Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources, to establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal, and for other purposes.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 257 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

House Resolution 257 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1231. The rule makes in order eight amendments, all of which comply with the rules of the House. Of the eight, seven are Democratic amendments.

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act. This legislation, which will have profound impacts on our domestic energy supply, our national security, and our economy, is ripe for consideration by this body. It is no secret that Americans are feeling the pain at the pump. In my congressional district in western New York, my constituents, my family, my wife and I are routinely forced to pay in excess of $4 per gallon for gasoline for automobiles. We need to develop policies that will lessen our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, create stability in the financial markets, and provide relief to our constituents. In addition, this piece of legislation will create American jobs.

We must get our financial and energy priorities in order. We can no longer be held victim to instability in the Middle East and across the world. The United States must develop our own energy solutions which will reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

Most importantly, this will create American jobs. H.R. 1231 is one more example of our conference's commitment to developing domestic natural oil and gas resources. It adopts a philosophy that we need to drill smart, drill where the resources are, and produce our own energy.

Drilling for oil and natural gas can be done safely and responsibly. There have been millions of wells drilled in the United States. There is a strong record of sound environmental practices. Total petroleum industry spillage has decreased consistently over the last 40 years.

H.R. 1231 does two things. First, the legislation requires that in developing a 5-year offshore leasing plan for drilling the Outer Continental Shelf, that each 5-year plan must include leases for sale in the areas containing the greatest known oil and natural gas reserves. For the 2012-2017 plan being written by the Obama administration, this would mean targeted lease sales only in those areas estimated to contain 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. At least 50 percent of those areas must be made available for leasing in the 2012-2017 plan.

Second, this legislation requires the implementation of production goals during the 5-year plan being written by the Obama administration. For this period, the goal would be 3 million barrels of oil per day and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from American domestic sources of energy. This increase in oil production equates to a tripling of current American offshore production and will reduce significantly foreign imports by nearly one-third. Most importantly, this will create American jobs and protect our national security interests.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from the Wall Street Journal by former Democratic Member Harold Ford.

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2011]

Washington vs. Energy Security

(By Harold Ford, Jr.)

Even former President Clinton calls the Obama

administration's deep water drilling policy `ridiculous.'

When President Obama introduced his energy plan in March,

he pointed out that the U.S. keeps going ``from shock to

trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose

action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button

when they fall again.''

It's true that since the Nixon administration U.S. leaders

have all made the same commitment to cutting our reliance on

foreign oil, finding reliable sources of clean energy, and

keeping energy prices low. Yet Americans keep hearing only

short-term solutions and narrowly focused rules and

regulations. The U.S. still imports more than half its oil,

gasoline prices are at historic highs, and consumers are

paying the price.

One bipartisan policy tradition is to deny Americans the

use of our own resources. President George H.W. Bush took

aggressive steps to keep off-limits vast supplies of oil and

gas along the coasts of California and Florida. Since then,

the build-up of restrictions, limitations and bans on

drilling (onshore and off) have cost the U.S. economy

billions of dollars while increasing our dependence on

foreign sources of energy.

In the year since the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Obama

administration has put in place what is effectively a

permanent moratorium on deep water drilling. It stretched out

the approval process for some Gulf-region drilling permits to

more than nine months, lengths that former President Bill

Clinton has called ``ridiculous.''

Then there's tax policy. Why, when gas prices are climbing,

would any elected official call for new taxes on energy? And

characterizing legitimate tax credits as ``subsidies'' or

``loopholes'' only distracts from substantive treatment of

these issues. Lawmakers misrepresent the facts when they call

the manufacturing deduction known as Section 199--passed by

Congress in 2004 to spur domestic job growth--a ``subsidy''

for oil and gas firms. The truth is that all U.S.

manufacturers, from software producers to filmmakers and

coffee roasters, are eligible for this deduction.

We won't achieve energy security by restricting our own

companies from drilling or singling them out for punitive

taxes. We're talking about an industry that provides millions

of jobs and, for the foreseeable future, the power for our

economic growth.

So our focus right now has to be to find ways to encourage

domestic energy supplies, even while we encourage new sources

of energy. President Obama is right that this isn't a long-

term solution. But we can't lose sight of what the country

needs today.

Here are a few steps to take:

First, let's conduct a comprehensive review of existing

policies, rules and restrictions and root out any that

needlessly hamper energy production at home. Do the existing

environmental rules, for example, accurately reflect the

industry's technological advancements in the ability to

safely recover oil and gas supplies?

Second, let's develop the skills we need to find new and

better ways to recover domestic supplies of energy--and to

develop next-generation fuels to secure the future. That

means encouraging more students to study math, science and

other disciplines this industry needs.

And third, let's stop demonizing Big Oil to score political

points. It does nothing to encourage the new talent, new

ideas, and new entrepreneurs who are most likely to make

breakthroughs in new sources of energy.

The kickoff of the presidential campaign season and the

spike in fuel prices offer an opportunity to constructively

debate a comprehensive national energy strategy. Effective

policies will ensure sufficient domestic production and the

healthy operation of U.S. companies abroad, which together

will provide the secure, affordable energy supply that

Americans need.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, can I respectfully ask how much time remains on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on this rule and on this bill, I think this side of the aisle is demonstrating to all of America that we are listening.

Right now, with gas prices going through the roof, right now, with people suffering high unemployment across the Nation, we have before us a rule and a bill that will undoubtedly create jobs, 1.2 million jobs, according to economist Dr. Joseph Mason.

We have a bill and a plan that is going to bring us closer to less dependency on foreign energy supplies. It will reduce foreign oil imports by nearly one-third.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the aisle are going to deal with the American people in an honest fashion. We are not going to scare the American people. We are going to have an open and honest conversation with the American people. We will lead. And what we are doing here is answering a call that the American people have reached out to us to do, and that is to commit to our domestic supplies of energy so that we have energy supplies that will allow manufacturers in the private sector to create the new opportunities for generations of Americans that are yet to come.

This is not a bill that is about protecting Big Oil. This is not about tax subsidies. I take great disagreement with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they say we are fighting for tax subsidies for Big Oil. What they are talking about is intangible drilling costs. They are talking about basic tax policy where there are income and expenses that are being calculated and deducted off income taxes. It goes back to my life in the private sector when I read income and expense sheets. All we are talking about are expenses, not tax subsidies.

If we want to engage in rhetoric, that's fine. But we are focused on the substance of the issue, and that substance is getting Americans back to work, 1.2 million jobs under this proposal. We will generate $800 million in revenue over 10 years, and we are going to lead.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation by voting in favor of both.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, the Americans suffering from $4 a gallon gas today, $5 a gallon gas next month must feel like they're experiencing a sense of deja vu. It was just three short years ago, in 2008, when gasoline prices reached a record high of $4.11 per gallon. Those high prices cut deep into the pockets of Americans that summer and generated enough public outcry to force Congress to act.

That fall, the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Republican President took bipartisan action to lift the offshore drilling ban that had been in place for decades. This monumental step opened up all of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to new offshore energy production. Three years later, most Americans would likely be shocked to learn that no energy development has happened in these new areas and that they have actually once again been placed off-limits.

The progress that was made in 2008 by lifting the drilling moratorium has been completely reversed by the Obama administration. The President says he wants to ``win the future,'' but his policies are taking us back to the past.

Now American families and businesses are once again facing $4 gasoline, as I said, $5 the first of June; and we're no further ahead in expanding American energy production than we were 3 years ago. That's outrageous and unacceptable.

The House has already passed two bills to increase offshore energy production, create jobs, and lower prices. Today, we will vote on a third offshore drilling bill, H.R. 1231, in order to reverse the moratorium that President Obama has single-handedly placed on new offshore drilling.

This bill requires the administration to move forward with offshore lease sales in areas containing the most oil and natural gas. For the 2012-2017 lease plan being written by the Obama administration, this would include areas containing at least 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Based on the government's own estimates of our oil and natural resources, this would open up areas in the north and central Atlantic coasts, the southern California coast, and offshore Alaska.

Even in the face of rising gasoline prices, the President wants to drill nowhere new. This bill says let's move forward with leasing and drilling in those areas where we know America has real and significant resources. In contrast to the President's drill nowhere new plan, this is a drill smart plan.

This bill requires the Secretary to set specific production goals for 5-year plans. For 2012-2017 it sets a goal of 3 million barrels of oil per day and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by the year 2027. By comparison to today's levels, this increase of oil equates

to a tripling of current American offshore production and would reduce foreign imports by nearly one-third.

This bill will not only significantly increase American energy production; it would also create good-paying American jobs. Economist Dr. Joseph Mason testified that this bill would create 250,000 jobs short term and 1.2 million jobs long term.

This bill will also generate hundreds of millions in new revenue to help strengthen our economy and pay down the national debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will generate $800 million in revenue over the next 10 years.

Recent polls show that the majority of Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and independents--all support increased offshore drilling. They recognize that our national economic security should not be left in the hands of Iranian-led OPEC and that expanding American energy production will translate into more jobs, more revenue and lower gasoline prices.

Madam Chairman, the Obama administration is trying to lead us into a supposedly new era of time without understanding the importance of fossil fuels. It is the largest tax on every family. Approximately $1,100, Mr. and Mrs. America, you're paying to the Obama administration in taxes because of the high cost of oil, high cost of gas to you.

It's time America steps up and becomes independent from those that have been selling this oil for the past 25 years. It's not just this President. This has been going on for a while. But next year we're going to send $400 billion overseas to the countries that do not like us, that do not create one American job, not anything for America--send the money over and buy foreign oil.

I watched the President say this down in Brazil, We want to be your partner. You are developing new oil fields, and we want to buy your gasoline. So Mr. And Mrs. America, keep in mind, we have the fossil fuels, we have the opportunity, and it's time that we open the offshore for development of the good State of America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

I appreciate the gentleman's comments on why he represents the area he represents. But he did vote against ANWR, has supported no production, very, very important to me.

I can say one thing. The Obama administration, I got a big kick out of someone saying we can blame the President. I can remember Bush was in office for 8 years and we blamed him for the earthquakes and the tsunami and I don't know what else.

What bothers me the most is that this country moves its economy with fossil fuels. Our trucks, our ships, our planes, our automobiles and our trains are all using fossil fuels and must do so. That's what moves our commerce. That's also what will raise the price for everybody and every household in this Nation. It is being taxed by these high costs of fossil fuel.

We can stabilize that cost if we're allowed to produce off our shores and on our shores. But to not say we're going to produce any more oil-- which is exactly what this administration is saying, because they want to transfer into a new era of time. We want to transfigure the country into a new era of time. We don't care about jobs. We don't care what happens to the economy. We're going to do it because we're right. I'm saying you're dead wrong.

Can we use the fossil fuel in America to use it as a bridge to new fuels? Yes. But you cannot stop using fossil fuels. We're buying $400 billion a year overseas from foreign countries, bleeding this country every day. It's time we get on with the job.

At this time, Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I say there were no facts presented in that last presentation. There were opinions; there were no facts. When everybody says never mind the facts, there were no facts there. That's all opinion.

One thing that bothers me most, they talk about what the oil companies made. They made it overseas; they made it overseas selling us oil. These are international companies. International companies. That is something that really disturbs me, when you understand we're burning oil produced overseas, yes, by the same companies that work in the United States.

And, yes, they did lay off 10,000 people, because of this moratorium this President laid in place in Louisiana in the gulf. There's where the jobs are lost.

The biggest economic impact of the Horizon spill was the loss of employment of the people in Louisiana, Alabama, and the Gulf of Texas, the loss of jobs, loss of oil to this country.

That's the thing that concerns me, because there are no facts about the profits made and the people laid off, other than the fact it was done by the Obama administration.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1231. I had offered amendments because I believe in responsible increase in offshore drilling. I offered amendments to improve upon this bill that would have provided for revenue sharing with coastal states and a study and report back to Congress to ensure that the Department of Interior has proper funding for staffing and training and technical engineers and such other personnel as is necessary to responsibly increase offshore drilling.

As a Representative from an oil and gas producing District and state, I am aware that offshore drilling is an important component of the nation's energy supply and provides many Gulf communities with significant jobs and income.

My state supplies 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one- third of the nation's natural gas production; a quarter of the nation's refining capacity and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.

The Texas energy and petrochemical clusters employ 600,000 people, which represent 70 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of the total U.S. workforce in those industries.

Houston is home to some of the world's largest oil, gas, and petrochemical facilities.

As the fourth most populous city in the United States, and the greater Houston area remains a diversified regional economy, with the energy industry contributing 50 percent of our economic base for employment. Even so there is no denying the importance of the energy industry for creating jobs in Houston and across our Nation.

We have consistently led the nation in petroleum production since the early 10th century and we have one-fourth of total U.S. oil reserves.

As a coastal state we provide the resources and the mechanisms to support the offshore drilling industry and we also bare the highest risk to our natural resources. Its stands to reason that we should also have access to revenue generated from Offshore leases.

Federal Revenues from offshore leases were estimated at $18.0 billion in FY 2008 by the Department of the Interior. During the previous 10 years (1998-2007), revenues from federal OCS leases reached as high as $7.6 billion in FY 2006. Higher prices for oil and gas are the most significant factors in the revenue swings. Of the $18.0 billion offshore revenue in FY 2008, $8.3 billion was from royalties and $9.5 billion came from bonus bids. Coastal states can use that money to further support the industry that utilizes our highways and waterways.

A significant portion of oil and gas produced from Gulf Outer Continental Shelf leases is transported to those refineries for processing via offshore pipeline through state waters.

Providing coastal states with additional access to revenue will enable these states to protect their natural resources and advance the transport of oil, gas, and petrochemicals across the United States.

Coastal States like Texas with energy development off their shores in federal waters have been seeking additional federal revenues generated off our shores.

We particularly want more assistance for coastal areas that may be most affected by onshore and near-shore activities that support offshore energy development.

Currently, the affected states receive revenue indirectly from offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters. This is in contrast to the direct revenues to states that have onshore federal leases within their boundaries.

Coastal states bear the greatest risks if there is a disaster. Because of the current and wind patterns in the Gulf of Mexico, Texas' coastal natural resources are most at risk for environmental damage in the event of an oil spill from an offshore production platform or pipeline. In addition, a substantial portion of federal Outer Continental Shelf production is refined in Texas and then transported via state highways or pipeline located in the state.

A significant amount of the infrastructure that will be used to explore and develop the resources in these new lease sales will be constructed in Texas and transported through state waters. The same might be said for other coastal states whose shores and resources are dedicated to offshore drilling.

Annual rental rates are $5-$9.50 per acre, with lease sizes generally ranging from 2,500-5,760 acres. However, annual rental rates for the March 2009 sale in the Central Gulf of Mexico begins at $11.00 per acre for lease in water depths over 200 meters. Initial lease terms of 5-10 years are standard, and leases continue as long as commercial quantities of hydrocarbons are being produced.

Demand for petroleum products in the U.S. remains strong. In 2005, each of the estimated 296 million people in the U.S. used an average of almost three gallons of petroleum every day. In 1978, the average American used 3.5 gallons per day.

In 2006, crude oil imports totaled 10.1 million barrels per day (MBD), two-thirds of the total U.S. supply of 15.2 MBD, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). After several additions of other petroleum products by refiners and fuel blenders, total petroleum consumption came to 20.6 MBD for 2006.

The oil and gas industry supports job growth in my state of Texas and across our nation.

In Texas, the oil and gas industry supports 1.7 million jobs and approximately 25 percent of the state's economy, whereas nationwide the industry supports 9.2 million jobs and 7.5 percent of our nation's economy.

We should focus our attention on providing the Department of Interior with funding and resources it needs to provide for training and staffing of technical engineers and other such necessary personnel to review drilling permit applications and determine future offshore lease sale areas.

The Department of Interior must be properly funded and staffed with technical engineers to review permits, examine lease sales, and ensure that each application is afforded proper consideration

For these reasons, I urge the Members as they vote on this important measure which certainly relates to job creation and national energy independence, that they consider a fair and balance approach as we aim to protect the environment and determine the most responsible measures to provide for the energy our nation requires.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1231. This bill will ensure that our federal offshore oil and natural gas resources are accessible to us. This is essential for America's energy security.

For years, I have supported bills that would increase funding to research and development projects dealing with new and cleaner energy sources as well as provide financial incentives to produce energy from wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, for consumers to purchase fuel efficient vehicles, increase energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, and promote public transit efforts. I will continue to support programs and projects seeking to create cleaner energy technologies because we all benefit from a cleaner environment.

Finally, coming from Texas, which is the nation's leader in renewable energy production and a pioneer in developing its own state portfolio standard, I support efforts to promote renewable energy production that meets the unique circumstances and resources of each state.

But even with these increases in renewable energy, the Energy Information Administration found that oil, natural gas, and coal will continue to make up the large majority of U.S. energy use in 2030 and beyond. As our nation's energy demand continues to increase, reasonable access and exploration of our offshore resources is a key component of our nation's energy security.

It is our job to provide affordable and reliable supplies of energy to American consumers, and this bill will help in our effort.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.