Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4899) to lower gasoline prices for the American family by increasing domestic onshore and offshore energy exploration and production, to streamline and improve onshore and offshore energy permitting and administration, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4923) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to set a standard for answering the call of 500,000 to 800,000 jobs being created by 2020 that addresses the work in our ongoing and growing energy industry.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Natural Resources Committee chairman, Mr. Hastings, and Ranking Member DeFazio for their leadership on diversifying our employment base. I also want to wish the chairman well as he moves on to other endeavors. He will be missed on his insight.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 to H.R. 4899. The Congress has an affirmative duty to increase diversity in Federal Government as there is an undeniable lack of participation for veterans, women, and minorities in regards to employment, entrepreneurial, and ownership opportunity.

The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 to H.R. 4899 directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish an office of energy employment and training to create economic opportunities that support the agency's hiring and training of veterans, women, and underrepresented minorities. It sets the standard for the private sector.

Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the Nation, I have always been mindful of the importance of having strongly advocated for national energy policies--really, all of the above--and to make our Nation energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our Nation's economy strong.

The recent increase in production of unconventional oil and natural gas has provided a lift to the U.S. economy, and Americans are seeing the benefits not only because of the jobs created, but also because household incomes have gone up. It is up to us to have the regulatory structure that protects the

environment but also provides the opportunity for growth and creates jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not point out that both the chairman and ranking member have been resolute in their pursuit of the expansion of opportunities in the energy industry. I share that commitment with them, and this amendment is an example of what happens when Members work in good faith across the aisle to find viable solutions.

In this amendment, veterans, minorities, and women recognize that they are significantly underrepresented in the oil and gas industries at all levels and severely underrepresented in the senior managerial, professional, board, and ownership ranks. U.S. competitiveness requires that this Nation increase the number of successful underrepresented minorities in STEM education and careers, which is more essential than ever.

A pipeline of qualified veterans looking for employment will play a key role as the energy industry seeks quality, highly skilled workers. I am committed to honoring our obligations to our Nation's veterans and utilizing the talents of veterans to help the government meet today's dynamic challenges.

Mr. Chairman, the Office of Energy Employment and Training will provide an opportunity to align military and utility job classifications, identify veterans with their desired basic skills, access military personnel during the off-boarding process, and hold training programs.

It is interesting to note that in 2013, the number of STEM jobs in North Dakota increased by 37.2 percent as a direct result of the oil and gas boom in that State.

Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his astute reflection on the work that we have done and I have done over the years. I introduced H.R. 70 and H.R. 3710 that dealt with coastal restoration and the utilization of training for our young people and our veterans.

So as I conclude and thank the chairman for his acknowledgment, along with the ranking member, of their work on the committee dealing with diversification, the Jackson Lee amendment will help prepare a diverse population of workers from across the country with diverse backgrounds to enter in exciting and rewarding careers in American energy jobs.

Our Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Centers of Excellence, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions, and women colleges and universities will become engaged by a direct pipeline into the Department of the Interior that will foster collaboration, mentorships, and partnerships through effective job training that will yield employment opportunities. The Department of the Interior will be responsible for fostering diversity in management, employment, and business activities. It will be the light at the end of the tunnel creating a pathway for the 800,000 jobs.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to put into the Record the Employment Outlook for African Americans and Latinos In the Upstream Oil and Natural Gas Industry.

[An IHS Report, Nov. 2012]

Employment Outlook for African Americans and Latinos in the Upstream

Oil and Natural Gas Industry

(Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute, API)

key findings

Oil and natural gas will remain as the main source of fuel

for decades to come as other forms of energy also become

commercially viable. In fact, in early November 2012, the

International Energy Agency (IEA) projected that the United

States will become the world's top oil producer by 2020 and

that North America would be in a position to export more oil

than it imports by 2030.

These findings underscore the critical importance of the

analysis and findings of a new IHS report entitled Employment

Outlook for African Americans and Latinos in the Upstream Oil

and Natural Gas Industry (2012). Principal findings of the

new IHS report Include:

More than 500,000 jobs projected to be created by 2020 and

over 800,000 jobs created by 2030 in the upstream oil and

natural gas industry under pro-energy development policies.

Job growth would be geographically diverse. Over half of

the job growth, 417 thousand jobs, is expected in the Gulf

region. The East region is expected to contribute nearly 140

thousand job opportunities and the Rockies region nearly 116

thousand job opportunities. The West, Alaska, and Central

regions will combine to contribute approximately 138 thousand

job opportunities.

Central to this analysis is workforce training critical to

the projected U.S. petroleum industry growth to keep the

nation at a competitive advantage and to provide the energy

the nation depends upon. African Americans and Hispanic

Americans represent a critically vital and available talent

pool to help meet the demands of the projected growth and

expansion. For African Americans and Hispanics to be

competitive for the 800,000 potential new jobs it will

require:

Significant improvement in minority preparation in Science,

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) related

disciplines at the primary and secondary school levels--a

national priority;

Significant improvement in high school completion rates for

Hispanics and African Americans;

Secondary and post-secondary staff (i.e., principals,

deans, teachers, faculty, counselors) should be trained to

inform their students on the workforce opportunities in the

petroleum industry, specifically in the regions identified,

and the training required;

An increase the labor force participation rates of African

Americans and Hispanics;

Sixty-two percent of the job growth are estimated to be in

blue collar jobs that would require a high school diploma and

some additional training such as community college vocational

degrees and certificates;

Twenty-one percent of the job growth will require training

in engineering (petroleum, etc.), geoscience fields,

management, business, and finance, and as technicians;

Partnerships between higher education and industry,

especially at the community college level would yield near

term positive results;

Hispanic and African American students with high school

diplomas and some additional training at community colleges

in skills related to the oil and gas industry are immediately

competitive for current job opportunities;

African American and Hispanic students who successfully

complete college degrees related to the oil and natural gas

industry, e.g., petroleum engineering, would be highly

competitive for workforce placement;

Wages in the upstream oil and natural gas industry, across

many professions, far exceed the national average wage rate;

Some portion of the job opportunities would be in

geographic locations away from segments of minority

populations and may require relocation;

Employment in the oil and gas industry can provide a

reliable means to a better than average quality of life for

Hispanics and African Americans for decades to come.

Both challenges and opportunities exist going forward.

Raising educational achievement for large segments of the

upcoming generation is resource intensive and will take

decades to achieve. However, the payoff of an increased

skilled labor pool would be enormous to society in general

and U.S. industry in particular. This report illustrates

that there are significant opportunities for African

Americans and Hispanics throughout the petroleum industry

currently and well into the future at each level of education

and training.

III. Minority and Female Employment in the Oil & Gas and Petrochemical

Industries in 2010

employment by industry

The three segments of the U.S. oil and gas industry and the

petrochemical industry together employed a total of 1.2

million people in 2010 (see Table III.1).

The upstream segment, with employment of 721 thousand,

accounted for 60% of the total, followed by the downstream

segment with 23%.

African American workers held 98 thousand jobs in these

industries in 2010, accounting for 8.2% of total employment.

Their share within the petrochemical industry was 11.2%.

Hispanic workers held 188 thousand jobs across all four

industry segments--15.7% of the total. They accounted for a

higher share of employment in the upstream segment than in

the other segments.

Table III.1--AFRICAN AMERICAN AND HISPANIC EMPLOYMENT IN THE OIL & GAS AND PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES BY SEGMENT:

2010 TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petro-

Total Upstream Midstream Downstream chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total........................... 1,198,590 720,911 42,079 279,162 156,438 African American................ 97,789 57,886 2,262 20,043 17,598 Hispanic........................ 188,088 136,265 4,440 28,426 18,957

Minority Shares by Segment Total........................... 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% African American................ 8.2% 8.0% 5.4% 7.2% 11.2% Hispanic........................ 15.7% 18.9% 10.6% 10.2% 12.1%

Shares by Segment in Each Occupation Total........................... 100.0% 60.1% 3.5% 23.3% 13.1% African American................ 100.0% 59.2% 2.3% 20.5% 18.0% Hispanic........................ 100.0% 72.4% 2.4% 15.1% 10.1% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Employment by Gender

Women accounted for 19% of total employment in the combined

oil and gas and petrochemical industries. Their share is

higher in the downstream and petrochemical segments (25%) and

lower in the upstream and midstream segments (15-16%). (See

Table III.2.)

The female share of employment in these industries is much

lower for the Hispanic population--only 13%.

The incidence of female employment for the African American

population in the oil & gas industry generally mirrors the

nation-wide pattern for the industry, at a share of 19%. In

the midstream industry there is a higher female share.

So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that our task here is to create jobs. We understand that there are 300,000 vets that, in fact, may need unemployment insurance. We want them to have jobs, along with women and minorities, and so I would ask my colleagues to accept the Jackson Lee amendment, and I thank the committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio for their leadership and commitment.

I also wish the Chairman well as he moves on to other endeavors. He will be missed.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment #9 to H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America that Works Act of 2014.

Congress has an affirmative duty to increase diversity in the federal government as there is an undeniable lack of participation for veterans, women and minorities in regards to employment, entrepreneurial and ownership opportunities.

The Jackson Lee Amendment #9 to H.R. 4899 directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish an Office of Energy Employment and Training to create economic opportunities that support the Agency's hiring and training of veterans, women and underrepresented minorities.

As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the nation, I have always been mindful of the importance and have strongly advocated for national energy policies that will make our nation more energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.

The recent increase in production of unconventional oil and natural gas has provided a lift to the U.S. economy and Americans are seeing the benefits not only because of the jobs created but also because household incomes have seen an increase as a result of lower energy costs.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that both the Chairman and Ranking Member have been resolute in their pursuit of the expansion of opportunities in the energy industry. I share that commitment with them--and this amendment is an example of what happens when Members work in good-faith across the aisle to find viable solutions.

We all know that while government may not be able to solve all problems--it can be a bridge to solving some--and ``the great mitigator'' for others.

Veterans, minorities and women are significantly underrepresented in the oil and gas industries at all levels and severely underrepresented in the senior managerial, professional, board and ownership ranks. U.S. competitiveness requires that this nation increases the number of successful underrepresented minorities in STEM education and careers, is more essential than ever.

A pipeline of qualified veterans looking for employment could play a key role as the energy industry seeks quality, highly skilled workers. I am committed to honor our obligations to our Nation's veterans; utilize the talents of veterans to help the Government meet today's dynamic challenges; and create a program worthy of emulation by the private sector.

The Office of Energy Employment and Training will provide an opportunity to align military and utility job classifications, identify veterans with the desired basic skills, access military personnel during the off-boarding process and hold training programs specifically for targeted veteran cohorts.

Underrepresented minorities seeking STEM jobs cannot solely rely upon advanced degree programs, but must be able to pursue a number of routes to good paying STEM jobs. A highly focused area for STEM education and job opportunities can be found in the oil and gas industry.

For example, 2001-13 the number of STEM jobs in North Dakota increased by 37.2 percent as a direct result of the oil and gas boom

in that state. North Dakota exceeded the nation in life, physical and social science technicians and the state is close to the national average for engineering technicians, physical scientists and life scientists.

Nationally, in 2010 there were 1.2 million people employed in the oil and gas industry of those persons only: 98,000 or 8.2% are African Americans; 188,000 or 15.7% are Hispanics; and 225,687 jobs or 19% are women.

The 2014 report prepared by the American Petroleum Institute states the oil and gas industry and petrochemical industry could create between 940,000 to 1.3 million employment opportunities between now and 2030.

Only a small fraction of these new jobs will come as a result of retirements.

The major factor for employment demands for the oil and gas industry is natural growth that will occur and investment by the industry and the influence of energy demand by a growing economy.

There a significantly larger number and variety of good paying jobs in the oil and gas industry. In 2011, the average oil field worker earned $35,590, slightly higher than the national average; those working in natural gas distribution earned an average of $38,870 per year. The states with the highest pay included Alaska, at $48,370; Montana at $45,870 per year; Wyoming, at $41,130; and North Dakota, at $40,340 per year.

Minorities comprise 26% of the oil and gas labor force in 2010 and that number is expected to grow to 325 by 2030. In 2010 women were 17% of the oil and gas labor force and their number is expected to drop to less than 15% in 2030.

The lower employment prospects for women are a direct consequence of the extreme level of underrepresentation in the energy sector.

A closer look at the employment prospects for minorities' reveals that African-Americans like are projected to experience a decline in employment in the oil and gas industry due to underrepresentation of African Americans.

The level of underrepresentation of minorities and women is reflected in oil and gas industry senior and professional ranks. Minorities comprise 15% of management and professionals working in the oil and gas industry and are projected to comprise 17% by 2030.

When compared to all blue collar jobs2-minorities make up 21% of the jobs, and in 2010 they comprised 38% of blue collar jobs.

Women do slightly better with a 24% in 2010, and are expected to hold this percentage of the blue collar job market to 2030.

Our booming energy sector has been one of the greatest American success stories in the last decade, and remains a bright spot in our economy as it continue to fuel job creation. To continue this success we need a diverse energy workforce that is equipped to meet the challenges and opportunities of our new energy landscape.

The Jackson Lee amendment will help prepare a diverse population of workers from across the country with diverse backgrounds to enter into exciting and rewarding careers in American energy jobs.

Our Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Centers of excellence, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Native American-Serving Non-Tribal Institutions and Women Colleges and Universities will become more engaged by a direct pipeline into the Department of Interior that will foster collaboration, mentorships and partnerships through effective job training that will yield employment opportunities.

In closing, I ask my colleagues, to support the Jackson Lee amendment that will address the ability and potential of people who are traditionally underrepresented in energy-production activities by creating an Office of Energy Employment and Training, which will oversee the hiring and training efforts of the Department of Interior's energy planning, permitting, and regulatory agencies.

The Department of the Interior will be responsible for fostering diversity in management, employment, and business activities.

Again, I thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio for their outstanding leadership.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 641 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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 may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel An America That Works Act of 2014. It makes 10 amendments in order--four Republican and six Democrat--and the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2015, under a modified open rule and provides for other technical and clerical purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is a bipartisan measure that provides for the essential funding of several Federal agencies during the next fiscal year, including the Department of Energy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation.

This measure would also fund important Federal science research in the fields of energy, high-performance computing systems, and next- generation energy sources. It is appropriate that this measure providing for the Nation's energy needs also be included with this rule.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today and speak in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.

American families, Mr. Speaker, are hurting. Every time you pull up to the gas pump, you have to wonder whether there will ever be any relief to the family budget for these ever-increasing gasoline prices.

It means simply--whether you support or like the guy or not--that before President Obama took office in 2009, the average national price for a gallon of unleaded regular gas was under $2 a gallon. Today, it has nearly doubled to around $4 a gallon. And the prices keep rising almost every day.

This administration touts its growth in energy production, not recognizing that that production increase has all come on private and State-owned property. If we are to have sustained growth of our economy, if we are not having peaks and valleys, if we are not having boom and bust, it is important that the resources that we have in great abundance that are on Federal lands also be included so there can be a sustained growth to our economy.

Unfortunately, since President Obama took office, total Federal oil production has dropped 6 percent, total Federal national gas production has dropped an astounding 28 percent, and, at the same time, offshore oil production is down 15 percent and offshore gas production is down 47 percent.

Unfortunately, 87 percent of all the area that is allowed offshore of acreage of potential development is currently off limits to oil and natural gas production.

We have policies that are really harming our progress forward, and they need to be changed. This act that will be put before us, if we pass this rule, does indeed do that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman has only from me yet to hear.

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

I am an old history teacher, and one of the things I have always claimed for my students is you should actually try to look to the past, to see how you can plan for the future.

When Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, this country was faced with the crisis of double-digit inflation, double- digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates; and as President, after so many years of a Congress that tried to have the policy of spending ourselves into economic growth that failed, his issue was: Which of those do you attack first?

I think it is interesting to realize--to grab hold of each of those issues, his first action was to increase the supply of affordable energy. That became the basis of growing an economy in which he could then attack each of those problems of unemployment and inflation and interest rates which were plaguing this country.

We have to realize now that a strong foundation of affordable energy is extremely significant, from whatever source, but especially from what will be workable now.

High gasoline prices--and the price that is increasing in every form of energy we have today--hurts the middle class, and it especially hurts the working poor, many of whom have to decide, every time they go to the pump, whether they are going to put food on the table or fill up the minivan.

We have to deal with something. Now, in my area of the west where we live and the part of the country where the distances between communities are extremely large, as opposed to back here in the east, where everything is so lumped closely together, the increase in fuel costs hits home with a real inflicting pain.

I am sorry. The policies of the past that we had that made the desert bloom are being reversed by the policies of the present. Whether you are at the pump realizing the pain that is inflicted or whether your concern is what kind of energy cost it will take when you go into the room and flip on the light or you decide to cook food, we have to realize these are real problems facing middle America, as well as the working poor of America.

We can either come up with policies that move us forward, or we can implement policies that allow us to freeze in the dark, and so far, we have done a good job on the latter and not the first.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have passed several bills over the past few years--and this year as well--aimed at increasing U.S. domestic fuel production, only to have those bills sidelined in the deliberative body on the other side of this building.

It reminds me of a great quote, when Thomas Brackett Reed, the old Speaker of the House, went over to the Senate to watch them in debate and came back and announced to the body:

Thank heavens we are not a deliberative body.

There are problems that we have that can be solved. We have those places, too, and I appreciate the fact the gentleman from Florida did mention that China and others are putting money into alternative energy programs.

They are also going around the world and gobbling up whatever kinds of oil and coal resources they can get their hands on, to support and sustain a growing economy over there, while our administration is taking the United States in the opposite direction by self-inflicted artificial limits, policies that have actually hurt our economy, killed high-paying jobs, and increased the cost of consumer goods for all, including the middle class.

There are reasons why, Mr. Speaker, in the last 6 years, our economy is simply limping along, and we should learn the lessons of the past to recognize what we can do from that. Our economic malaise can be attributed to a lack of attention to a commonsense energy program on Federal lands.

So what would this bill, H.R. 4899, actually do? It would establish and demand a new 5-year plan for the leases of those areas, with the concept of going after where the resources actually are. We can talk about all the lands that are leased, but it is totally unimportant if there are no resources there.

Have a plan that focuses on where the resources are. Produce a revenue-sharing plan with the coastal States. Come up with three distinct agencies which would replace the new structure that has been put upon since the oil spill and make them actually functioning. That is the problem.

I agree with some of the things you have said. We haven't done much in reform, but we have done a whole lot in regulatory reform on the administrative level, and I agree with you, that that hasn't worked as well.

To establish a policy that the NPR-A is for the purpose of providing oil as a resource to the United States and to establish some kind of Internet-based auctions for these programs--look, we are not talking about taking over everything and drilling everywhere.

This Federal Government owns somewhere around 400 to 450 million acres of land. Of that, 350, roughly, are already in a conservation status that can never be touched.

There are 50 million acres, at the most, that have development potential, and those are the areas in which policies of this administration are strangling the ability to move them forward.

I will--because I hadn't planned on it, so I don't have my wonderful charts here. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida talking about education because I want to finish off with that in just one second.

I appreciate his sentiment that, some day, my position can prevail, but unless we change the overall Federal position, I can't get that moving forward, and that is why it becomes extremely important.

We are not just talking about gas at the pump and the cost of electricity and the cost of cooking your food. There are also those tradeoff effects which specifically deal with education.

If one looks at a map of the States, there is overwhelming control by the Federal Government of ownership of the land, the public land States of the Midwest and the west coast, and you look at the States which have the hardest time increasing their funding for public education.

It is an amazing correlation between the two, which means that, over the past 20 years, those who do not live in public land States, those areas east of Denver, which average about 4 percent of their States being controlled by the Federal Government, have grown their educational funding by 68 percent.

Those of us who average over 50 percent of our land controlled by the Federal Government in these public lands States have grown our education budget by 35 percent.

It is simply a matter that my State cannot improve its education funding alone unless we are allowed to develop some of the resources we have in huge abundance but are tied up in the policies of the Federal Government.

So, yes, it is true. We are growing petroleum activities in this country. We are growing our exploration. We are growing what we are developing, what we are exporting. But it is all coming from private lands and State lands that are not part of the West. And if you want to keep that growth on a continuous basis and not have spikes, then you have to go after the resources that we have on the public lands.

And if you were allowed to do that, not only would we get royalties coming back in from those resources, but it would spin off all sorts of jobs that would then generate the income tax we need and the sales tax revenue and the royalties to replace the fact that we are not getting property tax from lands that are controlled by the Federal Government and were promised to us a long time ago when we became States.

This bill provides a plan on how to do this. This bill is something that is desperately needed if we are going to move forward. If enacted into law, it would encourage greater oil and gas development on Federal onshore and offshore lands with a plan of how you actually accomplish it and how you do it. And it may actually give my kids a chance at a fairer shot for an education, because they desperately need it, and the status quo is not providing it. And that has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I would only urge Members to support this rule. It is a fair rule. It is a good rule. And then I would hope, afterwards, they would support the underlying bills which provide for our Nation's critical energy needs and would help promote jobs at the same time, as well as funding for my schools in Utah.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 641 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1426) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow

the deduction for income attributable to domestic production

activities with respect to oil and gas activities of major

integrated oil companies. The first reading of the bill shall

be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration

of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 1426.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my district provides a perfect example of the need for ocean coordination and information sharing between local, State, and Federal governments, including our offshore energy management agencies, the military, our ports, our ocean carriers, our energy developers, recreational users, and other stakeholders.

Let me explain. The Port of Long Beach is the second busiest port in the United States, moving $140 billion in goods, supporting 1.4 million jobs in the United States.

Offshore oil platforms extract crude oil in San Pedro Bay, less than a mile from my front door. San Clemente Island, in my district, has a Navy training ground and a ship-to-shore firing range. Nearby waters are home to seabirds, fisheries, and migrating whales.

Sea-level rise and extreme weather threaten neighborhoods and businesses all along my district and the entire coast of California.

These are all major, interwoven uses of our oceans, and it doesn't make sense to address them on a case-by-case basis without all the stakeholders participating. We need smart ocean planning and coordination.

For those reasons, my amendment would strike the misguided and counterproductive language in H.R. 4899 that prohibits costal and marine spatial planning coordination. We need our Federal offshore energy management agencies to include the consideration of other stakeholders, not exclude them from the offshore leasing and the drilling process.

We should all want BOEM and BSEE to coordinate with our ports and our shipbuilders, not restrict coordination. We should all want BOEM and BSEE to coordinate with our fishermen and our fishery councils, not to restrict coordination. We should all want BOEM and BSEE to coordinate with our States and local governments, not to restrict coordination.

The country, and my district, needs a comprehensive approach to our ocean resources, which is what the National Ocean Policy provides.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a lifelong advocate for our oceans.

Madam Chair, I would like to point out that the opposition said that six times the House is on record for striking out the National Ocean Policy.

I would like to remind him that all six times that has been put back in by the U.S. Senate.

I want to point out that ocean coordination--as he points out, the planning is good, but not now--has been supported by a broad array of stakeholders, including commercial fishing, engineering and consulting, recreation tourism, the renewable energy industries, as well as academics, tribes, faith-based groups, and NGOs.

In fact, 117 of those organizations across 20 States wrote a letter to Congress saying:

We urge you to reject any provisions that would undermine

continued progress on coordinated ocean planning or seek to

undermine the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.

Madam Chair, I will insert that letter in the Record, as well as a letter from the North Atlantic Ports Association that represents ports and port-related interests from Virginia to Canada.

The Ports Association says:

We strongly oppose these amendments to any legislation,

which undermine our ability to engage in planning for future

ocean uses, impede the integration of the marine highway

system, and create uncertainty for our businesses.

May 16, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives, Office of the Speaker,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Office of the

Democratic Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Harold Rogers,

Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nita M. Lowey,

Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Pelosi, Chairman Rogers and

Ranking Member Lowey: We are writing to express our strong

support for coordinated ocean planning. In recent years,

provisions attempting to undermine and defund ocean planning

and coordination work among states, tribes, and federal

agencies have been repeatedly inserted in a variety of

legislation, particularly appropriation bills. The sole

purpose of these provisions is to halt vital cross-

jurisdictional coordination and ocean planning that benefits

coastal communities, ocean-based businesses, and helps to

protect, maintain and restore the health of our ocean's

wildlife and ecosystems. We strongly object to these

provisions and urge you to oppose inclusion of any such

language in legislation moving through the House of

Representatives.

Cross-jurisdictional coordination and smart ocean planning

allow coastal communities to take a pragmatic approach to

changing ocean economies and environments. This approach puts

ocean management decisions closer to the people, industries,

and jobs that will be impacted by ocean management decisions,

allowing communities to help guide their own future and make

smart choices that will provide balanced use, good

governance, and long-term sustainability. In contrast to

misleading rhetoric from those who oppose the National Ocean

Policy and the improved coordination and leveraging of

limited resources it supports, efforts to better coordinate

and plan for ocean uses have emerged from the ground up, with

their roots in state-sponsored regional partnerships.

Comprehensive, science-based coordination efforts are

already underway in several regions--engaging stakeholders

who use the ocean, developing region-specific data, building

resiliency from large storms and creating a regional ocean

plan to address current and future ocean uses. These

partnerships allow local, state, tribal, and federal

institutions to work together toward solutions for ocean and

coastal health and improved economies. In addition to these

regional efforts, several individual states are also

currently using smart-ocean planning as a management tool for

their state waters, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

New York, Washington, and Oregon.

Attempts to prohibit key coastal and ocean management

agencies from coordinating with coastal states, other federal

agencies and the public, or to undermine the National Ocean

Policy are severely misguided. Dismantling coordination

efforts results in overspending at the state and federal

level, duplicative and potentially conflicting processes

among agencies, and creates uncertainty among ocean-based

businesses and industries. Coordination at a regional scale

through Regional Ocean Partnerships and Regional Planning

Bodies provides a seat at the table for all ocean users to

address current and emerging ocean uses and conflicts.

Provisions attempting to impose arbitrary restrictions on

coordinated planning undermine these ongoing state and

regional efforts and threaten the progress already being made

to enhance ocean and coastal communities, economies, and

ecosystems. Accordingly, we oppose any effort to obstruct

funding for regional coordination and planning, or to

undermine participation by any relevant agency in regional

coordination and planning efforts.

Congress should be enhancing our ocean and coastal

economies by supporting coordinated ocean planning, not

creating arbitrary barriers for this ongoing work at the

local, state, and regional level. We urge you to reject any

provisions that would undermine continued progress on

coordinated ocean planning or seek to undermine the

implementation of the National Ocean Policy.

Sincerely,

National

American Littoral Society; Blue Frontier; Friends of the

National Ocean Policy; Greenpeace; GZA GeoEnvironmental,

Inc.; Interfaith Council for the Protection of Animals and

Nature; International Federation of Fly Fishers; League of

Conservation Voters; Mangrove Action Project (MAP); National

Audubon Society; National Marine Mammal Foundation; Natural

Resources Defense Council; Nature Abounds; Ocean Champions;

Ocean Conservancy; Ocean Conservation Research; Oceana; Save

Our Shores; Shark Stewards; Surfrider Foundation; The

Wilderness Society; WATERWATCH International; Wild Heritage

Planners.

regional

Anacostia Watershed Society; Center for Chesapeake

Communities; Conservation Law Foundation; Gulf of Mexico

Coastal Ocean Observing System; Gulf Restoration Network;

Markian Melnyk, President, Atlantic

Grid Development LLC; New England Coastal Wildlife Alliance;

Northwest Watershed Institute; Pacific Coast Shellfish

Growers Association.

california

Endangered Habitats League; Environmental Defense Center;

Monterey Coastkeeper; Ocean Defenders Alliance; The Otter

Project; Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Ph.D., Executive Director,

Waitt Institute; Dawn Wright, Ph.D., Chief Scientist,

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA; Jacob

A. James, Managing Director, Waitt Foundation; Jennifer

Harrower, Ph.D., Student, Environmental Studies, University

of California, Santa Cruz; Marc Shargel, Sea Life

Photographer and Author, Living Sea Images, Santa Cruz

County, California; Marilyn O'Neill, Founder & CEO, Nautilus

Environmental; Zdravka Tzankova, Ph.D., Assistant Professor,

Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz.

colorado

Colorado Ocean Coalition.

connecticut

Rivers Alliance of Connecticut; Save the Sound, a program

of Connecticut Fund for the Environment.

Delaware

Delaware Nature Society; Dr. Alina M. Szmant, Professor of

Marine Biology, Center for Marine Science, University of

North Carolina Wilmington.

florida

Florida Wildlife Federation; Indian Riverkeeper; Fly &

Light Tackle Angler, Stuart, FL; Just-In-Time Charters; Palm

Beach County Reef Rescue; Drew Martin, Conservation Chair,

Loxhatchee Group; Sierra Club; Dr. Ed Schwerin, Professor of

Public Policy, Florida Atlantic University; Kristen Hoss,

President, Tanawha Presents LLC; Dr. Rozalind Jester,

Professor of Marine Science, Edison State College, Fort

Myers, FL.

louisiana

Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe.

maine

F/V Sea Keeper; Great Harbor Maritime Museum; Island

Institute; Maine Wind Industry Initiative; Sea Keeper Fishery

Consulting LLC; Richard C. Nelson, Captain F/V Pescadero,

Maine Regional Ocean Planning Advisory Group, Friendship,

Maine; Ryan Beaumont, P.E., Principal Engineer, R.M. Beaumont

Corp., Brunswick, Maine.

maryland

1000 Friends of Maryland; Maryland Academy of Sciences;

Maryland Coastal Bays Program; National Aquarium; Daniel

Trott, Owner, Maritime Sector Solutions, LLC, Fort

Washington, MD; Drew J. Koslow, Choptank Riverkeeper,

Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy; John H. Dunnigan, Sailor

and Grandpa.

Massachusetts

Alewives Anonymous; Peter Phippen, Coastal Coordinator,

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program, Eight Towns and

the Great Marsh Committee; Richard F. Delaney, President &

C.E.O., Center for Coastal Studies, Provincetown, MA; Robert

Stoddard, Executive Vice President, GWAVE LLC, Boston, MA;

Tedd Saunders, CSO, The Saunders Hotel Group, Boston, MA.

new hampshire

Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservation; Seacoast

Science Center; Noah J. Elwood, PE, Appledore Marine

Engineering.

new jersey

Environment New Jersey; SandyHook SeaLife Foundation; Margo

Pellegrino, Founder, Miami2Maine; Michael L. Pisauro, Jr.

Legislative Affairs Director, New Jersey Environmental Lobby.

new york

Blue Ocean Institute; Citizens Campaign for the

Environment; Empire State Consumer Project; Friends of the

Bay; Group for the East End; Operation SPLASH; Arthur H.

Kopelman, Ph.D., President, Coastal Research and Education

Society of Long Island; Harald Duell, Senior Vice President,

Ardour Capital Investments, LLC, The Empire State Building,

New York, NY; Jackie Quillen, The Garden Club of East

Hampton.

oregon

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition; Oregon Wave Energy

Trust; Port Orford Ocean Resource Team; Chares Steinback,

Director, Point 97; Ruby Gate, CEO, Point 97.

pennsylvania

Captain Joel S. Fogel, The Explorers Club, First World

Ambassador.

rhode island

The Ocean Project; Bill McElroy, Captain/Owner, FV Ellen

June; Jeff Grybowski, CEO, Deepwater Wind; Michael C. Tuttle,

Manager Marine Services Division, HRA Gray & Pape, LLC,

Providence, RI.

south carolina

South Carolina Coastal Conservation League; Waccamaw

Riverkeeper; Paul M. Rosenblum Ph.D., Faculty Advisor to the

Honor Committee, Professor of Biology, The Citadel.

texas

Texas Coastal Partners; Ann E. Jochens, Research Scientist,

Retired, Texas A&M University, College Station.

virginia

TerraScapes Environmental; Virginia Aquarium & Marine

Science Center; Eileen Levandoski, Assistant Director,

Virginia Chapter Sierra Club; W. Mark Swingle, Director of

Research & Conservation, Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science

Center, Virginia Beach, VA.

washington

FOGH (Friends of Grays Harbor); Taylor Shellfish Farms;

Wild Fish Conservancy; Kathleen Sayce, Shoalwater Botanical,

Nahcotta, WA; Norman T. Baker, Ph.D., Executive Committee,

North Olympic Group of the Sierra Club.

west virginia

Christians for the Mountains.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to

States and tribes having a seat at the table for Federal oceans decisions and vote ``yes'' on the Lowenthal amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I join my good friends on the Energy and Water Committee, Representatives Lowey and Kaptur, in applauding the chairman's concerted effort to compose H.R. 4923 in an inclusive manner.

I appreciate the bipartisan nature of the bill and am supportive of many of the provisions contained within it. However, I am not without my concerns. All of these phrases that my friends on the other side of the aisle bandy about--``increase over this,'' ``funding above last year's levels''--sound great, but as always, we need to see what is lurking in the shadows.

For example, H.R. 4923 is completely uninspired when it comes to renewable energy. Its approach, in my view, is a myopic one--one that, if we follow it too far, leaves us trying to play catch-up with our competitors, like the Chinese and many other countries, that have turned their attention to renewable energy. As China continues its now decade-long trend of increasing investment in its renewable energy sector--a footnote here: it invested $56 billion just last year--we take the truly uninspired step of cutting funding for renewable energy by 6.4 percent.

I am aware of the studies that conclude that our Nation will be able to meet 97 percent of its energy needs through domestic production by 2035, and I consider that to be great. This Nation has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign oil since 2003. This is a serious national security vulnerability, and I think we can all agree that lessening this dependence is a desirable goal.

I also know that, for many in this day of Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, 2035 seems like a long way off. Those of us in this Chamber do not have the luxury of thinking that way. We have a responsibility to look past 2035, and we have a responsibility to leave our children and grandchildren with an energy portfolio that will keep them in good stead for the years after 2035. We abdicate this responsibility when we underfund research and development in the renewable energy sector. We abdicate this responsibility when we skew applied energy programs at the Department of Energy too heavily toward nuclear energy and fossil fuels. An increased investment in renewable energy makes good economic sense; it makes good environmental sense; and it makes good national security sense. The time to make this investment is now.

We need to be careful even where we see funding increases. Though these funding increases may seem impressive and prudent, we need to be reminded that all that glitters is not gold. They merely mask a continuation of the status quo for my friends from across the

aisle. They would have you believe they are increasing funding for environmental protection while reducing spending on defense, but alas, in my view, this is an illusion. In reality, this bill represents business as usual for the Republican Party--slashing funding for research in renewable resources while doling out more handouts to dirty energy and environmental polluters. It seems like every other week we are voting to drill off our shores, in our parks, or on Federal lands.

To that end, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014--we are the greatest naming people in the world here in Congress--is just a greatest hits record, rehashing two measures the House has already voted on, one of which itself was already cobbled together from a number of separate bills. Like all greatest hits albums, it, too, is stuck in the past. Those past attempts rightly died in the Senate, and there is no reason to expect a different result this time around. Yet here we are again, tossing legislation into the void while our country's very real problems fester.

My friends across the aisle have no ideas, evidently, for energy independence and security beyond more drilling. They would rather score political points than propose real solutions. I am sure they will go home to their districts next week for one of the biggest driving weekends of the year. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I commented that the oil industry manipulates us. Every year in the summer, prices go up on gasoline, and I just don't think that is coincidental when gas prices historically tend to be high. Yet they are going to point to these votes as evidence that they tried to lower gasoline prices. While it may make for a good feel-good story, that is all it is. Putting more oil out there won't move prices. Domestic production is already at a 25-year high in this country, up 60 percent since 2008. Imports are at 29-year lows.

Despite my friend's claims, onshore oil production from Federal lands has gone up 30 percent since 2008. I can never pass up an opportunity to say that I will continue to resist offshore drilling off the coast of Florida beyond the accommodations that have already been made by this body. Yet gas prices remain unchanged. The U.S. holds only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. Even tripling current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we would continue at the rate we are going; or if we would increase oil production all the way to 50 percent--which is more than drilling in the Arctic, increasing public lands and offshore drilling, and the pipelines would provide--prices would decrease by only 10 percent at most.

Oil is priced on the global market, which is far more complicated than my friends let on. Record demand for fossil fuels in this country and in places like India and China and Singapore and Japan have far more impact on the price of gasoline than anything my friends here hope to do. The liquid natural gas export bill the House passed yesterday shows they understand the nature of the market. They just choose to ignore it whenever it is convenient.

My friends across the aisle have no plans for addressing the demand for the kinds of policies that actually could help reduce energy costs, like increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of our cars, and developing renewable energy resources. I was visited by one of our college presidents, John Kelly, who is new at Florida Atlantic University. He visited with me today, and that university has a new grant dealing with currents, which may very well at some point add to our understanding with reference to renewable energy resources. So it won't be the American people who benefit from more drilling. It will be the bottom lines of the companies that own the wells. Hardworking Americans will be left to bear the risk.

This ``drill everywhere, all the time'' plan isn't a serious energy strategy; it is a cash grab by the fossil fuel industry. It is not a path to energy independence and security; it is a road to environmental and economic collapse. This isn't a game. The threat is real, Mr. Speaker. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Let me repeat that. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. A footnote here: BP has not paid for all of the damage that they did in that area, and I defy anybody to show me how it is that they did. I ask anybody who is getting ready to eat seafood that comes out of that bay to look at the damage that was done and at the continuing sediment that continues to rise from that area that was polluted.

What happens to all of those Floridians whose livelihoods depend upon our oceans and beaches?

If you want to know, ask the oyster people what happens. Ask the shrimpers who go out into the gulf what their product looks like nowadays, including the deformed product that they are seeing from this awful disaster.

Florida's GDP from its living resources, which includes fishing, hatcheries, aquaculture, seafood processing, and seafood markets, is worth nearly $300 million. Additionally, the State's GDP from ocean- based tourism and recreation is nearly $16.5 billion. On top of that, Florida generates millions of dollars in commercial fishing, including shrimp, mackerel, blue crab, swordfish, and stone crabs, which we are finding are diminishing in numbers. We have 350,000 jobs in tourism and recreation and nearly 120,000 direct jobs in recreational and commercial fishing.

But you can't eat contaminated fish, and who wants to spend one's hard-earned dollars and vacation time lounging on a beach that is covered in tar balls?

When I lifted up on Monday in the US Air plane and looked down at the shore of Florida, I saw what amounts to about a mile-long oil slick. I saw people walking, and I knew that, in a matter of time, they would be walking on tar balls.

How bad does the next spill have to be?

Climate change is not even pending anymore. It is here, and its effects are conspicuous. Downtown Miami, for example, floods whenever it rains, and so does Hollywood, Florida, and areas that I live around. People can't get to work, businesses can't open, and historic droughts have now ravaged the West, and my friends say that there is nothing to concern ourselves about as it pertains to climate change.

The Risky Business report just released by President George W. Bush's former Treasury Secretary--Henry Paulson--and Mayor Bloomberg and Tom Steyer and other former Cabinet officers, lawmakers, corporate leaders, and scientists says climate change could cost the country billions of dollars over the next two decades.

This bill fully ignores the reality of the world we live in, but I do want to say one thing.

In yesterday's Rules Committee, my friend who is managing this rule, Mr. Bishop from Utah, did make to me a compelling argument regarding education in the State of Utah and the fact that, on some of the Federal lands in Utah, if they had an opportunity to do further oil exploration, it could have an impact on Utah's economy. I think that, in many respects, a lot of that is reasonable. I am hopeful that at some point some of his views in that regard will prevail, but I hope, for the most part, that his overall views do not prevail.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2013, Representative Tim Bishop's bill, to end the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies given to the largest, most profitable oil companies each year.

To discuss our proposal, I am pleased, at this time, to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise at this time and ask if you would learn from my colleague if he is ready to close. I have no further speakers, and I am prepared at this time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that these bills just leave us spinning our wheels, while we could be making actual progress in helping hardworking Americans all across this Nation.

It is outrageous that 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I might add that we learned yesterday that 300,000 of that 3 million are American veterans.

We have also had, along with the expiration of tax extender provisions that help individuals that have expired, they help families and small businesses invest.

Republicans and Democrats should be working together to move our Nation forward on comprehensive immigration reform, and I might add that I agree with everybody that says that the border needs to be secure, and one good way to do that is to do comprehensive immigration reform and tax reform.

We need to raise the minimum wage in this country, and we need to protect voting rights and secure equal pay.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' I just want to make it very clear that the measures that we are considering today have already been voted on by the House and did not go further to become law. The likelihood of this measure reaching that same fate is very strong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

We have before us two bills which have previously passed the House but that have been merged into one bill and that will again pass with a Republican majority.

It mandates offshore oil drilling from Maine to the southeast coast. It mandates offshore oil drilling off of South Carolina. This would all be done under expedited or potentially nonexistent environmental reviews if they didn't meet extraordinarily brief timelines, and they would not be allowed to evaluate any options that did not include drilling. As the Republicans are extremely fiscally conservative, this would double the revenue sharing for offshore oil drilling, creating a $30 billion loss for the Federal Government and benefiting a few southeast States.

As for the onshore portion of the bill, every permit for drilling on Federal lands in the United States would have to be issued within 60 days, and the concept of multiple use, which is hunting, fishing, recreating, mountain biking, horseback riding--go on down the list--and other activities, are all subsumed to energy development, which becomes the big--oh, wait. What? I mean, really. This is my June 2013 speech. I mean, this is last year's speech. Who gave me last year's speech? Really. Oh, guess what? It really doesn't matter, because this is the same bill from last year--two bills into one. Exactly the same bills passed the House last year and the year before that and the year before that. Every year since the Republicans have taken over, when gas prices spike up, they pass imaginary legislation and pretend they are doing something about high gas prices instead of tackling the real causes, which I will get to in a moment.

So many people have heard about Christmas in July. We now have a new tradition here, which is Groundhog Day in June for energy bills, in a faux sort of attempt to pretend we really care about the extortionate prices that people are paying because of Big Oil in the United States and speculation on Wall Street.

God forbid we should take on either of those very powerful and generous forces, generous to some, not to others. Does anybody believe this?

I guess there are a few people who believe anything, but since they first brought this bill to the floor in 2011, U.S. oil production has gone from 5.6 million barrels a day to 8.4 million barrels a day--not shabby, basically a 50 percent increase.

Let's look at another chart. Exports--we are talking about--now, we have a new theory. This isn't about lowering prices in America; it is about avoiding even higher prices in America because we are stabilizing the world markets.

Well, I have had a lot of complaints from truckers. Look at how much diesel we are exporting. Since the Republicans started this campaign, the combined exports of refined gasoline--remember the shortages, that is why we are paying higher prices, supply and demand--have gone from 700 million barrels a day to 1.5 billion. We have doubled our export of refined product, and the truckers are really getting stuck here.

Look at this line. You want to know why diesel prices are up? Because diesel exports are up phenomenally--phenomenally. So we can blather on about: Gee, all we need is more production, more production--so we can export more?

In fact, now, the oil industry is pushing to end our ban on the export of crude oil. Now--right now, at least--we get some value added, and we get a few more jobs by exporting refined products.

Now, the industry wants us to lift the ban and say that we will export crude oil from the United States of America, I guess, so that we can prevent bigger price spikes if there are future crises because this is the new theory promulgated by The Wall Street Journal.

We hear a lot about the President. Here is a reality check on that issue: Federal onshore production is up 30 percent under President Obama. In fact, President Obama is providing over record production levels and plummeting imports, while the exact opposite happened under the Bush-Cheney energy policy, which actually was designed to make us more dependent upon foreign oil, and that did happen in spades during the Bush-Cheney administration.

The Energy Information Administration, they are right, there was a blip in our production offshore. It had to do with a little oil spill called Deepwater Horizon, and there was a temporary suspension of drilling and new permits. That is history now, but that does make your average look lower over time.

The Energy Information Administration says that offshore production will reach record levels--that is, all Federal offshore oil production will reach record levels by 2016; but that is reality that doesn't matter.

Now, we have a really nifty title, and that is something that they spend lots of money on consultants around here--both parties do--to come up with nifty little sayings. The nifty title is Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.

Well, since we started this argument with the Republicans on this issue about increased oil production leading to lower gas prices--well, 2008, when we had drill, baby, drill, in order to lower gas prices that were $3.50 to $4 a gallon--and guess what?

They haven't gone down, so that argument kind of doesn't work anymore, but now, they are saying: well, they would have been higher if we weren't producing more oil.

If we produce just more, they might not have been even more higher, or maybe they would be lower because that is what we said for the last 4 years, that they would be lower.

Since we are exporting a whole heck of a lot of it, they are not because we are paying a world price for oil, and now, they want us to pay a world price for natural gas, one place where we do have an advantage, so the prices don't go down.

There is such an abundance of oil, as I mentioned earlier, the American Petroleum Institute wants to lift the ban on the export of crude oil from the United States. Wouldn't that be great?

The U.S. can export crude oil to China. China can use it to run their electrical generating facilities, which supply their manufacturing facilities, which will produce value-added products, things that we formerly used to make here in the United States, and they will sell them back to us.

We get to sell them a raw material, kind of like a colony, and they sell us back sophisticated materials. That is kind of like something we fought a revolution over a couple of hundred years ago, but now, that is okay with some on the other side.

This is both coasts and Alaska and tremendous degradation of environmental protections on the inland areas, as I mentioned earlier. This will really do away with multiple use.

Now, we heard from the chairman, who is an esteemed colleague, that the spike in Iraq would have been worse if we weren't producing so much and exporting so much.

Actually, I just saw the statistics yesterday. Oil production hasn't dropped at all. The other OPEC companies are putting more oil out, and Iraq is at 95 percent of where they were before this, so actually, there has been no reduction anywhere, but somehow, prices are up about 20 cents a gallon at the pump.

Now, if we just produced more oil, that wouldn't happen. No, that is not true. We are producing more oil.

If we just exported more refined oil and diesel and gasoline, that wouldn't happen. Well, no, because we are. What happened?

Wall Street is speculating on the price of oil. We had sworn testimony from the CEO of ExxonMobil 2\1/2\ years ago, before the United States Senate, when gas was getting to 4 bucks a gallon, and he said, hey, don't blame me, this isn't ExxonMobil doing this, it is Wall Street--because of the deregulation of Wall Street, the fact that we haven't yet implemented position limits on speculators, on commodities, as we were supposed to do under Dodd-Frank, which they want to repeal.

He said 60 cents a gallon. Drive up to the pump, and you are sending 60 cents a gallon to Wall Street speculators.

So if they wanted to do something today or tomorrow or yesterday or last year--or maybe next June--about spiking oil prices, it would be to go after the speculators on Wall Street. That is the quickest relief that we could provide.

Mandate position limits--or even better--repeal the provisions of the Commodity Futures Trading Modernization Act--which I voted against, which was a Clinton-era Republican bill--that actually allowed massive new speculation by nonconsumers, nonproducers, something that we never had, never needed, and don't need today.

So next time you go to the pump, say, oh, well, if we just drill right here off of Maine or right here off of Massachusetts or right here, I would pay less; or think, wow, if they wanted to really give me relief, they would take on the big oil companies, they would take on Wall Street--but they won't do that.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Chairman, nothing I have heard has refuted the points I made earlier.

In fact, the gentleman from South Carolina made the point about high diesel prices. Well, if he was harking back to a time when diesel was actually cheaper than gasoline, well, back then, we didn't export much refined diesel. Now we are exporting in the vicinity of 1 million barrels a day of diesel. So the price of diesel is up because we are paying the so-called world price. And if we exported 2 million barrels a day, the world price wouldn't go down.

And then you have the issue with the speculators on Wall Street, as I mentioned earlier. According to the head of ExxonMobil, 60 cents a gallon--and that would be diesel and gasoline--goes directly to speculators on Wall Street, those high-frequency traders who are so vital to our economy.

We do have a few statistics just to keep it straight. Gasoline production was at a record high in May, but unfortunately, gas prices were pretty darn high. This is from the Energy Information Administration, and they quote the American Petroleum Institute, which is the group that wants to begin to export crude oil. So if we produce more crude oil, we will put it in the world market or sell it to China so they can refine it. And that will somehow insulate us against price spikes because we will be flooding the world oil market with oil that is produced more cheaply here but sold more expensively over there. But unfortunately, that means that we pay the same price here that gets paid over there. That is another problem.

But anyway, the chief economist for API, John Felmy, said: ``We've developed a good export market for distillates. So we produce more gasoline than demand warrants.'' Yet the price is up. Go figure.

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