capitol; but, seriously, it's more than that.

Look at this quote from the Heritage Foundation. How many jobs does the anti-drilling agenda of this administration cost? The cost in jobs is startling. A new analysis by Louisiana State University Professor Joseph Mason projects national job losses at 19,000 from the drilling moratorium with wage losses at $1.1 billion. About one-third of those jobs are located outside the gulf region.

So not only did the people in the gulf lose jobs and do they continue to lose jobs, but these jobs, believe me, there is somebody somewhere within a hundred-mile radius of where we are right now that is producing something that

goes into the production of oil and gas because it is a nationwide and a worldwide industry. And all of the machinery, and all of the other complicated gauges and all the modernization of the production of petroleum, all of that is far beyond just the State of Texas and Louisiana and the other Gulf States. It actually circumvents the whole globe.

So jobs is another important reason why we have got to do something about this whole concept that this administration seems to have that we are evil because we produce oil and gas; and yet, guess what, States that were criticizing us for production of natural gas 2 years ago are dancing around campfires in their States now that they learned they've got shale oil in their States and some of our Midwest and eastern friends seem to all of the sudden be really excited about the fact that they've discovered they've got shale gas beneath their land and they can produce good, clean natural gas.

I say, more power to them. And I hope they can, and I hope their States and this Federal Government don't throw up roadblocks to the production of that shale gas because it is safe. This fear of fracking is a hoax because we have been doing fracking in the oil industry for 50 years. It's just amazing how all of a sudden a process that is almost normal to production, to get the second round of production out of almost any oil well that was drilled in Texas is using some form of H2O fracking, water fracking, to get that second round of production out of a well. And people rework and rework and rework existing wells with all types of processes like fracking. Fracturing is what that means.

But are there solutions that can bring the price of oil and gas down? Yes, I think there are.

Here is one that my good friend Doc Hastings has proposed: reversing President Obama's offshore moratorium, establishing a national domestic oil and natural gas offshore production goal to ensure a continued development of America's offshore energy sources. That's H.R. 1231. Hopefully, we are going to have that bill on the floor of the House this week or next week. This is important. This is showing real leadership in real energy production. And you see, nothing on there says let's shut down windmill production or let's shut down solar production or let's shut down nuclear production or hydroelectric or anything else. It's saying, let's produce energy in the form of petroleum products.

Another real gas price solution, Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now, H.R. 1230, Doc Hastings again. Require the sale of specific offshore leases within set time limits instead of continued administration delays. It is proposed: central gulf leases in the Gulf of Mexico within 4 months, western gulf within 8 months, offshore Virginia within 1 year, additional central Gulf of Mexico by June 1, 2012. This bill sets out a road map to leasing for production in what we consider our Gulf of Mexico.

You know, when it comes to producing products offshore, the first place it ever happened was offshore Texas. And we have considered that gulf to be sort of our little saltwater lake out there ever since. That's not exactly true. In fact, it's not true at all. But the point is, to stop the production that's been going on in the gulf, oh, since I was a small child--and I am no young whipper snapper--well, this starts us back to doing what we do well, producing offshore.

Another Doc Hastings bill: this is one, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work, requiring new safety permits to prevent and combat blowouts before drilling. No one in the industry--and I have talked to literally hundreds of people from the industry--everybody agrees. They were very proud of the fact that until the BP oil spill, oil spills looked like they were going to be a thing of the far ancient past because that Mexico blowout was, what, 20-something years old.

It would require the Secretary to decide on issuing a permit within 30 days of the application with two 15-day extensions possibly being allowed and provide drilling companies with speedy Fifth Circuit Court access if the government violates the law in denying or ignoring the permitting process.

Those are good solutions because not only does it set a standard that the Congress should impose upon the Secretary. In addition, it gives a recourse, the kind of recourse we're supposed to have on these issues of whether or not to drill, and that is to go to the courthouse and let the justice system prevail. So let's go to the Fifth Circuit, who has already spoken once, pretty loudly, and let them speak again.

There is one more that I don't seem to have and that is, we need to open up the leasing for our public lands in the West. The States of Utah and Idaho and Wyoming and Montana, we are well aware and are very knowledgeable about the amount of a certain kind of heavy petroleum that is available in those areas, North Dakota, probably South Dakota. We are already finding a lot in North Dakota.

But all of a sudden, it too is struggling to get permits to continue to drill on federally owned public land. And let's always remember those words ``public land.'' It's not the U.S. Government's land. The U.S. Government is holding it for the American public. And if we need to lower our prices and have efficient production, we should go where the oil is.

I had one of my colleagues one day who said, I don't know why you Texans always just want to drill anywhere. If you want to drill, why don't you just drill in your own backyard where you have a say about it? Well, if there was oil down beneath my backyard, you could bet your soul I would drill back there in a heartbeat because I am not worried about--in fact, I would be glad to cut the grass around a producing oil well all day long in my backyard. It won't hurt my feelings at all. And I don't think anybody that knows anything about the industry would feel any way other than that.

It's almost a comment on the industry. When you pull out of Dallas/ Fort Worth Airport, the DFW Airport, at the entrance, right to your right is a pumping oil and gas well that was drilled within the last 3 years. Right there, practically downtown Dallas, because they have discovered a field out their way. So we know it can be done and done safely. We have to get on it.

The New York Times--certainly not any bastion of conservative values--has a little article here: U.S. consumer prices are up 5 percent, pushed mainly by food and gas. They will reaffirm they are going to finish quantitative easing--that's this dollar thing I was talking about--but the central bank would remain concerned about the inflation expectation of consumers who would demand higher wages for businesses. And it could raise prices and perhaps cut spending.

What that's all about is, one of the price gauging things that you got that they are accusing the industry of doing is the fact that we have dumped trillions of dollars into our economy for this quantitative easing of the economy.

You know, as you've heard from this very House floor, is how much this body has spent in stimulus and in TARP and in other things in the last couple of years, trillions and trillions of dollars. More money has this organization spent, the Congress of the United States, signed by the President, than in the history of the country. And yet besides that, our Treasury has been printing money to supposedly ease the economy; and they are literally putting more dollars in circulation which, in turn, devalues the value of the American dollar.

When the value of the American dollar goes down, the price goes up because an apple has a worth. There is a worth, a cost to that apple, and there is a value to that apple on the market. And if the value before we dumped cash into the system was $2, and you dump all this, then it will be $3 or maybe $4, not because the apple's changed but because the dollar's changed, and the dollar is worth less.

Why do you think--and by the way, nobody goes to Mexico in Texas anymore. But if you did, and you went across the border, like some idiot who got shot by the terrorists over there--but if you did, you would find that they won't even take American dollars in border towns anymore in Mexico. This was written up in some of the border papers. The American dollar is not wanted in Mexico because they are concerned about it losing its value. It used

to be the peso that we worried about losing its value. Something has gone haywire.

But as we devalue our dollar and we create a shortage of our gas and oil, it's no surprise at all that the byproducts of those two products, which is gasoline and diesel, is going up. And it has gone up. And if we don't do something about getting back into domestic production, it's going to go up some more.

And if the world perceives that the greatest consumer of energy on this Earth is going to have a huge demand when the supply goes down, and they've bought futures on that supply, they're going to get rich. That's not the oil companies we're talking about; that's the people who speculate and the people who cover their energy needs. And by the way, these same speculators are buying futures on oil and gas from China, from Russia, from India, and from other people and from Western Europe to compete for the world market.

We have the golden opportunity to at least produce what we can produce. And I'm not in any way cutting down any other energy source. I'm saying all of the above is the solution. But drilling anywhere that it is effective, and drilling now is the important thing.

And those people who think that anywhere you stick an oil well down there's oil just don't understand oil. They think there's natural gas under any ground; they just don't understand natural gas. And by the way, when Blake was talking about these independents that drill an oil well, the average cost of an oil well that is not that deep is about a million bucks. So when you go out and gamble $1 million and come up dry, and you have to drill another well and gamble another million dollars, you know, these guys are the true entrepreneurs of this country, and they can lose their shirt and then get lucky and find an oil well and get their shirt back, but that's the world they live in.

That's the world of exploration for energy. And we're not ashamed of it. We're proud of it. We're proud that we still have people who are willing to take the risks that it takes to prosper in America. Our economy, our world of commerce in this country is built upon the risk takers. It's those who invest their capital and their labor into trying to produce a product and how they, between those two, they have some successes and they live through their failures. And, unfortunately, we've become a world that thinks anybody that slips up on any form or fashion, we need to bail them out. I've got problems with that.

Finally, another newspaper article. The Examiner says: oil imports spike as Obama oil ban decreases domestic production. This was April 29, 2011. This isn't very far past. While oil production in the gulf is down more than 10 percent from April 2010, it estimates net crude oil imports are up by 5 percent. More imported oil also means higher prices at the pumps. So direct result of the actions of the Obama administration.

We have the price of oil going up. So tomorrow morning, when you go out there and you fill up whatever you're driving, whether it's a SmartCar or a hybrid that runs on both electricity and gasoline, or whether you're filling up your Suburban, you know, we've got fleets of Suburbans in this town. This is supposed to be the conservation capital of the world. Look around Washington, D.C. There's a black Suburban on every corner. Sometimes a whole parade of black Suburbans goes by. Not picking on Suburbans. I've owned five of them. Good cars, but they burn a lot of gas. And you fill one up you'd better have a pretty good size pocket because you fill up an empty Suburban at $5 a gallon gasoline and you're going to need a bank loan because that sucker will take $100-something to fill that thing up.

And that's the consequences of trying to curtail one industry to enhance another. And that's not the way Americans are supposed to operate. Let's take our going concern and keep it going, and let's build up these alternative energies, and when they are competitive in the world market, turn them loose, stop subsidizing everybody and let them compete. And may God bless every one of them. That's the way Americans are supposed to operate.

Until we get back to operating that way, we're going to find ourselves in this up-and-down world of shortages. And we're going to find ourselves also in a final world of unemployment because since this recession, there's only one place on Earth in the U.S. where jobs are increasing, and that's right here where we're standing. Federal employment is up 11.7 percent, and the private economy is down 6.1 percent. These are changes of employment since 2007.

So the only people creating jobs are Federal jobs. And I would argue that's not the way it's supposed to work. It's all part of a policy which is misdirected. And I would say, because they don't understand the nature of the industries they're dealing with and they really don't realize how many BTUs of energy it takes to run these lights in this building, but it's a ton of them. And I could tell you, my daddy sold natural gas for 40 years of his life, and he sold it cheap. If he was alive today, he'd crawl out of his grave. If he knew about the price today, he'd crawl out of his grave and start selling natural gas. But that price has been driven up by the demand.

We've got this resource. This resource, we can use it cleanly. We can protect our environment. We can live a good life, and we can live the American Dream. But you can't do it by trying to kill one industry to enhance another. And I would argue that that is what we've been doing under the Obama administration. And I have a fervent hope that they see the light and back off and let us go back into production of oil and gas and the other natural resources of this great Nation so that we can maintain our status as the best country on Earth and the best country that cares about the average guy and tries to keep prices affordable to the average guy.

The price gouging that they are accusing of is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the law of supply and demand. And that misinterpretation is hurting the little man in America. It's time to change the policy, and let's all hope and pray that this administration wakes up to many things, but this is one of them. And if they'll wake up to an energy policy that makes sense, we will see the future bright.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this legislation. I would like Americans to understand that the issue of whether we should drill or not is long overdue because I have heard this argument for 36 years because I was here when we drilled and opened the Trans-Alaska pipeline to provide 17 billion barrels of oil to America--17 billion barrels of oil.

I've heard people say that there's only 2 percent. That is a figure that was arrived at in 1955. We have new estimates with new technology. We think we have about 20 percent of the world's reserves in fossil fuels. And we're not producing them. I've heard the argument this wouldn't change the price of gasoline. It's not quick enough. I heard that 25 years ago.

We need to produce so we have a stable supply of domestic fossil fuels so other countries and speculators don't take advantage. They have us right now in a position they can take advantage of because we are not producing any oil of any consequence in the United States right now. We're down to 600,000 barrels a day in Alaska. If we drop much more, we won't even have that 600,000 barrels a day. Yet we have in Alaska in the Chukchi Sea, there's been $5 billion spent to find oil. We have not had the permit to drill because of this administration. They think there's 27 billion barrels of oil in one offshore development. The other one has approximately 14 billion barrels of oil in one offshore development. Of course, we have ANWR, which that side does not support, to a great degree, that has probably 39 billion barrels of oil.

You add up that amount of oil and you have oil that will last this country for a hundred years.

Now, yes, we ought to have other forms of energy. But the Obama administration is trying to force this country into a green energy future. This is a policy. I heard the former Speaker say it. Of course it makes sense to reduce our dependency on oil, as I said before, but no one takes into consideration the impact upon the economy of this Nation.

New Jersey is building an LNG plant to receive gas from overseas. That's well and good, buying foreign gas, when we have trillions of feet of gas in the United States of America.

We are costing not only jobs but the dependency--and everybody talks about the high price of gasoline. It's caused primarily because of spiking. Some little incident in the Middle East--the OPEC countries supposedly have 70 percent of our oil--raises the price of that gasoline. You can't have a model economy and a business and have those spikes. If the price was $5 across the board and you knew it was going to be $5 across the board for the next 40 years, you could build your economy on that. But we have gas at $5 a gallon now, the first of June, and it may go up to $6 in August. It may be down a little bit. We need to stabilize it. Only we can do this.

But this administration is trying to convert America into their green technology. Technology of wind. Technology of, let's say, solar. Wind power is 17 cents a kilowatt compared to 5 cents for coal. Mr. and Mrs. America, you're paying for that. And again, as I said in one of my statements, this, in fact, is a tax on the American people. This is an Obama tax because of the lack of the cheaper fuel that's necessary to keep our economy running.

The impediments of oil and gas production is another reason, the slowdown of Federal leases. We talk about everything that's leased and permitting offshore and onshore. Only six permits have been issued since the Gulf of Mexico, the time the BP spill happened--six permits. Leasing in the Gulf of Mexico coast has been delayed for several years. Offshore permitting for oil and gas has been slowed down to a real slow crawl.

America, I keep telling you, you are being taxed by an administration that does not understand the necessity for fossil fuels for our economy. The movement of product, the receiving of product and the shipping of product, the deliverance of people, the deliverance of

supplies by air, ship, plane, train, automobile, and truck. That's what makes this country great.

And here we sit with a group that says, oh, we're going to save the environment. I'm all for that. But you don't have an energy policy and you can't have it off fossil fuels. Anybody who says we're going to have one off fossil fuels is not even thinking about fuels, not even thinking about energy. You can't do it with wind power. We might get a little wind power if we put a propeller on the top of this Capitol to collect all the hot air that comes out of here most of the time. That might work. But we're not going to do it with solar power. You need all the forms of energy. And this administration so far has not promoted anything but the two most expensive: wind and solar.

We need our fossil fuels. We need to make sure the agencies under this administration make sure that we develop our energies, or we cannot go anywhere. And if they can't do it, then it's up to this Congress. This Congress, this bill, this legislation, and the two previous bills are a step forward, a necessary step for this Nation. We need to keep going. So employ Americans and quit buying foreign oil. You talk about being hooked on dope, that's what we are. We're hooked on foreign oil. Yet we have people that say we can't develop our own oil, we can't develop our own resources, that it will hurt somebody, somebody will be harmed and we can't do it.

That's not true. We can do it. In the gulf there were 41,000 wells drilled without a spill. Add one spill and everybody thinks the world came to an end. It was bad, yes. Do we learn from it? Yes, as we did with Exxon Valdez. We learned from that and we will improve upon that. But not to let them drill, not to let them produce that oil, not to let them help America out, not employ Americans, that is dead wrong.

So I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and reject the amendments that are going to be offered. They are not the amendments they should be.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as a designee of Chairman Doc Hastings, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that corrects a drafting error in the bill that was discovered by the legislative counsel after H.R. 1231 was reported from the committee with bipartisan support.

The amendment changes the paragraph numbers in section 2 so they correctly reflect the sequence of appearance in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

I urge support for the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Both the Outer Continental Lands Shelf Act and the 2003 National Defense Act already fully protect the Defense Department's responsibilities in the Outer Continental Shelf and the State coastal areas of the OCS. H.R. 1231 continues these protections.

As Chairman Hastings stated last week during debate on a very similar amendment to H.R. 1230, preserving the working relationship between the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior is of great importance to the Natural Resources Committee. Because of this, H.R. 1231 meets the mutual goals of balancing national security and energy independence, but this amendment would upset the balance.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense never notified, never talked to us about any opposition to this legislation.

H.R. 1231 fully supports the Department of the Interior's work with the Department of Defense in addressing the necessary stipulations that will protect the military mission on the OCS during the development of lease sales.

I also want to point out that gaining access to domestically available and affordable energy resources is also of paramount importance to our national security because it lessens our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Let me say that again. It must be very clear: Energy security and energy independence are a national security priority.

Additionally, developing our own energy resources benefits the Department of Defense. According to the Brookings Institution, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil increases the cost of Defense operations by $1.3 billion. Lowering energy prices should be a priority for American consumers and for the Department of Defense.

This amendment isn't truly aimed at protecting DOD activities. It's aimed at trying to block lease sales and stopping offshore energy and development. That's what this is about. So I congratulate the people who are offering this amendment. It's exactly what you'd like to do.

Again, Defense activities are not hindered by energy development. The Departments of Defense and the Interior work well together to balance the needs of our Nation. H.R. 1231 allows both offshore energy leasing and military activities to go forward and exist in a safe, responsible way.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It's unnecessary and boy if we can't get the government to work together there is something wrong, something deadly wrong. This is about defense. This is about the department of enter, this is about the American people. We ought to be able to work together and I'm sure they can. I'm confident of it and the idea that this is going to hurt the mission is again a way to stop drilling. That's all it is. Maybe if we had that 23 percent open and we knew exactly where it was we might be able to drill there but I don't think they would support that either.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

With all due respect to Grandma and Grandpa, there's no Grandma and Grandpa that has Medicare taken away from them or anywhere else. That's pure demagoguery on this floor, and we know that, tied into the oil companies.

It's ironic to me, this House has debated and voted on this amendment over the years. They've defeated it by a bipartisan vote. Just like a bad penny, it keeps showing up and the Big Oil is all bad. All I know, the American public is being taxed every year, $1,100 every year by this administration's high gas prices.

Let's review the facts. The Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases were issued by, oh, boy, Bill Clinton and Bruce Babbitt in 1996 and 2000. Oh, my good Lord, it was the Republicans that did all this. They're the ones that issued these leases, and those who hold these leases have repeatedly been successful in challenging the Interior Department's authority to include price thresholds in lease agreements. The Department of the Interior has lost at the Federal district court, the appellate court, the United States Supreme Court, and now we're going to interfere with a court decision?

If this amendment passes, those holding such leases will be required to renegotiate the lease terms with DOI to include price thresholds before getting new leases. Bill Clinton would turn over--no, he's not in his grave, so I can't say that. The Secretary does not--and I repeat does not--have the authority to include price thresholds on these leases. In addition, forcing companies to renegotiate the leases would be a violation of contract law and would be challenged in court.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that just comes out of where, I don't know. It's a time to demagogue on the floor about Medicare. It has nothing to do with oil leases. It has nothing to do with the so- called tax breaks that Bill Clinton and Bruce Babbitt put in place. George Bush wasn't there. Mr. Obama wasn't there. Bill Clinton did this.

Lo and behold, somebody has to renegotiate something. Let's start renegotiating contracts all over the countryside. Maybe we ought to start doing that. Some of the contracts made, and I think we did this the last election, their contracts were terminated.

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' comments, but wind power is subsidized energy. That's all it is. Wind power is subsidized by the taxpayer. Solar power is subsidized by the taxpayer. To try to transform this country into using wind and solar by raising the cost of gasoline to the American consumer is dead wrong. That's not the way to solve this problem.

I will support wind power when it's not subsidized. I will support solar power when it's not subsidized, and I will support nuclear power when we can, which the gentleman's opposed every time, and I will support hydropower. In fact, I will support all forms of power so we can become more independent, and I go back to the concept of fossil fuels. It moves objects. It moves objects. Wind power doesn't move objects, no. Solar power doesn't move objects, no. It takes fossil fuels to run our ships, our planes, our automobiles, our trucks, and our trains. That's the commerce of this Nation, and that's what's hurting this Nation today in the recovery.

We have to start producing our own fossil fuels so we can have the commerce that's necessary to employ people and create the jobs in this country. In this country, it should be done. Yes, we can have the other forms of power, but we have to have the fossil fuels to continue hopefully the recovery of this country economically.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, when I first saw this amendment, I was wondering if we were debating financial services legislation here on the floor. Clearly, this amendment attempts to raise issues outside the realm of today's debate on increasing American-made energy and creating jobs.

The Department of the Interior should spend its time focusing on reviewing permits, conducting environmental safety reviews, protecting our resources and leasing offshore areas that are most prospective for oil and natural gas production. The Department shouldn't have dozens of employees sitting around reading companies' Securities and Exchange Commission filings and assembling a list of which executives got what bonus.

The information that this amendment would burden the Interior Department with gathering and publishing is already publicly disclosed. It should be made public, and that's why it already is. This amendment is not about openness and transparency of disclosing information. That's already the law.

The real effect of this amendment is duplicative requirements and government waste. Let's get away from the political games and gotcha amendments. Let's allow the Department of the Interior to focus on OCS safety, environmental protection and leasing, and leave the bonuses to the Securities and Exchange Commission officials studying that. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The question I ask is, How much would this cost the Department of the Interior? Would this take away from safety inspections? And to my good friend from Massachusetts, the burden is going to get worse. You are going to be paying about $5 a gallon by the first of June; if not, maybe a little bit later, but not later than the Fourth of July. And the burden is something that bothers me a great deal.

But in Massachusetts alone, not one time has any one of your Members in the Congress ever voted to produce energy, other than wind power and solar power. And that doesn't drive your constituents' automobiles. That doesn't drive your trucks that deliver your products to the restaurants or the hospitals. That doesn't drive that train that people ride to try to get automobiles off the road. It doesn't drive the ships to bring the products to your shores. Fossil fuel is the key to our commerce; and we should recognize that in this Congress. And we should develop an energy plan that includes everything. You can't do it with just wind power. You can't do it with solar power. But you can do it with all powers.

That's what's wrong with this Congress and this administration and, yes, previous administrations: they don't grasp the necessity of having more power available to increase the economy of this country. And we're on the cusp right now. I believe this bill will help us. If it does not help us, then shoot me another solution. I have not seen one on that side of the aisle.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, here again is another amendment that is redundant, but let's call it what it is: It's an obstruction.

The Department of the Interior already requires that applicants must calculate worst case discharge before approving a permit. On June 18, 2010, the Department of the Interior issued a notice to lessees outlining the information requirements and standards to be met before a permit would be approved. In the notice it is required that a lessee ``describe the assumptions and calculations that you used to determine the volume of your worst case scenario.''

It's already required on permit applications today, and is further reiterated by the language in H.R. 1229, which passed the House earlier today.

The minority continues to try to divert attention away from the real issue of increasing energy production, creating jobs, lowering energy costs, and

improving national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

In fact, it seems that the Democrats simply do not want to face the fact that this bill says we can move forward with an aggressive program of responsible oil and gas development while, at the same time, ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. These are not mutually exclusive goals.

Republicans want to make U.S. offshore drilling the safest in the world, and it is the safest in the world, so we can produce more American energy, create American jobs and strengthen our national security.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I can only say that, to my knowledge, there's little chance of any oil drilling off the coast of Massachusetts. But there is a great possibility off the coasts of Florida, Virginia, Alaska, California, and this bill really sets out which areas should be drilled, not in large massive areas, but specifically.

I personally will tell you, if I could drill in Alaska, offshore, which we should be able to do, but this administration has delayed a permit for 5 years--5 years. Five billion dollars put into investment to develop that field. It can't be done because of this administration.

This bill tries to expedite that process for the good of this Nation and for the good of the people, not the good of the oil companies, because we need that oil.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The underlying bill is focused on opening the Outer Continental Shelf to safe and responsible energy production. This bill aims to fulfill the promise that both Democrats and Republicans made to the American people when we voted in a bipartisan basis in 2008 to lift the moratoria on offshore energy production.

Since taking office, President Obama and his administration has effectively reimposed the moratorium. This bill would reverse his actions.

In December 2006, a majority of the House and the Florida delegation voted in favor of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, a bipartisan compromise that opened a portion of the western and central gulf but maintained the eastern planning area moratoria until 2022.

This amendment seeks to go backwards and single-handedly undo that agreement to close off forever the possible energy production in a portion of the Gulf of Mexico. This is exactly the wrong direction for America to be heading.

Congress should not foreclose the possibility of future energy production. This is especially true in the eastern planning area of the gulf, which the Department of the Interior believes contains technically recoverable resources in the amount of 4 billion barrels of oil and over 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Let's be clear, the area in the eastern gulf covered by this amendment is currently under moratorium until 2022. That is over a decade from now. This bill does not propose to change the 2022 date.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is the second amendment of three today designed to close off portions of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and natural gas exploration production, the opposite of what the bill under consideration today is about. The underlying bill is focused on opening the Outer Continental Shelf to safe and responsible energy production.

H.R. 1231 aims to fulfill the promise that both Democrats and Republicans made to the American people when we voted on a bipartisan basis in 2008 to lift the moratoria on offshore energy production. Since taking office, President Obama and his administration have effectively reimposed the moratorium, and this bill would reverse his actions.

This amendment proposes to take America in exactly the wrong direction in which we should be heading. Congress should not foreclose the possibility of future energy production. With the price of gasoline going to $4 and $5 a gallon, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and keep our focus on those offshore areas that contain substantial oil and natural resources, where increased American energy production will create new jobs, lower energy prices, and increase our economic and national security.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from California brings out some legitimate points. But right now, today, under existing law, the northern California planning area is available for leasing. This bill does not change that current situation. It has been available since 2008 when gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon and the President and Congress lifted the offshore drilling moratoria.

I will remind the House that in 2008 the coast of California was opened for potential leasing and drilling, that Democrats were in the majority in the House and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco was Speaker of the House. For months, they resisted Republican efforts to end the offshore ban, but eventually the American people won out and the bans were lifted.

I would also like to point out that this bill provides direction that when the Federal Government is writing 5-year leasing plans, that the focus be on areas with the greatest estimated oil and natural gas resources. This particular planning area does not have and has not registered high in this regard and this bill does not direct that leasing occur in this planning area. With gasoline back to the 2008 highs of over $4 per gallon, let's keep the focus on where it should be, increasing American offshore energy production. That's what we're trying to do.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, acting for Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings of Washington State, I oppose this amendment.

As explained in the debate on the prior two amendments, this bill is focused on increasing American-made energy, creating new jobs, and decreasing our dependence on energy from foreign nations. Congress needs to focus on increasing energy production, and this amendment goes in the opposite direction. In fact, this amendment attempts to impose unprecedented and impossible obstacles to fostering more American energy in Federal waters.

It is stated that the purpose of the amendment is to give the State of Washington a say on leasing in Federal waters off the State's coast. However, multiple Federal laws already provide Washington State, and every State, the opportunity to participate in any such decisions. What this amendment would do is grant double veto power for Washington State to prohibit Federal activities in Federal waters outside the State's borders. The Interior Department provides repeated opportunities for public comment and participation throughout the planning and leasing process.

Furthermore, the Coastal Zone Management Act requires State consistency review with its State coastal zone management plan before the Federal Government takes action in Federal waters off of any particular State. On top of that, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides clear requirements for consultation and cooperation with affected State and local governments. Considerable care and protection is provided to each and every State, with extra consideration guaranteed to coastal States. This is as it should be.

What is particularly revealing about this amendment is that it only gives Washington State double veto power over certain types of offshore energy leasing. It singles out only oil and natural gas, but provides no such veto power over other forms of energy leasing. This includes wave energy, wind, solar, and other renewable forms.

This double standard exposes the real intent of this amendment. It's not truly aimed at ensuring a voice for Washington State; it's intended to score political points. But the political points the amendment attempts to score are entirely hollow. Why? Because there isn't estimated to be any recoverable oil or natural gas in Federal waters off of Washington State.

Again, this bill only goes into areas that have really large potential. Again, multiple Federal laws already guarantee all Americans have an opportunity to participate in an offshore planning process, especially the Governors, State and local officials, and citizens living in coastal States that will be impacted by leasing, should it take place.

For those reasons, I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My good friend from Washington, they may not have a wind spill, but there's opposition to wind power. And wind is extremely expensive and only can be successful as long as it's subsidized by the taxpayer. As long as this administration keeps insisting on wind and solar power, they're doubly taxing our taxpayers of this Nation and hurting our economy. That's reality.

So they're doubly taxed because now they're paying taxes because of the high cost of oil, the high cost of gasoline. And $1,100 a year they have additionally been taxed this year versus last year. And yet we talk about wind power. They're taxed because that comes out of the general fund. We're borrowing money from the Chinese. That's reality.

Wind and solar are fine as long as they're subsidized. As long as you pay for them, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, they're fine. But that's an additional tax on you. If it was so economical, so well to be done, then we would have done it a long time ago. And I say it will work. It's like ethanol. It works. It's still not economical.

So we have to go back to what commerce is run by--and it's fossil fuels. We can have all those other forms of energy. I do not want them subsidized. We can have all those other forms of energy, but we have to have the ability to move product. I look at the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma. Every one of those ships is burning a fossil fuel that deliver those goods. Every truck that leaves that port that goes out to deliver those to the people around this Nation is burning fossil fuels. Every train that leaves is burning fossil fuels. Every airplane that lands, built by Boeing, is driven by fossil fuels.

This is a chance for us to speak up in Congress and say we are going to develop our natural fuels in this country so we can compete legitimately. You cannot compete by borrowing money to buy foreign oil, and that's what that side wants to do. I'm saying that's wrong. And I will join hands with you if you vote for ANWR and you vote for other forms of energy, too. Let's get it all together, guys. Let's have an energy plan. All we're trying to do here is undo what the Obama administration did, and that's put a moratorium in.

I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Western Caucus has several members here tonight. We would like to talk about what is going on right now in the country. The administration seems to be waging a war on the western jobs, and that is carried out through a whole range of activities.

A couple of weeks ago, the administration and the President said that the administration is not doing enough to address the high gas prices. The President said in a speech at Georgetown that he would like to cut foreign oil by one-third by drilling at home. Well, we have been in the process of offering him the solution to what he said he would like to do.

Now, keep in mind that while the President is saying one thing, he's doing another.

While he says that we would like to drill for more oil here, understand that

he has increased the moratorium on the offshore drilling. They have made it more difficult to drill in on-land areas through the Rocky Mountains. Know that they rejected Shell Oil Company's $4 billion NEPA study because a paragraph was omitted.

So while we are hearing bold language from this administration about increasing the amount of oil that we are drilling here at home--and that would create American jobs but it would also create lower energy prices--understand that it appears that the President is not following through on what he said.

So in the past couple of days, this Congress, this House, has passed out H.R. 1229, which says that we are going to put the people back to work in the Gulf of Mexico.

I think everyone understands that BP is accountable and should be accountable for the problems that they caused, but we should not have killed 100,000 jobs offshore.

Our Nation is stuck at 9 percent unemployment. We are stuck with a deficit that is having to be financed by our own Federal Reserve. We are putting the Nation's economy at risk because of the way that we are treating jobs and because of our deficit.

So we are saying: Put the American workers back to work in the Gulf, produce American oil, produce American jobs, and bring lower prices of gasoline to the consumer.

The same bill improves the safety by reforming current law. It sets timelines for the Secretary to act on permits to drill. Right now, one of the things that the Secretary is doing is holding off approvals for those applications for permits to drill, the APDs. Know that the administration has within its power to improve the situation with jobs immediately, but instead they are doing the things that harm our work.

H.R. 1229 also establishes expedited judicial review processes.

We also have passed in this House H.R. 1230, which says we are going to restart the American Offshore Leasing Now Act. It passed last week. It requires that the four lease sales in the gulf and Virginia take place. Those lease sales were previously scheduled, but instead of going ahead with them, the administration has put them on hold. Let's simply produce the energy which has been verified to be there, which would create American jobs and which would aid American consumers by lower prices of gasoline.

H.R. 1231 has also been passed, which reverses President Obama's offshore moratorium. The President made a big deal just after he was sworn in 2 years ago about reversing the moratorium. But after one analyzed the moratorium that he reversed, we actually saw that he increased the moratorium, that more areas were put off limits to drilling rather than the message that he gave the American people.

So H.R. 1231 says to the President: We would like for you to join us in creating American jobs, jobs that the West would be proud of, jobs that would produce energy, jobs that would produce high-paying careers and not just jobs. We believe that these are the things that the American people are looking for. This is the leadership that they are asking for out of Washington.

H.R. 1231 requires each 5-year offshore leasing plan to include lease sales in areas containing the greatest known oil and natural gas reserves. Our offshore areas are tremendous reserves of energy. All we have to do is tap into them and use them. It requires that the Secretary establish a production goal when writing a 5-year plan.

I am joined tonight by several members of the Western Caucus. Each one has got their own particular interest area where the administration appears to be conducting a war on western jobs. So tonight, to lead off, I would like to yield time to my good friend Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming such time as she would consume.

I thank the gentlelady for her comments.

We are joined tonight by my good friend Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania. Before I yield time to him, I would like to walk through just a brief list of some of the other ways that the government conducts war on Western jobs.

Consider the listing of endangered species. No one of us wants to see a species be extinct or go extinct, but what we have seen is an extreme interpretation of the rules which kill jobs at the same time. I think there are ways that we could keep jobs and preserve species, yet we are not doing that right now.

The Coho salmon was listed as endangered. As a result, the farmers in the Klamath Basin in Oregon have been forced into bankruptcy due to prohibitions on water use by the listing of the salmon.

The Methow salmon, water rights holders in the Methow Valley of Washington lost the use of their water, and property owners and timber owners face restrictions on their properties because of the imposition of egregious stream buffers to protect the listed salmon.

The listing of the salmon in general, the court case over whether hydroelectric dam operators have done enough to prevent the death of salmon in Washington and Oregon, billions of dollars have been spent to accommodate, according to Bloomberg Business Week, but the environmental groups continue to sue.

The northern spotted owl, the listing has killed the entire timber industry in much of the West, especially in northern California and Oregon. The Mexican spotted owl, that listing also killed the timber industry in New Mexico and Arizona. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost.

The Delta smelt, the listing of that species, a small 2-inch fish that lives in the San Joaquin Valley, killed 27,000 jobs there. The San Joaquin Valley was the source of 80 percent of our Nation's vegetables. Now those vegetable farms are gone. Bankruptcy. We are now importing food from countries that can spray pesticides that are outlawed in this country, so our food supply is less safe. Fewer jobs, bigger government deficit, greater cost of vegetables and unsafe food supply.

The gray wolf was listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered and has killed agriculture and mining jobs throughout the West. Still the list goes on and on. So it is not that these are just hypothetical ideas that the war on Western jobs is occurring by a government. These are ongoing processes.

One group, the Center for Biological Diversity, has declared they are going to list over 1,000 species this year, that they are going to petition for the listing of over 1,000 species this year. Understand that their lawyers get reimbursed at the rate of $350 to $500 per hour. For every lawsuit that they bring against the government, every lawsuit that kills jobs provides employment for lawyers in those groups, so know that the taxpayer is footing the bill but yet losing jobs in the meantime.

I would like to recognize Mr. Thompson now, and thank him very much for being here tonight.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his comments. So far, the quote of the night is ``prosperity is a good thing.'' Yet our government seems to have a war on prosperity. Why is our government trying to undermine the economy when we're struggling with high deficits and unemployment? It defies imagination that that's going on.

I would like to recognize now my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Broun) for such time as he may consume. I appreciate your being here. Georgia and Pennsylvania in the Western Caucus, that's the way it should be. We're west of somewhere. Thank you for being here tonight.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and his perceptions.

As he mentioned, it seems that Washington has a war on profits. I think that maybe our friends on the other side of the aisle don't understand that profits pay high salaries. If you work in an industry with no profits, you work at low salaries.

Profits pay to reinvest in new buildings, creating construction dollars in neighborhoods. Profits are put into youth training, baseball leagues, soccer leagues. Profits are reinvested into new equipment, causing manufacturing firms to thrive. Profits are invested in dividends, and they cause increased values of stocks, helping retirees.

And, finally, profits are the only thing that corporations pay tax on. They do not pay taxes on losses. So when we begin to talk about taking away the profits of companies, understand that we're talking about undermining the American way of life. This attack on profits is an attack on the American way of life.

I am pleased to be joined tonight by a good friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), and I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. He pointed out that this Nation is rich in shale oil. We do, in fact, have 2 trillion barrels in reserve in shale. That all was outlawed from use by the American consumers back in 2007 in a bill passed by Nancy Pelosi off the floor of the House.

To put that in perspective, what does 2 trillion barrels of shale oil mean? We have only used 1 trillion barrels of oil completely in our history in just shale oil. That's not natural gas. That's not normal petroleum. We have double in shale oil what we've consumed up to this point.

Another comment that was made earlier is that we subsidize and that consumers end up paying for things that they don't know they're paying. I just talked to a constituent last week. He said that he was given a tax credit for 40 percent of a solar facility that he put on his own home. That was from the Federal Government; from the State government, another 10 percent. So about 50 percent of the cost of the program was completely reimbursed by the government. But the big deal is they're paying him 22 cents per kilowatt hour of energy that he is able to sell back into the system. Now, that 22 cents needs to be compared to the 7 cents that electricity normally costs. So the consumer is tagged with three times the cost of electricity that is provided by solar power that is bought from individual producers. The consumer will pay more for the power. It is not an easy process to understand, but consumers will ultimately pay all of the higher energy costs.

We hear much today in Washington about the subsidies for Big Oil. Be aware that there are no subsidies for Big Oil. There are simply write- offs that every company is allowed to take legally; write-offs to encourage them to invest in machinery; write-offs that sound like depreciation, amortization; write-offs that are allowed by accounting techniques across the board in this country. Understand that when we begin to penalize these oil companies, we're going to cost America jobs.

So let's talk just a bit about the different supposed subsidies that are, in fact, legitimate write-offs that companies are given.

The suggestion was made that we repeal the expensing of the intangible drilling costs. The intangible drilling costs usually represent 60 to 80 percent of the cost of a well. Historic U.S. policy allows a deduction for development. That's since 1913 in this government's Tax Code; and yet, today, we're talking about reversing it at a time when we're starving for jobs, 9 percent unemployment, and we're going to talk about making it harder to employ people in this country.

Other businesses are able to expense their research and development projects. Pharmaceutical companies, IEC specifically targets U.S. oil and gas companies. It will discourage innovation in the energy sector at a time when we need more innovation, not less. Disallowing the expensing of intangible drilling costs will put the American consumer in a worse position and endanger American jobs.

The second idea that's talked about in raising taxes for oil companies is to do away with the write-off, the dual capacity rule. The dual capacity rule was to ensure that income that is taxed by another nation is not also taxed by the U.S. It's something that the U.S. has been alone on in taxing double. We tax not only the amount that is made here but the amount that is made in other countries, the profits made in other countries. That's a tax inversion that has cost us many jobs.

Now then, we have the allowance of dual capacity rule in place to stop that, and yet our friends on the other side of the aisle are saying that we must stop this practice. All it's going to do is make the U.S. more inhospitable for investment in energy resources. At a time when we're seeing $4 gasoline, at a time when our economy is struggling, when we need jobs, we're talking about making American businesses less competitive and making American jobs more scarce.

The final section is maybe the most egregious of all, that is, the repeal of section 199 manufacturing exemptions for oil and gas companies. In 2004, the Congress enacted section 199 for manufacturing companies to encourage them to bring jobs back to this country. From 2004 to 2007, the oil and gas industry was responsible for 2 million new jobs that were created. The oil and gas companies currently support 9.2 million jobs. Almost all manufacturers receive a 9 percent credit. That's, again, in order to encourage them to come back to this country.

The oil and gas companies have only been receiving a 6 percent credit because they've already been picked on by the people in this town. But now they're suggesting that we would want to completely do away with the manufacturing credit. Keep in mind, that's the refining of gasoline. That's the definition of manufacturing in oil and gas.

So at a time when we're starving for jobs, we're going to make U.S. manufacturers, the U.S. refineries, less competitive. We're going to encourage Venezuela and Hugo Chavez to send more jobs there, to take more jobs and to send more gasoline here. It just doesn't make sense.

Tonight, I'd like to wrap up with this one picture about the status that our country is in. Our country right now has a tremendous problem with its economy. The problem is this: in Washington, we spend $3.5 trillion. Our revenues to the government are $2.2 trillion. That's a $1.3 trillion deficit. The accumulated deficits over the lifetime of this country are almost $15 trillion.

I show those deficits running out the end of the pipeline into our debt barrel to show the accumulated debt to the Nation. I also show a green sludge pouring over the edge of the barrel because we've got $202 trillion of accumulated costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are the things that are wrecking our economy.

This chart given by OMB and CBO, the Congress, and the White House both show that our economy is going to fail in 2038 because of these practices. At a time when we're starving for jobs, this administration has a war on western jobs. It has a war on our energy. It has a war on the jobs in the timber industry. It has a war on our way of life.

This is not the time to be conducting partisan politics in this town. It's a time for us to create jobs. With each job created, the 2.2 is greater because each person pays in increment more taxes, but they also are no longer receiving welfare, unemployment, and food stamps. So the 3.5 decreases.

The path forward is simple. We simply ask that the President get on board.

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and very strong opposition to the underlying legislation.

Here we go again. Another week. Another day. Another bill that helps record profit-making Big Oil but does absolutely nothing to help American families paying $4 at the pump for gasoline. Although Republicans continue to frame these efforts as a cure for rising gas prices and a way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, the truth is that oil prices are set on a world market. It's simply not possible for us to drill our way out of these problems.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee I offered an amendment as a stand- alone bill, again, that would eliminate subsidies for Big Oil. While I do not agree with H.R. 1231, my amendment would have done nothing to prevent this bill from moving forward. Instead, my amendment would have allowed for a separate bill to come up under this rule that would end subsidies for big oil corporations that are making money hand over fist while gouging Americans at the pump.

Let me remind my Republican colleagues of the facts. Two weeks ago, ExxonMobil announced that in the first 3 months of this year it had made nearly $10.7 billion in profits. That's $10.7 billion. Billion with a B. There's nothing wrong with corporations making

profits. That's what they're in business to do. What is wrong is for American taxpayers to be subsidizing wildly profitable companies at a time when too many Americans are still unemployed and struggling to pay their bills. With their tax dollars funding corporate welfare for Big Oil and then still paying astronomical prices at the pump, it's a double whammy for American families. With all the talk of cutting spending and reducing subsidies here in Washington, I would have thought that the Rules Committee would have made my amendment in order.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that energy companies are sitting on thousands of drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico, and they're not producing anything. And despite the misleading title of this legislation, no drilling moratorium currently exists. Since October 2010, when the drilling moratorium was lifted, 39 shallow water and 10 deepwater permits have been granted, roughly the same average rate even before the BP oil spill.

Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1231 may make for a good sound bite, this is not a serious solution to bringing down high gas prices. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose H.R. 1231.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points that a New York Times editorial, entitled ``The Return of `Drill Baby Drill' '' made, and that was that drilling alone cannot possibly ensure energy independence in a country that uses one-quarter of the world's oil while owning only 2 percent of its reserves.

The other point it makes is the Energy Information Agency recently projected what would happen if the Nation tripled production on the Outer Continental Shelf. There would be no price impact at all until 2020 and only 3 cents to 5 cents a gallon in 2030.

The bottom line is that we need an energy policy that does not rely solely on drilling for oil; and we've tried to pass a bill that would do that, only to have strong objection from my Republican colleagues.

I would also say I just want to make sure we're clear on one thing because the chairman of the Rules Committee seemed to intimate that bringing up my legislation that would allow for there to be a vote to cut taxpayer subsidies to oil companies would somehow be against the rules. It's not against the rules. It would be totally within the rules, and the Rules Committee could have made it in order.

One of the things that I hear, when I go back home, from my constituents is, Why are you cutting programs that help elderly people be able to heat their homes in the winter? Why are you cutting programs that would invest in alternative energy and at the same time you have Congress protecting taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are making record profits? People are outraged by that.

[From the New York Times, May 6, 2011]

The Return of ``Drill, Baby, Drill''

As President Obama observed in a March 30 address on energy

issues, drilling alone cannot possibly ensure energy

independence in a country that uses one-quarter of the

world's oil while owning only 2 percent of its reserves. Nor

can it lower prices, except at the margins. Only coordinated

measures--greater auto efficiency, alternative fuels,

improved mass transit--can address these issues.

Still the oil industry and its political allies persist in

their fantasies. On Thursday, the House passed the first of

three bills that will require the Interior Department to

accelerate drilling permits without proper environmental or

engineering reviews, reinstate lease sales off the Virginia

coast that

were canceled after the BP blowout, and open up protected

coastal waters--East, West and in Alaska--to drilling.

The bills would make regulation of offshore drilling even

weaker than it was before the spill. They would also do

almost nothing to solve the problems of $4-a-gallon gas.

Here's the hard truth: Prices are set on the world market

by the major producers, OPEC in particular. Even countries

that produce more oil than they need, like Canada, have

little leverage. Canada's prices track ours.

The Energy Information Agency recently projected what would

happen if the nation tripled production on the outer

continental shelf. There would be no price impact at all

until 2020 and only 3 cents to 5 cents a gallon in 2030.

By contrast, the agency found, raising the fuel efficiency

of America's cars would do real good. Increasing the

fleetwide average from roughly 30 m.p.g. today to 60 m.p.g.

in the next 15 years, an ambitious but not implausible goal,

could bring prices down by 20 percent.

Some politicians get it. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana

Democrat, is drafting a bill that seeks to repeal $4 billion

in annual taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry and use the

proceeds to develop more efficient cars and alternative fuel

sources. Mr. Obama has tried twice, without success, to get

rid of those subsidies, and the House voted in March to

preserve them in the current budget.

The tax breaks--fast write-offs for drilling expenses,

generous depletion allowances, and the like--may have been

useful years ago but are wholly unnecessary when oil prices

and industry profits are reaching new highs.

Even John Boehner, the Republican leader, conceded in a

recent ABC News interview that oil companies ``ought to be

paying their fair share.'' When horrified aides reminded him

that ending the subsidies would amount to a tax increase--

anathema among Republicans--he backed off.

Repealing these breaks would reduce the deficit and yield

revenues to be invested in cleaner fuels, while having no

real impact on prices. Mr. Obama may not be able to persuade

the House of these simple truths. But he can and must seize

whatever opportunities are offered in the Senate, involving

himself, not just rhetorically, in the hard but necessary

struggle for a sane energy policy.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

I am amazed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to be apologists for Big Oil. The fact of the matter is that Big Oil in this country is about making profits for Big Oil. They don't seem to care very much about the consumer.

I hold this chart up, Mr. Speaker, just to kind of prove a point that, notwithstanding the fact that they're raising prices on consumers, in the first quarter of this year as compared to last year, all of these oil companies--Exxon, Oxy, Conoco, Chevron, BP--all made record profits. Exxon is up 69 percent. They made $10.7 billion in profits in the first quarter.

What is particularly outrageous is they're making all this money, and my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to protect the subsidies and the tax breaks that they get. It's outrageous. They cut money for poor families who are trying to heat their homes in the winter; and on the other hand, they go out of their way to protect Big Oil from any amendments that we could bring to the floor here to be able to go after these subsidies and tax breaks.

My colleague from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, says, oh, he's sympathetic. Well, we don't want your sympathy. We want your vote. I brought this amendment to go after the subsidies that the oil companies currently enjoy, taxpayer-funded subsidies, three times in the Rules Committee. All three times, it was voted down. So enough is enough.

In terms of this rule, I want to point out something. There was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). It was germane, and it complied with the Republicans' new cut-go rules. It simply required that anyone who gets a lease under this bill would have to give preference to hiring veterans--the men and women who we have sent over to Afghanistan and Iraq. When they come back, we ought to go out of our way to make sure they have jobs. This amendment was voted down in the Rules Committee, an amendment to help our veterans.

I mean, it is unbelievable to me that the Republicans voted this amendment down. Maybe there's a reason someone could give me on the other side of the aisle as to why this was ruled out of order. It was germane, and it complied with the cut-go rules; but the idea that we're not going out of our way to help our veterans, I think, is unconscionable.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

It appears, based on what I'm hearing here, that what the Republicans are dedicated to is helping the oil companies make more profits but doing nothing to help the consumer.

With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member on the Resources Committee, Mr. Markey.

I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Rules Committee talked about all the people she stands with. I want to know

why she didn't stand with the veterans last night when we had a vote that would help make sure our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would have preference in terms of these so-called new jobs that were going to be created. I find it unconscionable that the Rules Committee did not make that amendment in order, the Boswell amendment.

At this time, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does absolutely nothing to lower gas prices, and it does everything to increase profits for the big oil companies. Again, I repeat the question that I have been asking over and over again: why was the amendment that would help our veterans get jobs on their return from Iraq and Afghanistan defeated in the Rules Committee? I have no idea why.

At this point, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield myself 5 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. This bill does nothing, nothing at all to lower

fuel costs, and everything to increase the profits by big oil companies. I think it shows where the priority of the Republican Party is at this moment.

At this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to remind the gentlewoman that the Department of Energy says that if we go ahead with this plan, prices will go down by 3 cents to 5 cents in the year 2030.

If you're serious about alternative forms of energy, then my question is, Why have you defunded all the programs that would fund those new clean, green jobs?

While my Republican friends cut Medicare; while they cut fuel assistance for elderly people who can't afford the cost of fuel during the cold months; while they cut Pell Grants; while they go out of their way to protect the tax cuts of Donald Trump and millionaires while putting all the burden to reduce the deficit on middle class families; while they protect the subsidies for big oil companies, it is shameful. It is shameful that with the record profits that Big Oil is making, that taxpayers continue to subsidize them by billions of dollars. It is unconscionable.

Do you want to reduce the deficit? My friends on the other side go after programs that benefit the poor. They protect programs like corporate welfare that goes to big oil companies.

We should be investing in alternative forms of energy. We should be investing in cleaner and greener technologies. That's what we have been trying to do, but my friends on the other side have been obstructing everything that we have proposed.

They say they want to not be so reliant on fossil fuels in the future, and yet they cut the very programs that will allow us to become more energy independent. This bill here will do nothing, absolutely nothing, zero, to impact the price of gasoline. It does nothing.

Everybody knows how Big Oil operates, and they do whatever they want to do. At a time when they're raising their prices, they're going to make more money this year than they did last year. It's outrageous what they're doing to the American people, how they're gouging the American people.

This bill is not an answer to anything. It is just a sound bite for them to go home and say, hey, we did something, knowing it will never pass the Senate, but also knowing that even if it did pass the Senate and if the President signed it, it would mean nothing.

So rather than focusing on things to help create jobs, to help make it in America, to help create more products in this country, we are going through these ridiculous exercises every week on different subjects; and today it happens to be a bill that is a big wet kiss to Big Oil.

To me, this is the wrong thing we should be taking our time up doing. We should be talking about how should we create jobs in this country, how do we put people back to work. And, yes, we should be talking about ways that we could truly reduce the cost of energy for consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I am urging that we defeat the previous question. I will offer an amendment, if we defeat the previous question to the rule, to provide that, immediately after the House adopts the rule, it will bring up H.R. 1367, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Peters.

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.

One final thing, Mr. Speaker. Again, we had an amendment in the Rules Committee offered by Mr. Boswell that would help give hiring preferences to our veterans who are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it was defeated. That is an outrage.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that American companies develop the next generation of high-tech fuel-efficient vehicles. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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