Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I too rise to oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, an amendment offered, in my mind, to protect this administration's overreach on regulating all bodies of water in this country.

As my friend from Montana alluded to, this really is a job-killing amendment. Section 109 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill puts a check on this administration's proposed ``guidance'' on Clean Water Act regulations. Mr. Chairman, at a time when unemployment exceeds 9 percent, this so-called guidance document, from my point of view, being from the West, will undermine economic growth, increase permitting requirements, and undoubtedly lead to more litigation.

According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, this guidance document ``would take an overly broad view of waters of the United States and would serve as a road map to designate nearly all bodies of water, and even some dry land, as subject to Federal regulation that dictates land use decisions.''

Mr. Chairman, water is a precious commodity, especially to those of us in the West. It is a necessary resource for many activities, including agriculture, energy, transportation, and recreation. Our economy and way of life cannot afford to have the Federal Government claim control of all waterways in this country. This administration's attempt to enact such Draconian regulations through regulatory fiat is a deliberate attempt to circumvent Congress.

As many of my colleagues know, the prior Congress could not pass an overly restrictive renewal of the Clean Water Act, so it's clear that this part of the regulatory agenda is aimed at picking up the pieces that the Congress could not enact last time. So it's for this reason that I joined 169 of my colleagues in April of 2010 to urge both the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to withdraw these proposed guidance regulations. That was in April of 2010. Unfortunately, this administration refuses to do so.

So that is why section 109 is so important, to protect rural America from overzealous bureaucracies. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my friend from Washington yielding.

This amendment is about a bureaucratic guidance on an issue, on an issue that this Congress attempted to take up last time that simply, among other things, said that the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act would not be navigable waters.

Now, that causes a whole lot of us in the West a lot of problems. And coming from an irrigation area, it bothers me because that means the Federal Government would now be in charge of everything not navigable, which could be irrigation streams.

This is Transportation.

Transportation.

Will the gentleman yield?

The issue for me is not the Clean Water Act. The issue was the attempt to amend the Clean Water Act to take out ``navigable,'' and that is what is being done potentially by the guidance with this drafting.

Will the gentleman yield?

The law is clear. It only says ``navigable.'' Now, that is where the danger comes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit the following correspondence between Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, myself, and Chairman Dave Camp regarding the inclusion of language in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill permitting tax-exempt bonds to be used to finance the purchase of fixed-wing aircraft for air ambulance services.

House of Representatives,

March 14, 2011.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Camp: We write to request your support for

the inclusion of language in the Federal Aviation

Administration reauthorization bill that would permit tax-

exempt bonds to be used to finance the purchase of fixed-wing

aircraft to provide air ambulance services.

Current tax law prevents states from using tax-exempt bonds

to finance new fixed-wing air ambulances while tax-exempt

bonds can be used for the acquisition of medical helicopters.

Aircraft and helicopters are both important for emergency

medical care.

While helicopters can be used to provide air ambulance

services, airplanes are commonly a superior mode of emergency

air transportation for critically ill patients in rural

areas. In many instances, the use of helicopters for air

ambulance services in rural areas is impractical because of

the long distances that patients must be transported. Also,

airplanes present the safest and fastest mode of

transportation during inclement weather. Allowing states to

use tax-exempt bonds to finance fixed wing aircraft used

exclusively for emergency medical services in the same way

they can for helicopters will allow for better emergency

medical service in our rural communities and save more lives.

Thank you for considering bringing equality to the tax code

for fixed-wing aircraft that provide air ambulance services.

Sincerely,

Doc Hastings.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Mr. Speaker, due to a death in my family, I missed a series of roll votes. Had I been present: I would have voted ``yea'' on (rollcall No. 330) H.R. 1627, Honoring America's Veterans Act; I would have voted ``yea'' on (rollcall No. 331) H.R. 1383, Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011; and I would have voted ``yea'' on (rollcall No. 332) H.R. 1657, a bill to revise the enforcement penalties for those misrepresenting a business concern as being veteran owned and controlled.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1230.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to recommit.

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

I yield the gentleman an additional 45 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I understand why my good friend from Nevada is offering this; he's representing what he thinks is right for his constituents, and I commend him for that. But the fact of the matter is this is the law of the country, this is the repository, period; yet the Department of Energy, in my view, has been operating outside the law for the last year.

Ratepayers have already spent $10 billion on this. If we terminate this site, we will have other liabilities--in fact, there are already contractual liabilities of $2 billion that have been let already--plus the expense, if we have to find another repository, will cost taxpayers further billions of dollars.

So I understand why the gentleman is doing this, I think he is incorrect, and I urge that Members vote against his amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices are rising, and we have near double- digit unemployment. The Obama administration should be doing everything within its power to spur economic growth and to create new jobs. Unfortunately, they have not.

This administration has chosen to impose regulation after regulation and policy after policy on American businesses that impede their potential growth and thus impede our economic recovery. Many of these regulations delay or flat out prevent Americans from responsibly developing our own natural resources. They block access to American energy; they block access to American minerals; they block access to American water supplies; and they block access to American forest products.

By their actions, this administration is jeopardizing our economic competitiveness. This jeopardy is making America more reliant on foreign countries to meet our everyday needs.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe Americans are content with locking up our valuable resources.

I don't believe Americans are content with sending American jobs overseas, but that's exactly what these regulations and policies are doing.

President Obama says that he wants to eliminate regulations that are strangling businesses. That's noble, but this appears to be one more example of his rhetoric not matching his actions. The rules and regulations imposed by the Obama administration have allowed the Federal Government to insert itself in places that it's never been and, frankly, doesn't belong. Let me give you several examples.

First, burdensome regulations are being used to restrict access to American energy production on public lands, both onshore and offshore. Last year, new rules were imposed for onshore lease sales that have significantly decreased energy production throughout the intermountain West. Offshore, the administration continues to impose a de facto moratorium on drilling in the gulf and has yet to issue a single deep- well permit since last April. President Obama's de facto moratorium has put thousands of Americans out of work.

These regulations are not only impeding oil and natural gas production but also renewable energy such as wind and solar. Why? Because these regulations will restrict renewable energy development to only a tiny, tiny fraction of our public lands.

Second, the Obama administration is aggressively pursuing sweeping new changes to mining regulations. These regulations--Mr. Speaker, let me repeat this--these regulations, by their own admission, will cost thousands of American jobs and decrease American energy production in 22 States.

Third, the Obama administration has reversed a long-standing legal agreement and moved to establish a new ``wild lands'' policy that will further restrict public access to multipurpose public lands. This backdoor approach will prohibit many popular forms of recreation and severely restrict job-creating, energy-producing activities. By creating de facto wilderness, the administration is circumventing Congress' sole authority to establish wilderness areas.

Fourth, the President has signed an Executive order establishing a new National Ocean Policy and Council that could severely restrict recreational and commercial use of our oceans. This policy establishes mandatory marine spatial planning, otherwise known as ocean zoning. The reach of this policy may stretch far inland, extending to potentially all rivers, tributaries, and lands that drain into the ocean.

Fifth, the Environmental Protection Agency has allowed questionable science to be used to impose regulations that could end the use of vital farm crop and tree protection products. This will cost jobs and adversely impact trade of our agricultural products.

And last, Mr. Speaker, but certainly not least, the Obama administration has supported withholding valuable water from communities in California's San Joaquin Valley, prioritizing the needs of a 3-inch fish over thousands of workers and their families. This Government and manmade drought caused hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile farm land to dry up, and that has resulted, Mr. Speaker, in an unemployment rate that exceeds 40 percent in that area.

So this is just one example of how the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, which I might add hasn't been reviewed for almost 20 years, is being used to block or delay job-creating projects. Mr. Speaker, the goal of the ESA was to conserve key domestic species, but today, unfortunately, it's being used by special interest groups to file lawsuits and drain resources away from the real recovery efforts of those species.

The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and other environmental regulations are going far beyond their original intent, and they, too, are being used to place unnecessary and costly burdens on economic development projects throughout the country. NEPA has become a tool for litigation, sometimes resulting in decades worth of delays before a project can move forward.

The list of burdensome regulations and policies go on and on, and what I have described just scratches the surface. American businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. Rural communities who depend on these resources are feeling their livelihoods threatened. And American families, many of whom are already finding it difficult to make ends meet, are paying more for everything from gasoline to fruits and vegetables.

A clean, healthy environment is a priority for all Americans. But an equal priority is a Federal Government that sets sensible rules that provide clarity, certainty, and allow job-creating initiatives to move forward in a timely, efficient manner.

The Obama administration needs to exercise common sense. Spending more money and imposing new rules will not lead to economic recovery. Businesses and communities need relief from these top-down policies that are costing American jobs.

The Natural Resources Committee and all of its subcommittees will be conducting thorough oversight of the Obama administration policies, taking a close look at how and why decisions are made. So, Mr. Speaker, I fully support this resolution, and Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee are committed to promoting policies that will reduce spending, strengthen the economy, and create American jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I do not.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman of the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the last gentleman, I yearn for these open rules we're going to have.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), the subcommittee chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Mr. McClintock, from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the valuable new member of our committee, Mr. Gosar from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to another new valuable member of the Resources Committee, Mr. Johnson of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to yield 2 minutes to another new member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts' willingness to work with us on this very important issue.

But I want to make it very, very clear because there are some on the other side that were suggesting that we want to do something that we're not even debating here, and that is to wipe

every regulation off the book. No, what we are trying to do here is to look at the regulations and see where perhaps they are not being carried out as Congress intended them. And I think specifically what we want to do, since this President took office, even though we should have done that with past Presidencies on both sides of the aisle, but since this President took office, the scope and reach of the executive branch has greatly expanded as has been documented by just about every speaker and even acknowledged by speakers on the other side. And the question, Mr. Speaker, is: Why? And what is the cost to our economy and American jobs?

Congress has an obligation to look into this and to hold the administration accountable--and any administration, for that matter, in the future. So, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here tonight and what this resolution on the floor that we are debating by virtually all committees in the House is simply starting that process. And I look forward to working with my friends across the aisle because we appear to have common ground.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of House of Representatives Rule XI, I hereby submit the rules of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Rules of the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of

Representatives, 112th Congress, Adopted January 26, 2011

Madam Speaker, first and foremost today, my thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, the other victims of the shooting and their families and friends.

As Members of Congress, it is our duty and our privilege to reach out to our constituents to foster open discussions and exchanges of ideas. It's what makes this institution truly the people's House and it's one of the reasons many of us decided to run for office in the first place. Gabby was doing this work when this senseless tragedy occurred. A lone gunman interrupted a routine Congress on your Corner, killing six and wounding a dozen more, including our colleague Gabby.

At this somber time, I would like to echo the words of Speaker Boehner, ``An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve.'' We cannot let the actions of one individual challenge one of the most basic tenets of our free society--the right to peaceably assemble. It is worth noting that Congresswoman Giffords read the first amendment to our Constitution here on the House floor just days before this tragic event.

I look forward to the day when Congresswoman Giffords returns to the House floor to continue her work on behalf of the people of the eighth district of Arizona. In the meantime, my thoughts and prayers are with all affected by this unthinkable event.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the repeal of the job-killing health care law.

Today's vote is part of what will be an ongoing effort by House Republicans to repeal President Obama's health care law and replace it with solutions that protect jobs and preserve health care choices-- without driving our nation deeper into debt.

Today we put the focus back where it belongs--jobs, affordable health care, and smaller government.

Mr. Speaker, last year, the Democrat controlled Congress pushed through a government takeover of health care using a closed approach that blocked any input from our side of the aisle. Almost as soon as the bill was signed into law, the extensive reach of the strong arm of government was felt by the American people.

Many were forced out of their existing health plans--even if they liked it--including many of our nation's seniors who will be pushed out of their current Medicare Advantage plans.

Our nation's businesses were hit with a costly job-killing paperwork requirement--and they still face other new mandates, fines and taxes.

All Americans have been hit by a mandate requiring individuals, regardless of their personal circumstances, to purchase government- approved insurance or pay a penalty. The constitutionality of this mandate is currently being challenged by a number of states including my home state of Washington.

And, hospitals like the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in a rural, medically underserved part of my district face new restrictions simply because they are owned by doctors.

The American people spoke in volumes in November and it is time to respond to their message.

The time has come to fulfill our promise to the American people and take steps to repeal this law that is bad for families, seniors and employers. I look forward to getting down to work on real solutions that will preserve the patient-doctor relationship, increase choices and reduce health costs.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this legislation takes H.R. 81, the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, which passed this House in March of last year, and adds several other fisheries provisions, all of which I support. My colleague has adequately explained and described what is in this small fisheries package, and I do not object to this legislation. Action by this House will clear these measures for the President. I urge adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Alabama for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, for over 2 years I served on the investigative committee that reviewed allegations and evidence involving Mr. Rangel, and we found substantial reason to believe, which is what our threshold was, that violations occurred. Because the facts of this matter are not disputed, I will not comment on the evidence. But I will, however, comment on the length of the investigation and particularly a statement made by Mr. Rangel regarding the confidential work of the investigative committee.

First, on the length of the investigation. Chairman Green and I, when I was the ranking member of the subcommittee, had every intention of completing the investigation before the conclusion of the 110th Congress, but events intervened.

In September 2008, Mr. Rangel publicly pledged that he would release in a timely manner a forensic analysis of 20 years of his tax returns and financial disclosures. However, we did not receive the report until May of 2009, 8 months later.

Then, in December 2008, serious new allegations involving Nabors Industries resulted in the committee's unanimous decision to expand its jurisdiction.

In August of 2009, amendments filed by Mr. Rangel to his financial disclosures raised serious new questions, resulting in the committee unanimously expanding an investigation once again.

Finally, after receiving the information long requested from him, the subcommittee completed its work, and sent the Statement of Alleged Violations to him on May 27, 2010. Remember that date.

Now, on Mr. Rangel's statement--and here I am going to be very critical, Mr. Speaker. Let me read a statement he made in an article dated June 6, 2010, in Politico--and I'm quoting Mr. Rangel now.

``I would normally believe, being a former Federal prosecutor, that if the allegations involve my conduct as a Member of the House and there is a committee with Republicans and Democrats there, then that you refer to the committee. And if they're so confused after 18 months that they can't find anything, then that is a story.''

Mr. Rangel, in my view, had misrepresented the work of the subcommittee. Why do I say that? Because the comments he made were comments over a week after the subcommittee had transmitted a detailed confidential Statement of Allegations, accompanied with thousands of pages of documents, to him. He knew the contents of the report.

Confused?

There is no confusion. Everything was in his possession. He knew what the subcommittee produced, and he deliberately misrepresented its contents. In fact, he was aware of the subcommittee's work as early as December 15, 2009, when he testified before the committee. In addition, after he received the SAV, he subsequently met in executive session, at his request, two more times with his counsel.

I mention this because there is discussion of process in this matter. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that the subcommittee had treated him unfairly.

So, Mr. Speaker, the investigative subcommittee completed its responsibilities to the House and the American people in a timely, professional, and responsible manner. The facts supporting the 11 violations are not disputed.

I will vote for the resolution.