Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would ask him a couple of questions about bills that are not on the announcement. The gentleman and I had a colloquy last week about student loans, that there's no action on those on the calendar for next week, if I'm correct.

Knowing, as we know, that student loan rates will double in July from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, and in light of our discussion last week, can the gentleman tell me whether there is any thought that there will be some action taken by us prior to the July 4 break?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Very frankly, I wasn't going to mention what happened on the floor today, but the gentleman has brought it up.

The gentleman is correct; the committee passed out a bipartisan bill. A lot of Democrats voted for that bill. The problem, of course, is that 62 Republicans voted against the bill as it was amended, notwithstanding the fact they voted for the last amendment that was adopted, which we think was a draconian amendment that would have hurt the poorest citizens in our country very badly.

So we turned a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill. I will tell my friend, very frankly, you did the same thing--not you personally, but your side of the aisle did the same thing with respect to the Homeland Security bill, which was reported out on a voice vote from the Appropriations Committee, that we would have voted for on a bipartisan basis, except an amendment was adopted with your side voting overwhelmingly for it, knowing full well that our side could not support that.

So I tell you, with all due respect, Mr. Majority Leader, I wasn't going to bring up what happened today. But what happened today is you turned a bipartisan bill--necessary for our farmers, necessary for our consumers, necessary for the people of America--that many of us would have supported and you turned it into a partisan bill.

Very frankly, 58 of the 62 Republicans who voted against your bill voted for the last amendment, which made the bill even more egregious-- we disagreed with the $20 billion cut. And you upped the--not you personally, but your side upped the ante.

So I will tell you, my friend, we're prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion. Very frankly, with respect to the student loan bill, it was very close to the President's bill. And we would have supported it had it been even closer to the President's bill.

What your bill does, as you know, puts those taking out a student loan at risk of having their interest rates substantially increased in the future. The President suggested, yes, let's get a variable rate that reflects market rates, but then when you take out the loan, just like you do with your house loan, you know what your interest rate is going to be. So we have a difference on that. I think it's a good faith disagreement on that.

But I will say to you that, yes, I have been concerned about the inability to take a bill reported out of the committee that is bipartisan in nature and not turn it into a partisan bill. That's what happened on this floor today. It was unfortunate, as I say, for farmers; it was unfortunate for consumers; and it was unfortunate for our country.

If the gentleman wants to pursue that, I will yield to him.

I thank the gentleman. We clearly have a profound disagreement.

When we were in the majority, we got no help on your side, Mr. Majority Leader--you remember that, zero, one, two, three, four--on programs that we felt very strongly about. There was no opportunity to have bipartisan dialogue. There was no opportunity to have bipartisan agreement.

The gentleman refers to regular order. Very frankly, the person who talks about regular order most is your Speaker. And you talk about regular order. We ought to pass a bill, and then we ought to go and have an agreement.

Some 90 days ago, I believe, we passed a budget. At your insistence, the Senate passed a budget. Good for them. We have not gone to conference. You have not provided an opportunity to go to conference. You haven't appointed conferees. That's regular order. The gentleman wants it on one bill but apparently not all bills.

I tell my friend we want regular order. We want to go to conference. We want to undo the breaking of an agreement that we made in the Budget Control Act, which said there would be a firewall between domestic and defense. You have eliminated that firewall.

You have assumed sequester is in place. Sequester is bad for this country. You and I tend to agree on that, I think. But the fact is there's no legislation to undo that sequester--except the legislation you talked about passing in the last Congress, which is dead, gone and buried. Yes, we want regular order.

The reason the bill lost today is because 62 of your Members rejected Mr. Lucas' plea--which I thought was a very eloquent plea--in which he said: I know some of you don't think there's enough reform in this bill, and some of you think there's too much reform. But Mr. Peterson and I brought out a bill that was a bipartisan bill, supported by the majority of Democrats and the majority of--I think all Republicans, maybe, on the committee; I'm not sure of that, Mr. Leader. But the fact of the matter is it was a bipartisan bill--just as Homeland Security was a bipartisan bill--and it was turned into a partisan bill.

You respond that the Southland amendment was for reforms. That's exactly what Mr. Lucas was talking about. He was saying some people don't think we went far enough and some people think we went too far. Mr. Southerland thought we hadn't gone far enough. And 58 Republicans voted for Southerland and then turned around and voted against the bill, the very reforms you're talking about.

So don't blame Democrats for the loss today. You didn't bring up the farm bill when it was reported out on a bipartisan basis. Last year you didn't even bring it to the floor because your party couldn't come together supporting their chairman's bill.

So that's where we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't going to bring up that bill at all. What happened, happened.

Very frankly, when we lost on the floor, it was because we lost on the floor when we were in the majority. We produced 218 votes for almost everything we put on this floor. Don't blame Democrats for the failure to bring 218 Republicans to your bipartisan Lucas-supported and Peterson-supported piece of legislation on the floor. We believe that that loss, that partisanship on this bill, hurt farmers, hurt consumers, hurt our country.

Let's bring that bill back to the floor and have a vote on it as it was reported out on a bipartisan basis. I think it would pass. Maybe not because of your votes. That's been your problem all along.

Don't blame Democrats for the loss of that bill. Don't blame Democrats for being partisan.

We knew about those amendments, Mr. Leader, just as you knew about them. You knew we were very much opposed to some of those amendments, notwithstanding the fact all the leadership, I believe--I haven't looked at the record--voted for those amendments just as they voted for the King amendment on Homeland Security.

Yeah, you pushed my button.

I'm prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion, but I'm not prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion when it's said, This is what we agree on-- meaning your side--so you better take it if we're going to have any agreement. That's not the way it works. It never worked that way in America. That's not what America is about. America is about expecting us to work together.

This bill was reported out overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. It could have been passed on a very large bipartisan vote, and was precluded by the actions taken through these amendments on the floor, most of which we did not support. You knew we did not--not only you. Your party knew that we did not support.

So I'm surprised when you talk to me about regular order and there's nothing--nothing--to do on the budget conference that you wanted the Senate to pass a budget. They did. You have just told me that you wanted regular order and that we should have passed the farm bill so we could work together.

You're assuming, of course, that the Senate would have gone to conference. I hope they would have, and I think they would have, because I talked to the chair. She would have wanted to go to conference, assuming we got votes on the Republican side of the aisle.

But we also wanted to go to conference in regular order on the budget to solve the stark differences between the two parties. That's the only way you are going to get from where we are to where you need to be, by having a conference and trying to come to an agreement.

My own premise is, Mr. Leader, that you don't have a conference because there is nothing to which Patty Murray could agree, that Mr. Ryan could agree, that he could bring back to your caucus and get a majority of votes for, because they are for what you passed and nothing more than that. We are $91 billion apart. If we divide it in two and just said, ``Okay, we'll split the difference,'' you couldn't pass it on your side of the aisle, and I think you know that.

I don't know that I have any more questions that would be particularly useful, but I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader continues to want to blame the Democrats for his inability, and the Republicans' inability, to give a majority vote to their own bill.

Maybe the American people, he thinks, can be fooled. You're in charge of the House. You have 234 Members. Sixty-two of your Members voted against your bill. That's why it failed. We didn't whine, very frankly, when we were in charge, when I was the majority leader, about we didn't pass the bill. We got 218 votes for our bills, and it was pretty tough. We got zero from your side. You got 24 from our side to help you. Mr. Peterson stuck to his deal.

Now, on the budget, you say we've got different philosophies. Yes, we do. Mr. Gingrich gave a speech on this floor about different philosophies in 1997 or '98. He was speaking to your side of the aisle. He was talking about the ``perfectionist caucus.'' He made an agreement with President Clinton, which to some degree was responsible for having balanced budgets, but your side thought it was not a good deal. Not all of your side. In a bipartisan vote, frankly, we passed the deal, the agreement, the compromise, that was reached between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Clinton.

A lot of your folks said, No, no. Our way or the highway.

He gave a speech that he called the ``Perfectionist Caucus'' speech. That's what, in my view, I'm hearing on the budget. Yes, we have differences. The American people elected a Democratic President. They elected a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. The only way America's board of directors and President will work is if we come together and compromise.

The place to compromise under regular order is in a conference with our ideas and their ideas meeting in conference. The most central document that we need to do every year is to do a budget. But you're not going to conference. Your side will not appoint conferees. Your side will not move to go to conference. Patty Murray wants to go to conference. Senator Reid wants to go to conference. Your side over on the Senate won't go to conference, in my view, largely because they know you don't want to go to conference and they don't want to make a deal, they don't want to compromise on what their position is.

We will take no blame for the failure of the FARRM Bill--none, zero. As much as you try to say it, you can't get away from the statistic. Sixty-two, otherwise known as 25 percent, of your party voted against a bill, which is why we didn't bring it to the floor last year when it was also reported out in a bipartisan fashion.

I know you are going to continue and your side is going to continue to blame us that you couldn't get the votes on your side for your bill because you took a bipartisan bill. That's what Mr. Lucas was saying--I thought he was very articulate, I thought he was compelling--in pleading with your side: Join us, join us. It doesn't go as far as you would like.

And on reform, you talk about reform, and that's a good thing to talk about, like we're against reform.

The Senate bill has reform in it, Mr. Leader. The Senate bill has reform in it. Now, it's not in terms of dollars cutting poor people as much as this bill does, but it cuts. It has reform in it. What some of them want--what apparently your side wants--is your reform, not compromised reform. Mr. Lucas brought to the floor $20 billion and couched it as reform and said on the floor it may not be enough for some and it may be too much for others, but it is a compromise. He was right, but it was rejected by 25 percent of your party--they rejected the chairman--and that's why this bill failed.

Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for the next hour to bring to the attention of the House of Representatives and to the American people some very important issues pertaining to America's potential to be energy secure.

This is an interesting week that we would have this discussion. This is a week when the House Committee on Natural Resources is bringing forward two bills for consideration that will tear down some of the barriers and remove some of the regulations that have gotten in the way of tapping into the vast resources of oil and gas off our shores.

We know that there's been growth in oil and gas development in our country, but not offshore. And yet we know there are vast resources that would be very, very important to America's energy security.

At the same time, this week we also have our President, who made official his declaration of war against coal, stating, once again, that fossil fuels are the bad guy somehow. At a time when we're looking to create jobs, create wealth, create opportunity, he puts up yet more barriers to the development of these vast resources of fossil fuels.

Since coming to Congress 6 months ago, I have heard our President and his allies in this Chamber often reference the fact that since Barack Obama was elected President, America's oil and gas production have actually increased. They brag about this increased production and the jobs that it creates as though they had something to do with it.

Well, on behalf of the citizens of my State of North Dakota, let me just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you're welcome because the fact of the matter is that, yes, production of oil and gas in this country is up. It is up, except where the Federal Government is the landlord, because the large reserves under Federal lands and offshore resources are going untapped because of Democratic opposition to using the incredible opportunity that

new technologies have created to get us more jobs, more opportunity, and more energy secure.

I want to illustrate a point today by reading one sentence from a recently released State Personal Income Growth Analysis put out by the United States Department of Commerce. Here's the sentence. It's very profound:

State personal income growth ranged from a -.2 percent in

South Dakota to 12.4 percent in North Dakota.

That's right. Two rectangles in the center of the North American map, two Dakotas, side by side, two States that basically have the same size and land mass, the same size in population, the same climate, same cultures, they grow vast amounts of food to feed a hungry world.

We're similar in nearly every way. And yet the Dakotas differ in one significant way, and that is my State of North Dakota has fossil fuels that South Dakota does not have.

I point to this distinction because I believe it represents the possibilities of America. It represents what can be done in much of our Nation if the Federal Government would just get out of the way and allow the unleashing of American ingenuity and the development of American energy.

Instead, what we get from our President is more restrictions on the use of fossil fuels and more fantasizing about unproven, uneconomical, unreliable alternatives. And while billions of tax dollars get wasted experimenting on whimsical dreams of a carbonless future, American job opportunities are lost and our debt rises.

Our President continues to pursue an energy policy based on an old model, an old model of resource scarcity, rather than on the new reality of resource abundance.

According to the Institute of Energy Research, underneath Federal land and offshore, that is to say, Federal oil and gas reserves, at today's prices, the United States taxpayer has $128 trillion worth of fossil fuels that we're not tapping into.

Resource abundance: abundance based on the application of new technologies is transforming our economy and has us on the path to security. And North Dakota is evidence of what can be done in our country.

But there are a lot of speakers today that have a lot to offer in this discussion and this debate, and right now I'd like to yield to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Thank you for sharing that, and for the invitation. I very much appreciate your referencing the cost of energy. Affordable energy, after all, really is a driving factor in many other investment decisions and job opportunities. And I think we'll have much more on that as we work through this important hour of discussion.

With that, I would like to yield some time to my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I appreciate his raising the point of the war on coal and talking about the economic benefits of coal in Pennsylvania.

I don't know if anybody noticed, but deep in that 21-page declaration of war on coal, or the climate change document, the President actually talks about another important fossil fuel that Pennsylvania is tapping into--and that's gas--in the attack on methane. So those that think perhaps natural gas will be the next great fuel to replace coal ought to think again, because as soon as they have their way shutting down every coal plant, they'll be after the gas plants as well. We truly need an all-of-the-above.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

Thank you so much. Thanks for your stories. I think they illustrate so beautifully the importance of an all-of-the-above energy policy that keeps prices rolling.

You know, one of the things I thought about as you were talking about jobs and this cascading impact of this war on coal and war on fossil fuels, there is a survey every year that's taken by an area development magazine, it's called Site Selector Survey. It asks site selectors, What are the characteristics, what are the factors that you look at when making a determination of where to put a manufacturing facility or some other business?

When I was an economic development director 15 years ago, the cost of available energy was somewhere between 15th and 20th on the list. It's moved up to the top five. Our competitive advances in the global marketplace rest with our ability to keep energy costs low.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who has provided real leadership on some of the issues we are going to be taking up this week.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership today and his leadership on this important legislation coming out of the Natural Resources Committee.

I would like to speak specifically to some more economic opportunity as illustrated from my home State of North Dakota just to get a sense of it.

North Dakota's gross domestic product increased from $34 billion in 2011 to $38.7 billion in 2012. That's a 13.4 percent increase, representing the most significant growth of any State in the country last year. Texas is second with a growth rate of 4.8 percent, where the national average during the same time was 2.5 percent.

So it can happen. It happened in my State because the vast majority of the oil and gas in North Dakota is not under Federal land. The vast majority--like over 90 percent--is under private land, where the only landowner is the guy that farms and ranches the land, the person whose sustainability demands good stewardship. We can show the way in how to do it around the country as well as offshore if you just unleash American ingenuity.

I suspect that my good friend from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) might have a thing or two to say about this week's declaration of war on coal, and so I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his good leadership on this important topic on the importance of coal as a major player in our energy fleet.

If I could just for a second, Mr. Speaker, inquire about the balance of time available in the hour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky's speaking to the issue of coal, because like oil and gas, coal is also important to North Dakota. It's an industry that's been around for decades. In fact, we really learned about energy development in North Dakota on coal. We have a little better than 17,000 folks that are employed either directly in the coal industry or in one of the service industries that service the coal industry. It contributes about $3.5 billion to our State's economy. That's a lot in our little State.

We've been mining coal for decades. We've been mining 30 million tons a year for decades. We use that coal right in North Dakota, burning it to generate electricity at seven power plants in our State, and we generate some of the lowest priced electricity in the country. Again, getting to the issue of affordable energy, very important in terms of our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

So it's not just about the jobs, as important as those are--high-paid jobs, I

might add--but it's also about the competitive edge it gives us with lower cost electricity.

But in North Dakota, under our beautiful prairies, there's an 800- year supply of coal. To wage war on it today and leave 800 years' worth of a product that provides wealth and jobs and opportunity and low-cost electricity in the ground makes no sense whatsoever.

With that, I want to yield some time to my neighbor and good friend who knows a fair bit about the energy industry himself--in fact, I have to admit the Bakken was actually discovered in the State of Montana-- the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I especially appreciate your reference to the Keystone pipeline and to the importance of the role of electric cooperatives.

A lot of people forget that there is a Keystone pipeline. There was actually one sited and built with very little fanfare. I was at that time a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission and carried the pipeline portfolio and sited the first 220 miles in the United States of the original Keystone pipeline. It didn't go anywhere near the Bakken, unfortunately; but it did cross 600 landowners' land--green field all the way, two scenic rivers. We put a lot of restrictions on it, but it was with very little fanfare. In fact, every landowner willingly signed the contract. There wasn't a single inch of that pipeline in North Dakota that had to be condemned to be built.

It was interesting because we have, I think, five or six pumping stations in North Dakota on the original Keystone, and the co-ops were all sort of arguing about whose territory would it be in because every pumping station was a load equivalent to a city of 10,000 people. For those who argue that it's not about the United States, the Keystone XL, that's big time for the people of North Dakota and for the people of the United States. It is about the United States. So I appreciate your raising that issue.

Another State that has a lot to lose in the war on coal and a lot to gain by more offshore drilling is Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Thank you so much for your insights and your experience in this very important industry of coal and all of the things that it supports and that support it.

I think that an appropriate way to sort of wrap this discussion up is to remind folks that while we are advocates for domestic energy development, American energy production that creates a competitive global advantage in all areas, we are also good stewards of the environment.

Let me just close with this. These counties in North Dakota that have seven power plants burning coal, all got A ratings from the American Lung Association. And I believe that the same God that created the beauty and splendor of the oceans and the mountains and the prairies and the topsoil, put the minerals underneath it, and we ought to use all of them for our benefit.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank you so much for the opportunity to speak this afternoon on these important issues.

It's true that offshore in Virginia is something we've been discussing since 2004. What's interesting is that a lot of the folks said, You don't really want to do that in 2004. It's not going to really help gas prices. Do you know why? Because it will take 7 to 10 years to get it developed.

Guess what? If we'd have started in 2004 drilling off the coast of Virginia, we'd be getting that natural gas, and we'd be getting that oil off the coast of Virginia right now. It would be creating jobs. It would be creating tax dollars that could go to schools, roads--you name it--whatever the legislature in Virginia decided it wanted to spend it on. It could be going to increase the revenues of the United States of America as well. Likewise, this Congress could then be debating the expenditure of those funds and what we wanted to do with those moneys.

Instead, the naysayers keep saying, Well, not now, not now. I say to them, If not now, when? When are we going to do this? We know it's out there. We know it's a huge resource for the United States of America.

Then yesterday, on top of blocking our ability to get from the other side of the State the natural gas and the oil that is there and that we know is there and that we want to get to, the President of the United States declared what I call the ``war on coal--phase 2.'' He has already been involved in phase 1 for some time, but in his comments yesterday, he made it clear that he's not going to wait for science to get us a solution--because it's coming. There is research that's being done on chemical looping and on other ways to use coal cleanly, where you end up with coal ash and carbon dioxide--no SOx, no NOX, no mercury. It's coal ash and carbon dioxide, and you can recycle the iron pellets that they use. I mean, it's really a wonderful process, but we have testing left to do on it. It has already been working at Ohio State University. They are building a facility in Alabama, and they are going to be doing testing beginning later this year that will end next year on a bigger project than what they did at Ohio State, but still it's got another phase to go even after that.

If we wait just a few years and if we do reasonable things now and if we wait for science to catch up, we can, in fact, accomplish what the President wants to accomplish on the environment and not destroy the jobs of southwest Virginia, the central Appalachia region and all other coal-producing States. There are more than 20 of them that are coal- producing States. We will be damaging their economies if we go forward.

It's interesting that the President noted in his speech and said:

Now, what you'll hear from the special interests and their

allies in Congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the

economy.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's exactly what you'll hear. Do you know why you're going to hear it? Because it's true.

And if being a special interest means you have to be one of the people that lost their job in the coal fields of southwest Virginia or Kentucky or West Virginia or any of the other States where jobs--we've been losing them monthly. We get reports of another 25 here, another 15 there, people who've been laid off in the coal fields. And it's not just the coal fields. It's the railroads that haul the coal. It's the people at the manufacturing centers that make the equipment for the mines. It's the car dealerships that used to sell cars to the miners, who used to have jobs.

Let me make something clear, folks. Being in the mine is a hard job. There's no question about it. And we want to make sure health concerns are taken into consideration because it does have dangers to it. There is no question about that. But the workers in those mines are making somewhere between $75,000 and $95,000 a year if you add in their benefits. You take a district like mine, the Ninth District of Virginia, where the average household income is around $36,000 a year, and you start laying off 15 $75,000 to $95,000-a-year jobs here with health insurance included, you lay off another 25 jobs here and 30 jobs there, and ladies and gentlemen, you want to talk about destroying the economy, you're darn right you're going to destroy the economy. And if standing up for the special interests of the people who work in the mines, the people who work in the equipment factories, the people who work at the car dealerships, the people who work at the restaurants in southwest Virginia is a bad thing, then I guess I'll just keep doing a bad thing because I will continue to fight for southwest Virginia and the jobs in the coal fields.

The other thing the President went on later to say was that this issue didn't used to be partisan and now it's partisan. Guess what? The President is wrong. This is a bipartisan issue. And I'm going to look at the Bluefield Daily Telegraph and read you some quotes from some of my Democrat colleagues because it's important for the people of America to know that the President may want to divide, but in the coal fields we understand exactly what this is going to do to our jobs and our economy, and ultimately to the economy of the United States of America.

U.S. Representative Nick Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia said:

Obama's climate change plan is misguided and could cost

millions of jobs.

That's not a Republican. That's a Democrat. He goes on.

The misguided, misinformed and untenable policy that the

President put forth this afternoon puts at risk the energy

security of America and the jobs of millions of our citizens.

Rahall continued saying:

Locking away the fuels that power our Nation behind

ideologically imposed barriers will drive up costs for nearly

every business and manner of industrial activity while

driving jobs overseas. Households already struggling to make

ends meet will see energy bills skyrocket.

That's Nick Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia. He goes on to say:

The administration should be advocating new clean-coal

technologies as opposed to crippling regulations.

Isn't that really where the President has been going the whole time? He said in the San Francisco Chronicle interview of 1-17-08:

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know

under a plan of cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would

necessarily skyrocket.

Nick Rahall:

Households already struggling to make ends meet will see

energy bills skyrocket.

The President is doing what he said he was going to do. He declared war on coal, and now he's going to try to see if he can't finish it by devastating the American economy and the economy of southwest Virginia and central Appalachia. It's just not right.

Mr. President, let's look at the science that your administration has invested money into. Chemical looping may be the way that we can both have what we want. I want and my colleagues want jobs for America, tax dollars coming in off of coal severance, natural gas, offshore drilling. We want to see those tax revenues coming in because then we can use that to help Americans. We want to help all Americans. You want to clean up the environment, and so do we. We can do it, but we have to be reasonable.

Let's go forward and look at another Democrat, and that would be Senator Joe Manchin, and he touches on this point in his comments in the Bluefield paper. U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, said:

Obama's plan will have disastrous consequences for not only

the coal industry, but also American jobs and the economy.

Democrat Manchin goes on:

The regulations the President wants to force on coal are

not feasible. And if it's not feasible, it's not reasonable.

It's clear now that the President has declared a war on

coal. It's simply unacceptable that one of the key elements

of his climate change proposal places regulations on coal

that are completely impossible to meet with existing

technology. The fact is clear: our own Energy Department

reports that our country will get 37 percent of our energy

from coal until the year 2040. Removing coal from our energy

mix will have a disastrous consequence for our recovering

economy.

These policies punish American businesses by putting them

at a competitive disadvantage with our global competitors,

and those competitors burn seven-eighths of the world's coal,

and they're not going to stop using coal any time soon. It's

only common sense to use our domestic resources, and that

includes our coal.

Senator Manchin is absolutely right because let me tell you that when we burn coal here and we create jobs here in the United States of America, as you well know, that means we're not sending those manufacturing jobs overseas to another country. Particularly if those countries are in Asia or in some of the emerging economies, they don't have anywhere near the regulations we have. They don't have the regulations we had in the year 2000 or the year 2005 to comply with.

So we can create the goods here, create jobs for Americans, create tax dollars which will help us deal with the national debt and deficit problem. We can do all of that here, and we can do it by burning coal more efficiently and cleaner than the countries that we're competing with. But instead the President wants to ignore all that. He wants to ignore those facts and go forward and say, No, we can't do that.

I go on with the quotes from the San Francisco Chronicle because right now he's not singing the same tune. He goes on to say after the ``skyrocket.''

Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or

bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants,

you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were,

whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their

operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money

on to consumers.

Who are the consumers? I believe the consumers are the average family out there, the single parent trying to raise children, the elderly, the folks trying to struggle with that $36,000-a-year-annual-household income, the miners and the workers in the factories that produce the goods that help the miners do their job who now don't have jobs, they're still going to have that electric bill coming in.

You know, it's interesting that the President actually cut in his budget proposal the LIHEAP money, which is the program to help the people who can't afford to pay their heat bill. So at the same time we're creating more unemployment, we are also going to take away some of the benefits that helps those folks. It just doesn't make sense. The President's policies don't make sense, and I submit to you all that the President needs to rethink this. He needs to look at clean-coal technology because that's the winner for America, for American jobs, for American prosperity and for America to go forward into the future, leading the way.

I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend (Mr. Bishop), for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me.

This rule provides for the consideration of three bills, as enunciated by my friend from Utah. However, the only thing that these bills have in common is that they're overwhelmingly partisan in nature and fail to address the most pressing challenges facing our country. Bottom line: we should be doing all that we can to help struggling Americans get back on their feet.

The first bill, H.R. 1613, had been relatively noncontroversial and could have been addressed under suspension. But instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to take the partisan route by including a provision that waives the Securities and Exchange Commission natural resources extraction disclosure rule of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which requires the disclosure of payments from oil and gas companies to foreign governments. I just simply don't understand why this poison pill was added.

Similarly, H.R. 2231 opens up new, unsafe drilling off the coasts of 14 States at a time when domestic energy production is booming. Furthermore, the bill does virtually nothing--and I asked that question of our colleague, Mr. Duncan from South Carolina--to implement key safety reforms in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and constrains the statutory review process for offshore drilling.

This is a part of the Republicans' ``drill, baby, drill'' energy policy agenda. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to bring bills like this to the floor which contain huge giveaways to Big Oil, it is clear that they're not interested in doing a thing to protect worker safety, the environment, or the tourism and fishing industries. It is astounding that Congress would move forward to open new natural gas and oil leases when this institution has not acted on the recommendation to improve the safety of offshore drilling. If we didn't learn anything at all from BP, we're not ever going to learn anything. The successor to the BP spill commission recently gave Congress a D-plus grade on its legislative response to the spill.

Before opening any new leases, we should enact legislation to improve safety and eliminate or adjust the liability caps upward. We have a pitiable liability cap now of $75 million.

It is time to get real about energy policy. We need to invest in the development of renewable resources, which would reduce our impact on climate change and move us towards true energy independence. These two bills today aren't about gas prices or job creation. They're about bolstering the Republicans' political base and lining the pockets of Big Oil and gas CEOs.

Republicans' refusal to address the sequester and insistence upon limited cuts in the Homeland Security, MilCon/VA, and DOD appropriations bills leave all the other nondefense measures like H.R. 2410 before us today with inadequate funding levels. The refusal by my friends on the other side to appoint conferees to reach a bipartisan compromise on the budget and end the sequester has left us with this disastrous agriculture bill that we saw last week. As my Republican colleagues very well know, there are $214 million in cuts to Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, funding, which will prevent 214,000 eligible applicants from receiving the nutrition they need.

Furthermore, there are $284 million in cuts to Food for Peace that will result in 7.4 million fewer people receiving food aid from the United States. Mr. Speaker, I'd really laugh, except the prioritization of partisanship and politics over responsibility has become par for the course in the Republican-controlled Congress.

As I pointed out before, just last week the Republican partisan farm bill was scuttled. Traditionally--I'm here now 21 years, and that bill, at times that it was brought appropriately, was a bipartisan piece of legislation. Draconian cuts and work requirements imposed upon programs that benefit the poorest among us effectively killed any chance of the FARRM Bill passing. Rather than see passage of a strong, bipartisan bill, Republicans deliberately made it unpalatable to even strong agriculture supporters like myself. These are not the priorities of a Nation that cares about its poor. These are the priorities of a Republican Party that cares only about itself.

The poor are not villains. Many are trapped in inescapable situations due to circumstances totally beyond their control and largely, in many instances, by our making here in this institution. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when those bootstraps, without any nourishment, may be the only thing you have to eat.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would say to my very good friend and namesake, if you can do better, do it.

I'm very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that would allow the House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act. If Congress doesn't act by July 1, undergraduate students in this Nation, all over this Nation, will see a hike in their student loan interest rates.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a friend of mine, the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I would inform my colleague from Utah that I have no further requests for time, and I would ask whether or not he has additional speakers.

I am looking forward to the brilliant verbiage.

Following on from the previous discussion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment, which has been discussed, in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I am tempted to take the 8\1/2\ minutes and, perhaps, not offer as much brilliant verbiage but at least add, without hyperbole, the continuing concern that all of us should have.

I agree with my friend from Utah when he points to the fact that there has been legislation that has come out of the House of Representatives, regardless of who was in the majority, and that it has gone over to the other body and nothing has transpired. But when the American people look at Congress, they are not looking just at the House of Representatives or just at the United States Senate--it is all of us--and it is our responsibility here in the House, particularly as the body that has the Ways and Means Committee, which generates the financial circumstances of this country that ultimately is voted on.

It's our responsibility, in my judgment, to undertake to answer one simple question regarding this loan thing:

Why is it that college students are going to be required to have loan obligations that raise their loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent when Bank X and Bank Y can borrow money from each other for little or nothing at all? That does not make any sense.

We can't do these children this way in this country, and we have an absolute responsibility to all of them to give them the opportunities that many of us had. People here in this House that have come here by way of student loans and some of them have had those opportunities, why not give these children that chance?

Mr. Speaker, the most common critiques of this Congress have been bipartisanship and dysfunction. This rule today for these three bills shows that the Speaker and majority leader are perfectly content with that characterization of their work. Congress doesn't have to be this way.

It isn't always like this. It wasn't like this when I came here in 1992. It was not like this for the greater portion of a decade after I came here in 1992. Instead of appointing budget conferees, instead of passing a farm bill in a bipartisan way, instead of fixing the pending student loan interest rate, instead of replacing the sequester that has been monstrously all over this Nation hindering our economic recovery and instead of preventing us from yet another game of chicken, which we will be doing sometime in the fall over the debt ceiling, we're considering three purely political bills that will only create more partisanship among us and might, I add, ain't going nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, Congress can and must do better.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 11 a.m.; no votes are expected. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business; votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

In addition, I expect the House to take up and pass two bills from the Natural Resources Committee: H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, authored by Chairman Doc Hastings; and H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon

Agreements Authorization Act, sponsored by Representative Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. These two bills continue our efforts to increase domestic energy production to foster an environment of economic growth and lower energy costs for working families.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I anticipate bringing to the floor H.R. 2410, the Agriculture appropriations bill authored by Representative Robert Aderholt of Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that the House has acted, that the position of the House is one very close to where the President's public position on student loans has been. We don't want to see student loan rates double. We also want a long-term solution to the problem on the fiscal end while helping students.

And if the gentleman witnesses what just happened on the floor, it just seems that on bills where there are solutions and bipartisan indications of support, there seems to be a decision by the part of his leadership, perhaps himself, to say, Hey, we're not going to go along with bipartisan work and success, and maybe we're just going to make this a partisan issue. I'm fearful the same is at work on the student loan issue, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that that is not the case, because I know the gentleman shares with me a desire not to allow students to be put in the position of facing a doubling of interest rates if they decide to incur additional student loans.

So I would say to the gentleman, his question, we will stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion--I've indicated so to the White House. The Senate doesn't seem to be able to produce anything. The House is the only one that produced something--very close to what the President's position is--to make student rates variable, to allow for those rates to be capped so the exposure is not what it would be otherwise. Unfortunately, no movement yet. We stand ready to work though.

I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. And allow me to just to respond.

The Southerland amendment to which the gentleman speaks is an amendment that had been discussed for some time with the ranking member, with the chairman--the gentleman himself, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, was aware of Mr. Southerland's amendment.

Mr. Southerland's amendment reflects what many of us believe is a successful formula to apply to a program that has, in the eyes of the GAO, in the eyes of the independent auditors who look at these programs, a program that is in dire need of improvement because of the error rates and the waste and the other things that are occurring in this program.

In addition to that, it reflects our strong belief that able-bodied people should have the opportunity and should go in and be a productive citizen. That's what this amendment says. It gives States an option. It was a pilot project because it reflects a winning formula from the welfare reform program back in 1996 that was put into place, with unequivocal success--able-bodied people going back to work, working families beginning to have productive income, not just taking a check from the government.

There was never an intention at all for our side to say we want to take away the safety net of the food stamp program, absolutely not. This was a pilot project, that was it. It was up to the States whether they wanted to participate to see if they could get more people back to work. Again, consistent with what the GAO reports have said over and over again, these programs are in need of reform.

Again, it was not as if this amendment came out of thin air. The gentleman, the ranking member, the entire leadership on the minority side knew this amendment was there. And the gentleman forever is on this floor, Mr. Speaker, talking about regular order, talking about the need for us to have open process, perhaps to let the will of the House be worked and then go to conference. That was what the goal here was, let the will of the House allowed to be seen through, work its will, and then go to conference. And then we would try and participate in a robust discussion with the other side of the Capitol to see if we could see clear on some reform measures to a bill and a program that is in desperate need of that.

Mr. Speaker, again, what we saw today was a Democratic leadership in the House that was insistent to undo years and years of bipartisan work on an issue like a farm bill and decide to make it a partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that that is the case, I do agree with the gentleman. But I hope that we can see our way to working on other issues where there is potential agreement. Yes, we have fundamental disagreements on many things, but we're all human beings, representing the 740-some thousand people that put us here and expect us to begin to learn to set aside those disagreements and find ways we can work together.

Today was an example. The other side, Mr. Speaker, did not think that was their goal, did not think that was an appropriate mission, and instead decided to emphasize where they perhaps

differed when we wanted to reform in a certain area.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would just say, as far as the budget conference is concerned, the budget is something that traditionally, as he notes, has been a partisan affair. It is a document that each House produces, reflecting the philosophy of the majority of those bodies.

The budget contains a lot of different issues, two of which I think the parties have disagreed on vehemently over the last several years: taxes and health care.

We understand, Mr. Speaker, that the other side rejects our prescription on how to fix the deficit in terms of the unfunded liabilities on the health care programs. We've said we want to work toward a balance. We think a balanced budget is a good thing.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the partisan position on the other side of the Capitol is no balance--no balance--and raise taxes. So when you know that is the situation, there is no construct in which to even begin a discussion.

Again, the budget has traditionally been that, a partisan document, whether who is in charge of which House, and then to be a guide by which you go about spending bills after that.

The farm bill, frankly, is a little different. It's for working farmers. It's for, frankly, individuals who need the benefit of the food stamp program. We believe that you need to reform the SNAP program and reduce some of the costs, because even the GAO--the independent auditors that we bring in--year in and year out say that that program is rife with error rates, waste, and others that we should be ashamed of.

So we put forward our idea through the Southerland amendment to try and reform, put in place, those reforms; but it's still in the construct of the farm bill.

Again, to the gentleman's point, we do want to work together, but it's going to have to be about setting aside differences instead of saying, as the minority leadership did today, You disagree with us on that program, we're out of here. The entire farm bill then does not have a chance to go to conference, be reconciled, hopefully reforms adopted, so we can make some progress, according to what even the independent analysts say should be done.

It really is a disappointing day. I think that the minority has been a disappointing player today, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the people. We remain ready to work with the gentleman. I'm hopeful that tomorrow, perhaps next week, will be a better week.

Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful for my good friend from North Dakota, Kevin Cramer, for this time to talk about what is really important to the people out in the heartland, which sometimes is a very different set of values than what we find right here in the beltway of Washington.

I was also struck by my good friend from Kentucky, Andy Barr, as he shared his comments. It reminds me that we are the party, we are the leaders back here standing for the working middle class in this country, standing for jobs, for revenues that go to our schools, and the tax base for low-cost energy. This President says one thing, but the consequence of this policy is something that will only ultimately benefit the elite and the wealthy in this country instead of the regular working families in this country.

I want to thank my friends here today for organizing this Special Order and bringing attention to the importance of an American energy sector to our economy and to the daily lives of all Americans. In Montana, we know the importance of a robust energy sector.

Whether it's oil, gas, coal, wind, water, biomass, it's all needed to create jobs and keep energy costs low for the people of our country. In fact, one of my priorities in Congress is to fight for the all-of-the- above energy plan that helps grow American jobs, lowers energy costs, and helps us fight for North American energy independence, energy security.

Unfortunately, President Obama does not seem to share this goal. In fact, yesterday, President Obama unveiled his latest energy plan, a job-killing agenda that will hurt American jobs and American families and small businesses.

After his announcement yesterday, President Obama made a commitment to waging war on American energy, which was made crystal clear. In fact, by imposing further barriers to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and by working to severely hinder American coal production, President Obama has unveiled a misguided agenda that will only hurt Montana and American energy consumers and will cost good-paying Montana jobs.

Montana's energy sector is a huge driver for our State's economy. Our coal mining industry employs over 1,200 workers across our State. Montana contains more coal reserves than any other State in America, and it ranks number six overall in coal production nationwide. Additionally, coal production provides critical funding for Montana schools, as much of our State's coal is located on school trust lands. We forget about the contribution to our tax base, that of helping build schools and funding teachers, which comes from the energy industry.

The development of our coal reserves produces millions of dollars for Montana public education every year. My daughter is a senior at Montana State University, preparing to graduate and go into elementary education in Montana. Energy production will be critical to funding our public schools in Montana as we look down the road.

We have also seen tremendous growth from the booming development of the Bakken formation, as my friend from North Dakota alluded to, which spreads across eastern Montana and into western North Dakota. Oil production in our State has created thousands of good-paying jobs, both in the oil fields and also in the service industries that are at the heart of many of our small towns.

I would like to have the President come out to eastern Montana and see what's happening out there. Families are struggling, living month to month, but are seeing the benefits now of the energy industry as they are seeing paychecks they can count on as they look forward. It has also injected millions of dollars into our State's economy; and, like coal, it has helped provide millions of dollars in much-needed funding for Montana's schools. Recent reports show that Bakken oil production currently accounts for 11 percent of the total U.S. oil production and represents 40 percent of increased oil production nationwide. If the Keystone XL pipeline is built, it would be able to move up to 100,000 barrels of oil. That's Montana and North Dakota oil per day from our very own Bakken formation.

Mr. President, I am in favor of ``made in America'' energy. Montana's natural resources, like coal and oil, not only provide our State and Nation with quality American energy, but they are helping keep the utility costs low for hardworking American taxpayers. Montana gets more than half of its power from coal. That helps keep electric rates low. We see some electric cars driving down the highways today and in our towns. I'm not opposed to electric cars; but if the truth be known, we ought to have a sticker on the back that reads: ``This electric car likely powered by coal.'' The average retail price in Montana is currently 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour, which is among the lowest in the Nation.

The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, on the other hand, would also have a tremendous impact on energy prices for Montanans. In fact, not too long ago, I was traveling around our State. I am the only Member of Congress for the State of Montana. It's a privilege to represent an entire State. I was up in Glasgow, Montana, meeting with the NorVal Electric Co-Op. I learned that the NorVal Electric Co-Op is expected to supply power for one of the Keystone pump stations. If the Keystone pipeline is built, it will help NorVal keep its customers' electric rates stable for the next 10 years. Think about that--10 years of no increase. Contrast that to, if the pipeline is not built, NorVal expects that their rates will grow upwards of 40 percent over the next decade.

Mr. President, these customers at NorVal live month to month. They live paycheck to paycheck. This is what is helping American middle class, hardworking taxpayers survive--expanding our energy production. By declaring a war on energy right now, you are declaring a war on American families who are struggling every month to make ends meet. For most Montanans who live on tight budgets and who carefully track where their paychecks are going, unlike a lot of the folks around here in Washington, D.C., a 40 percent increase in utility rates would be devastating. Unfortunately, under President Obama's agenda, that very well could happen.

President Obama's war on coal would severely hinder coal production in Montana and the jobs that rely on this important industry. It would be a serious blow to Montana families and to small businesses that rely on coal as a reliable source of affordable electricity. Just as bad, this job-killing agenda will be imposed through unilateral action, demonstrating that the President is more set on achieving his own political goals rather than on listening to the will of the American people or on working to create much-needed jobs.

Mr. President, the people of America are focused on paying their bills every month. That's a higher priority to them than your priority, which is that of winning an election in 2014.

By sidestepping Congress and public scrutiny, President Obama will set his agenda in motion through costly regulations and more and more red tape and bureaucratic hoops. These roadblocks won't just hurt the coal industry as we know President Obama and his advisers seek to do; these regulations will hurt hardworking American taxpayers who rely on American energy each and every day.

Let me be clear: President Obama's agenda isn't just a war on coal. This is a war on Montana energy, on Montana families, on Montana small businesses, and on Montana jobs--and it must be stopped. I will remain steadfast in this fight to stop the President's job-killing agenda, and I look forward to working with my colleagues here today on commonsense policies that grow American energy and help create the good-paying

jobs that the American people desperately need.

I want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for his leadership on this issue as well as to thank my friend, Mr. Salmon from Arizona, for his leadership in the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on this issue because he understands what is at stake.

One thing this bill will do is attract jobs. It will help the United States Government create energy sector jobs. The second thing it will do is help meet our energy needs, and it will help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy by producing those energy resources here at home. That's a national security issue. By being less dependent on foreign sources of oil, we are less dependent on what goes on in that part of the world. There can be no national security without energy security, and this is a step in the right direction.

We are willing to say that the Obama administration got something right in forming this agreement and signing it. In February of 2012, Secretary Clinton signed this agreement with the Foreign Secretary from Mexico, Patricia Espinosa, to open up this area known as the ``western gap'' in the Gulf of Mexico so that both countries--Mexico and the United States--could explore and start producing oil and natural gas from this area.

What it does is to create a broader legal certainty along that U.S.- Mexico boundary area in order to foster more American energy development and job creation. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement estimates that this area contains as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 34 billion cubic feet of natural gas-- shared resources. Yet they're shared under a common border, a border between the United States Government and Mexico. If you think of a border, think about it out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. It's a maritime boundary, and these resources lie underneath the Earth's Outer Continental Shelf. Underneath that border, who do they belong do? This agreement addresses that they are shared resources. They belong to both countries, and we ought to utilize this agreement in order to start harvesting those resources.

The gentleman talks about changes to Dodd-Frank and other things, but why is that necessary? Who will benefit? I'll tell you who won't benefit if we don't put this language in there. The people who won't benefit are the American consumers. They are paying almost $4 a gallon for gasoline. They won't benefit because we won't be producing American resources to meet their energy needs.

So why is this necessary? Without the changes to this agreement, the language in the agreement can create an impossible situation for American companies operating on transboundary hydrocarbon resources.

For example, Mexican confidentiality requirements may forbid the disclosure of the very information that the Dodd-Frank rule requires of American companies. This would lead to a situation in which companies that are regulated by the SEC have at the very least uncertainty about compliance with both Mexican and American disclosure laws. This uncertainty and potential disclosure conflict would place foreign state-owned oil companies, which are not regulated under Dodd-Frank or by the SEC, at a competitive advantage to the companies which operate under the United States' agreement and are regulated.

The change in this language will open up competition and allow American companies to actually go to work without the uncertainty as to which laws they need to comply with and which they don't. This is the right thing. The changes to this language will ensure that American energy development will go forward in the transboundary area and that those resources in that area will be harvested to provide the necessary energy for America, which drives our economy.

This is the right thing for America. We are willing to enact this agreement because we want to harvest those resources, and we want America to move toward American energy independence. Ultimately, we want to put Americans to work. We want to create jobs--good paying, long-term, energy sector jobs. We do that by moving toward American energy independence. We do that by enacting this agreement and by opening up 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for energy exploration and development. It's the right thing for America. It's a movement toward an all-American energy policy, utilizing American resources to meet American energy needs and putting Americans to work.

I can only see a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans and for all Americans by moving this agreement forward. We asked, from February 2012 until now, for the United States Department of the Interior to send us the enacting legislation, to send us the enacting ability so that we could vote on something in the last Congress, and they failed to do that. So understanding that we need to do that, the Natural Resources Committee took the bull by the horns and said, We're going to do it. We're going to pass the implementing language to enact that agreement and put Americans to work and provide those resources that are so vital to moving this economy along.

Let's just be clear, America, what we're talking about and where we're talking about.

This chart shows the Western Gap, the only area covered under the transboundary hydrocarbons agreement--the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration--to open up this area; 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that's so far away from the shore of Florida that really makes this amendment not applicable.

This is the area we're talking about, this 1.5 million acres that would produce American jobs and American energy resources.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

I urge opposition to this motion, Mr. Speaker.

What we have here in this motion to recommit is just the latest attempt by a few on the other side of the aisle to cater to special interests instead of the needs of the American people.

Behind me, I have a copy of the transboundary area that we're talking about, the Western Gap. You'll notice in that map you don't even see the State of Florida.

This bill enacts an agreement between the United States Government and Mexico to open up a million and a half acres to offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, an agreement negotiated by and signed by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in February 2012.

We want to make sure this agreement will help create American jobs. We want to make sure that we're developing our resources in a safe and responsible way. We want to make sure that this bill puts us on the path toward North American energy independence.

This bill does all of those things, yet the gentleman that offers the motion says he is against the bill. Actually, he said he's for it, but for a lot of different reasons. But this is an attempt to delay the fact that we need to make changes.

The time for delay is over. The time to come together in a bipartisan way to create jobs through energy is at

hand. We want to develop these resources to achieve North American energy independence and end our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy, and we want to reduce the cost of fuel for all Americans.

We want this bill to be part of an all-of-the-above, all-American energy strategy. We want to provide the regulatory clarity and the certainty that energy producers need to explore the area, create the jobs, and produce the energy that we need. And for all of you still on the fence about whether or not to support this bill, let us remember that this is the administration's agreement, and we actually want to get it enacted.

So let's get to work creating American jobs while producing American energy. Let's defeat this motion and let's pass this bill to put Americans back to work.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Financial Services Committee and a member of the conference committee that passed the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1613. I oppose the bill because of the exemption it includes for companies from the transparency requirements under section 1504 of Dodd-Frank Act.

Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank requires companies to disclose payments they

make to governments for oil, gas, and mining resources. It covers companies listed on U.S. exchanges, including the U.S., Chinese, Brazilian, Canadian, European, Australian and other companies.

Section 1504 has a long legislative history. The Financial Services Committee held its first hearing on extracted industry transparency in 2007. In 2008, our committee held a legislative hearing where we debated the specific provisions that eventually became law. The Senate introduced similar legislation, and they held hearings.

The provision was adopted into the Dodd-Frank Act through a bipartisan amendment. Then, before issuing a rule to implement the law, the Securities and Exchange Commission solicited input, held meetings, and considered hundreds of comments from industry, trade groups, Members of Congress, and civil society. Section 1504 was very carefully considered by Congress over the course of several years, with input from all quarters. It is now the law of the land.

Let me tell you why it's important.

Public disclosure of extractive industry payments help diminish the political instability caused by OPEC governance, which is not only a threat to investment, but also to our own national security. Resource revenue transparency also allows shareholders to make better informed assessments of opportunity costs, threats to corporate reputation, and the long-term prospects of the companies in which they invest.

Countries rich in natural resources are often developing countries that are politically unstable, many rife with corruption, with a history of civil conflict fueled, in part, by natural resources.

Opening the extractive industries to greater public scrutiny is key to increasing civil society participation in these countries. This is crucial in order for citizens in resource-rich countries to be able to demand greater accountability from their governments for spending that serves the public interest. This in turn can help reduce poverty and create more stable, democratic governments. It can also help create more stable business environments.

The provision in H.R. 1613 that exempts companies from the disclosure requirements under section 1504 is entirely unnecessary. The bipartisan Senate version of this bill includes no such exemption.

Also, the U.S.-Mexico agreement explicitly respects the domestic laws of both countries, so it already accommodates the Dodd-Frank disclosure requirement. Moreover, there are no laws in Mexico that would prohibit the disclosure of company payments.

Let's also listen to what the administration has to say about this. After all, this administration negotiated the terms of the agreement with Mexico. The administration very much wants legislation to implement the agreement, and they know what they need to do this. And they don't want this bill.

The White House issued a statement strongly opposing H.R. 1613 precisely because of the provision waiving the requirements for the public disclosure of extractive payments to governments. The exemption in this bill is nothing more than an effort to undermine transparency and to undo good public policy that has become an international standard.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill in its current form. Members deserve the opportunity to vote on a clean bill that they can support, and I urge the leadership to give the House that opportunity.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard talk from both sides of the aisle about how important this bill could be without this exemption. Why would you undo the work of both sides of the aisle, the conference committee, the Senate, and all in working out this agreement by putting this exemption in?

I want you to know that those of us who are working very hard to make sure that we implement reform, those of us who are very much involved with Dodd-Frank, we not only understand all of the ways that people are trying to get around Dodd-Frank, to get under Dodd-Frank, to undo the reforms of Dodd-Frank, why does this exemption show up in this bill? It has no place in this bill. This is another attempt to get around Dodd- Frank and not to comply with the law, and you're messing up a good agreement. It does not make good sense.

I oppose this bill in this form. The administration opposes this bill in this form. And if you want the kind of agreement that you say you want with Mexico, if you're interested in sharing those resources, if you're interested in what you claim can be done creating jobs, you would not move forward with this bill. You would not try to force this exemption on this agreement.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I hear my friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep talking about this is as bipartisan as you can get. It was bipartisan before you sneaked in the exemption that would allow companies to bribe governments and pay under the table and create chaos in other countries. It was a bipartisan agreement.

I keep hearing reference to this having the support of the administration. Let me be clear. This bill, in this form, does not have the support of the administration. It did have before you sneaked in the exemption.

Dodd-Frank made it very clear. It is the law. We worked very hard. Both

sides of the aisle, in the conference committee, worked on this part of the bill. And now we have you coming in the dark of the night, one more time trying to undo Dodd-Frank. And this is awful. It is really, really awful because we have the opportunity to have an agreement with Mexico where we could both benefit from the drilling, and we all support that.

But, no, you have decided to undermine the work of both sides of the aisle by putting this exemption in this bill, and so it does not have the support of the administration. It is no longer bipartisan. We no longer support it. And you have the possibility of a veto on your hands.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to, if I can, engage you in a little colloquy here.

What reason would the Members of Congress try and protect the oil companies from simply sharing how much they're paying to governments? What reason would they have for doing that?

Well, I just want to make clear what this exemption is they're trying to do. It's a very simple request that's in law that says just tell us what you're paying. And we have now included in this bill, where there is an agreement, an exemption that will not allow them or keep them from being able to share that information.

As you said, they would now, if this passed, they would be able to make payments in secret. They would be able to make bribes. They would be able to maybe even be disruptive to countries that they are paying bribes to when they get into these conflicts in other countries.

So why would they want to do this? I don't understand it. I thought maybe you may have some additional information that I don't have. But to mess up an agreement simply because you want to protect the oil companies from saying how much they're paying is beyond my comprehension.

Just as you have come to some conclusion that maybe we are opposing this bill because we're opposed to offshore drilling, which is not true----

Thank you very much.

When you raised the question about why didn't we offer an amendment and the Senate can offer an amendment, I have drawn a conclusion. Why are you trying to get credit for putting this in the bill with the oil companies?