Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Point of order.

Again the gentleman is discussing the amendment and not the point of order.

I made this announcement earlier in the day that I would allow the Member to have the 5 minutes to speak on the amendment even though it was subject to a point of order, if that courtesy was not abused. In recent points of order, that courtesy has been abused.

I will continue to show that courtesy to Members who do not abuse their 5 minutes and who do not abuse the point of order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, recently, I introduced H.R. 2320, which would make permanent the provisions of Section 646 of the Internal Revenue Code. Currently, these provisions are slated to expire on December 31, 2012.

In 1971, Congress passed, and President Nixon approved, landmark legislation known as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). This legislation settled the aboriginal land claims of Native Alaskans in exchange for land selection rights and cash. The law was, and is, a bold and organic national experiment in Native land claims settlement. However, it has needed revision and refinement many times since. 1971. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues over the past several years to accomplish these improvements.

In 1988, Congress enacted legislation to authorize Alaska Native corporations to establish ``settlement trusts.'' Their purpose was to provide benefits to Alaska Natives and permit a legal structure that would protect and preserve, for current and future Alaska Native generations, much of the value of the land claims settlement. The original ANCSA required Native groups to form Alaska state law corporations to receive, administer, and distribute the ANSCA settlement, and the 1988 legislation was recognition that the corporate form had not always been well-suited to this task. In part, this was due to the federal tax problems that attend the corporate form, although ironically in the years after 1988, it became apparent that the federal tax rules relative to trusts present their own complexities and problems that discouraged the use of settlement trusts.

Congress enacted Section 646 of the tax code to address these problems. Section 646 provides for an elective regime for Alaska Native settlement trusts that (i) provides for a trust level tax at various rates ranging up to 10% in lieu of beneficiary level taxes; (ii) allows contributions to be made to these trusts on a tax favored basis; and (iii) streamlines administrative reporting for these trusts. When adopted, this elective treatment initially provided significant incentives to the use of settlement trusts to further the ANCSA settlement, and Alaska Native corporations utilized this provision to provide benefits through Alaska Native stettlement trusts.

As I mentioned earlier, Section 646 is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2012, despite the positive effects it has had for the Alaska Native community. The principal aim of settlement trusts is to provide funds to the Alaska Native beneficiaries. These beneficiaries are among the most economically disadvantaged persons in our country. Section 646 has worked well to provide an incentive for the use of settlement trusts, and must be continued.

However, the looming expiration of Section 646 has had a chilling effect in recent years upon the establishment of new Alaska Native settlement trusts. Alaska Native corporations have no desire to exchange the corporate tax

problems they already face for the tax problems accompanying the trust form that they will face if Section 646 is allowed to sunset.

I introduced H.R. 2320 because a permanent extension of Section 646 will immediately remove the disincentive presented by the sunset of Section 646 for Alaska Native corporations to use settlement trusts to provide benefits to their Alaska Native shareholders.

I would like to note to my colleagues that the fact that Section 646 is not already a permanent part of the tax code is a result of its unique procedural history, rather than a result of any substantive determination as to its merits or revenue concerns about its cost. Section 646 was originally enacted, along with several other provisions, as an unrelated, miscellaneous provision as part of the 2001 tax legislation which, because of the need to use the budget reconciliation process, was subject to a December 31, 2010 sunset provision. Rather than subsequently being made permanent similar to other unrelated, miscellaneous provisions in the 2001 tax legislation, Section 646 was extended for two years along with the 2001 individual tax rate reductions as part of the 2010 year-end tax legislation such that it is now scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012. Once again, the decision to enact a two-year extension (rather than a permanent extension) was not attributable to substantive or revenue considerations relating to Section 646 itself. Rather, it followed from a decision to enact a simple two-year extension of all of the expiring 2001 provisions without assessing the merits of alternative extension periods for each expiring provision being extended. Thus, it is fair to say that the current non-permanent status of Section 646 is an accident of the legislative process and that no Member has ever suggested that the provision should not be made permanent. Further, there was wide support for the permanency provision in the last Congress. H.R. 2320 would simply remedy this accident of the legislative' process and make permanent a provision that should have originally been enacted as such.

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

Mr. Chairman, my interest in here is because I am from Alaska, and we have the finest wild salmon in the world. And we have people that are trying to--and especially under NOAA and FDA-- trying to approve the fact that they have genetically engineered a salmon. That's not natural.

And our goal is, we have a supply of natural wild salmon for the State of Alaska and for this Nation, because I think that's crucially important, especially in this day when we have all those that accuse us of having artificial things, you know, pesticides, et cetera.

This is a good amendment. It's an amendment supported by both sides of the aisle. It's not just Alaska. This is also for California, Oregon, and the rest of it. But mostly, I am the Congressman from Alaska. I think it's crucially important we understand that this should not be allowed, for the FDA to say, okay, a genetically raised salmon-- I call it a Frankenstein fish--should never be allowed in our markets.

I have a group of individual Alaskans who not only make their living, but they are proud of their product. To have this occur and be promoted by the Federal Government is wrong.

So I'm trying to save money. But I'm also saying genetically we should never allow it to happen in the fishing industry.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman.

I believe whoever has given him that information is wrong. We have a product made in the United States naturally. Why would we want someone to create a Frankenstein fish to compete against a naturally created God-given gift, and have it promoted by supposedly science?

There's no science in this. In fact, they were trying to do and say we have to feed the world with artificial means. And I'm saying, okay. Do it someplace. But don't you do it with my and our salmon.

Mr. Farr, listen to me very carefully. This is a very, very important thing because this is the greatest thing we have going, Alaskan natural wild salmon being sold in the market and the benefit, what they can do to have it replaced by a genetic Frankenstein fish. I'm saying this is wrong. All due respect to the chairman.

What science are they talking about? They have a bunch of people created by the government that's going to take and put in, I call it traps or nets, and create a fish that's fed quickly. They say it can grow quicker, we're home.

Well, what people are you talking about? Mr. Dicks, you better be listening because you catch most of my salmon. Don't you forget it. You had better stand on the floor and defend this because you're in deep trouble if you don't. I'll tell you that right now.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to express my concerns about our strategic ports. First, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Smith, and members of the Armed Services Committee for supporting an amendment that I offered with Ms. Bordallo that would direct specific study and analysis of critical infrastructure needs at our Nation's DOD-designated strategic seaports. I think the chairman would agree that understanding and addressing vital infrastructure needs at our strategic seaports is of major importance.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman.

Since 1958, the strategic seaport program has facilitated the movement of military forces securely through U.S. ports. Each strategic seaport has individual capabilities that provide the Department of Defense with the port facilities and services that are critical in maintaining the operational flexibility and redundancy needed to meet a wide range of national security missions and timelines.

However, the existing infrastructure at many of the strategic ports may no longer be adequate to meet the needs of our military. Language included in the bill will help us identify the infrastructure improvements necessary to ensure our strategic ports remain accessible to our military, as well as determine whether existing authorities and funding sources are adequate to facilitate making the necessary infrastructure improvements.

This study is an important first step. I look forward to working with the Armed Services Committee on ways to improve our strategic ports to guarantee that they remain capable of supporting our military's operational needs.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

Madam 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. 1231.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

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

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

May I ask how much time is remaining?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I urge support for the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

improving national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, on March 17, 2011, the House will consider H.R. 1076, to prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content. Unfortunately, I have a prior commitment that will prevent me from taking this vote. However, I feel strongly about this issue and I wanted to make those feelings known.

According to people that I have met with at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a public radio or broadcasting station is considered critically dependent on federal funding if thirty percent or more of its funding comes from federal funding. There are twenty-six National Public Radio (NPR) stations in Alaska and nearly half of them are critically dependent on federal funding. These stations serve cities, like KUAC in Fairbanks and KSKA in Anchorage. They serve salmon runs, like KDLL in Kenai and KDLG in Dillingham. The even serve places that are seemingly at the end the world, like KHUB on St. Paul Island and KBRW in Barrow. In many cases, these radio stations are the ONLY broadcast signal that many Alaskans get. To deny them access to basic news, early childhood education programming, and even emergency alerts, merely to serve a political agenda, is irresponsible.

I must, first and foremost, consider what is best for Alaska. When 11 NPR stations in Alaska would have to close their doors to the public if this bill becomes law, I must stand up for all Alaskans. As Alaska's lone voice in the House of Representatives for the last four decades, I am proud to support NPR.

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

Mr. Chairman, we must explore for and develop the Arctic resources in an environmentally safe and sustainable manner, and we must allow that exploration work to proceed without bureaucratic impediments. This amendment accomplishes both.

This amendment would limit funds in the bill from being used by the Environmental Appeals Board, EAB, to invalidate any permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, for activities on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf, OCS.

The EAB is an extension of the EPA that hears administrative appeals pertaining to permit decisions and civil penalty decisions of the agency. Very frankly, EAB is populated by environmental appeals judges who are lawyers associated with EPA or the Justice Department. This amendment does not circumvent the EPA's authority. Instead, it continues to give permitting decisions to the professionals in the regional office.

What this amendment will do is remove the ability for lawyers to overrule EPA permit writers. Over $4 billion has been invested in trying to drill exploratory wells, and to date not a single well has been drilled because of one EPA air permit.

Mr. Chairman, I must say, this is an example of how an aid agency is trying to issue the permits correctly, but they have a board that can listen to someone who objects to it that rules against them. And we have, in fact, had a little over 680 leases in the Arctic Ocean, oil that we need being held up by bureaucrats. We will do this safely. The air will be clean. They're 80 miles from any human, other than those who work on these ships. And if you believe it's right to buy this oil from overseas, shame on you.

Again, we are spending close to $40 billion this year or more buying foreign oil; 72 percent of our oil is coming from overseas. The right thing to do is allow us to take and explore and find out if that oil is there; and if it is, to develop it.

Remember, we're not the only ones in the Arctic anymore. Iceland, Greenland, China, Russia are all drilling. We're the only ones not involved; yet we have the best equipment, the best environmental wreckers in the Arctic. We have the proper equipment to do it safely. It's being held up by bureaucrats who don't want to issue the permits. EPA has said it's all right, but the review board says, no, it's not, within the agency itself. All it says, if they have the permit issued, then it should go forth, and let's get on to serving this country as we should for the benefit of this Nation, for the benefit of those so we don't have to go to war over in the Middle East over oil. So if you don't like what's going on over there, let's support this amendment. I believe it's the correct thing.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest one thing. The native communities in Alaska support this. They support drilling. I've had them in my office. And to say that, I

represent that State, not Alexandria, Virginia. And they've come to me and said we need it.

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho, the chairman of the appropriations committee, Mr. Simpson.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike the language in H.R. 1 that prohibits the Department of Education from funding the Alaskan Native Education Equity Act and the Native Hawaiian Education Program. The amendment will not add money to the Department of Education budget but will allow the department to fund those programs as they see a need.

I yield at this time to the good lady from Hawaii for a very short statement.

(Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I am deeply disappointed in the lady from Connecticut. This is a program that has been in existence since 1994, and you voted for it every time. This is not an earmark. This is an existing program. And I've heard you rail all night about restoring money, which are all earmarks. You're dead wrong.

Well, all right. I'll address the Chair, but I'll look over there.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

I am going to say respectfully, this is an existing program, and the reason it was started is because Alaskan natives and the Hawaiian natives do not receive money from the BIA. It was started to recognize an inequity of those people that live in both of our States. It is not a new program, and this language as written is at the discretion of the Department as they see a need.

Like I say, I thought we were going to start a little bit of a bipartisan effort on this side, and I don't see it when those people will take away from some of the most impoverished people who have not had that opportunity.

So I am urging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. And I say to those that oppose it, shame on you. I have heard the bleeding hearts all night, and it deeply disturbs me that they would say this is something different when it is an existing program.

Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

Amendment No. 532: Page 298, line 12, insert, ``or'' after

``title II,''.

Page 298, beginning on line 12, strike ``, part B of title

VII, or part C of title VII''.

Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

Amendment No. 533: At the end of the bill, (before the

short title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

Amendment No. 127: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

Amendment No. 148: ``For the Alaska Native Educational

Equity Act'' shall be $33,300,000.

Title VI. Strike Sec. 1617 and insert the following:

Sec. 1617. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for

``Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security

Administration, Transportation Security Support'' shall be

$955,338,000. Provided, That within ``Department of Homeland

Security, Transportation Security Administration,

Transportation Security Support'', funding for intelligence

and international programs shall be no less than the level

provided for such purposes for fiscal year 2010. Provided

further, That within ``Department of Homeland Security,

Transportation Security Administration, Transportation

Security Support'', funding for headquarters administration

and information technology shall not exceed $671,939,000.

I thank the good lady for yielding.

Mr. and Mrs. America, our economic growth is being stifled by 165,000 pages of regulations; 1.4 million laws were never voted on by this body. They are the law of the land, passed by the bureaucracy. We are to blame for this ourselves.

As you can see from the chart--I venture they will get it up here-- the number of environmental laws and executive orders affecting the construction industry has exploded since 1965. Just take a look at this. Here is where we are. Look at what they have to go through here. All these things have to be met by the construction company. This is why it takes 17 years to build a highway.

I want to keep in mind now--you keep hearing about creating jobs. You do not create a job; you allow a job to be created, and regulations prohibit that. We see regulations every day that prohibit the growth of industry and jobs in this country. You mentioned, Mr. Ranking Member, who was chairman, we can't even mine coal because of regulations.

So let's start thinking about the money. By the way, it costs $1,000,100,000,000 a year to implement these regulations that were never voted on. We can balance the budget in 13 years if we eliminate these regulations.

The agencies keep going forth each day spending more money. Their idea of success is having another law that has never been voted on. It gives an untold power to the executive branch. This is the House of the people, and if we don't address this issue, shame on us. It is absolutely important.

I just got a regulation proposed at Alaskan Airlines. They had to get a permit. By regulation, they are required to apply to the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration before they could fly it. You know what it was? It was whipped cream. You can't fly whipped cream without a permit. Another regulation from an agency. Who thought that up?

The second one, the newest one to come out is a regulation by EPA under the oil spill liability clause where the EPA is proposing a regulation to apply to dairies because milk has fat in it. They want to apply the oil spill liability regulation to a dairy. That means each cow costs $600 per life of the cow because they want to clean up milk. The saying ``don't cry over spilt milk'' is now going to cost you money, a regulation by an agency that makes no sense at all.

Wake up, Mr. and Mrs. America. Let's eliminate these regulations that prohibit job creation in this country. That is what we ought to be talking about.

I thank the gentleman.

I have a prepared statement here and I'll probably use some of it. I can't help but answer the gentleman from Massachusetts, who has never supported at any time, has never supported in any way, any energy development in this country. He was against nuclear power many years ago. He is still against it. He was against solar power and then since it is wind power in his State. And he's against, very frankly, any fossil fuel development. And depending on his so-called make-believe wind power, make-believe solar power, in the meantime, we're buying oil from overseas. And you know that.

The EPA, very frankly, is part of the problem. I am the chairman now of the American Indian and Alaska Natives and their lands can't be developed because of EPA. The Navajo Nation had a coal plant. They had the coal. They had the financing. And the Obama administration says, no, you can't do that through the EPA, through the Fish and Wildlife, et cetera, and they lost the financing for a coal project because they don't believe in coal. We have a trust relationship to the American Indians. And to have other agencies within the government say, ``No, you can't do it, you stay right where you are'' is wrong. They have the highest potential of energy of any land mass in this Nation and they're precluded from development because of regulations.

EPA just came out--I mentioned this earlier today--with a new concept of a regulation for dairies. This is your government, the Obama administration. And, by the way, thank God for George Bush. They're still blaming him for everything. But if I remember correctly, Horizon was done under the Obama administration. If I remember correctly, it was his Minerals and Management agency that wasn't doing their job. There were enough regulations in place. They weren't doing their job. If I remember, that's correct. George Bush was out of office.

But EPA now comes out with a new regulation under the oil spill liability where we develop oil that the moneys will be put aside for a cleanup, of which I support, but there are new regulations because they want to regulate the dairies of our Nation today. Mr. and Mrs. America, keep in mind, they want to regulate the dairies today because there's fat in the milk. Fat in the milk. And they want to have each cow be charged $600 per lifetime of that dairy, put aside in a fund to clean up spilt milk. That's your EPA and regulations. Remember, the term ``don't cry over spilled milk'' is going to cost you money now. That's the government regulations. I can go on and on what they've done to American Indians. They don't allow them to develop

their resources. There's a paternalistic type of society they have today. And I'm saying here as chairman, we are going to develop those resources in the nations that they are. That's our responsibility as a Congress. And to preclude that because of actions of regulatory agencies is dead wrong.

I am asking my colleagues to remember this. Every committee should be looking at every regulation. You want to balance this budget?

By the way, 1,600,000 laws on the books today were never voted on by anybody. Not ever voted on. It costs $1.01 trillion a year to implement those regulations. You want to balance the budget? Eliminate those regulations and you can balance it in 13 years. We could have industry again.

I'm just saying this is a good idea. Let's pass it.

Federal policies and regulations stand in the way of economic progress and free enterprise for all Americans, but the problem is especially bad in Indian Country.

Indian reservations have the highest rates of unemployment and poverty of any comparable areas in America.

These statistics are astounding when you consider that tribes own an estimated ten percent of the Nation's energy potential.

But so many tribal lands lie vacant and unused.

The problem is that development of Indian land is based on outdated, paternalistic Federal laws and policies.

Let me describe a few examples of these laws and policies.

We have the Long-Term Leasing Act . . . a 56-year-old statute that restricts most Indians from leasing their property for more than 25 year terms. In some cases this has prevented tribes from constructing new homes.

There is the National Environmental Policy Act, a law routinely used to delay and stop the use of lands reserved exclusively for tribes under solemn treaties with the United States.

The Endangered Species Act has become the weapon choice by special interests seeking to harm tribal development.

And then we have the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. One of the first acts of the Obama Administration was to have these agencies stop the Navajo Nation from building and operating a 1,500 megawatt power plant on its reservation.

The project would have created thousands of good jobs on a reservation with 50 percent unemployment, generating $1.5 billion over 30 years for the tribe's treasury.

Thanks to our government, the tribe is not allowed to create jobs for its citizens or produce power for millions of consumers.

This is wrong.

Tribes are caught in a Catch-22. They have over 50 million acres of land pursuant to treaties and Acts of Congress, but the catch is they can't use them without permission of Washington, DC.

Tribes are suffering from 19th-century Indian policies, and the result is a continuing Great Depression across many reservations.

Fortunately, a number of tribes have taken control of their resources from Washington, DC. They have proven to be outstanding stewards of their lands while providing huge energy resources needed by the country.

The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs is going to study the accomplishments of these tribes. We will consider changing outdated laws and policies that stand in the way of tribal economic development.

I look forward to the Subcommittee making progress--on a bipartisan basis--to create more tribal opportunity, and more tribal freedom from outdated Federal laws.

These sort of harmful regulations are not unique to Indian Country. For example, my Alaska fishermen are faced with similar crippling stupidity.

EPA now requires fish processing vessels operating in the Bering Sea to take water samples which are then tested at such a high resolution level that the tests cannot be performed by any labs in Alaska. The samples have to be sent out of Alaska at great expense.

To make matters worse, the test are required to be so precise and to such an unrealistic resolution level that if a technician has mercury amalgam fillings, his breath could alter the result.

In another instance, EPA is requiring complex seafood processing permits and gear for Alaska's small freezer troll fleet.

These folks only catch about 1,000 pounds of fish a day. They have 45-foot fishing boats and one or two deck hands--they fish with hook and line and clean their fish immediately. They toss fresh fish heads right back into the waters they came from--one at a time, and EPA wants them treated like a big factory ship. This is preposterous!

Again, this Committee will examine these issues and take steps to remove these foolish regulations that are stopping the production of new wealth.