Floor Statements

I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for sponsoring this time to talk about the importance of having Cut, Cap, and Balance. This is an historic vote that we're going to be taking in the House tomorrow. And I think that it's critical that we have a solution that will get our fiscal House in order.

Very few of the other people that are negotiating with the House leadership--I am talking about the Senate Democratic leadership, the White House, they're very short on having specific plans. I haven't really seen anything in writing, in fact. I'd love to see something in writing so we could actually do a financial analysis, a fiscal analysis of one of the other plans. But this is a way forward that many of us are looking forward to voting for tomorrow here on the floor.

And as you have been describing it, Representative Franks and Mr. Bilbray of California, the elements of this plan are really wonderful for the fiscal health and the financial future and the prosperity of our country. America is a great country, and I don't want to see her go into decline. And if we don't do something, that is the prospect that we unfortunately have before us.

So I look forward to voting to cut the next year's budget by a manageable amount. Sure, there will be some people who say, Don't cut this; I'd rather you cut something else. But we have to live within our means, so we're cutting from next year's budget.

We're also capping the next 10 years so that instead of the unsustainable 24 or 25 percent spending of our gross domestic product for the Federal Government, it's going to be brought down to about 20 percent or under 20 percent. That is important for living within our means.

Historically, post-World War II, the revenues of the Federal Government have been about 18 percent, nowhere near the 24 or 25 percent. Even 19.9 percent that this calls for after, like, year six or seven is still higher than our revenues, but it's on a glide path, it's on a trajectory that gets toward balance.

And the best thing of all is a balanced budget amendment. And this is something that the minute, should it pass the House and Senate and go to the States and should the three-quarters of the States, 38 of them, pass it in their own legislatures and it becomes part of the U.S. Constitution, at that moment we will live under a balanced budget, whether that's 4 years or 8 years or 12 or however long that would take. So this has a short-term, a medium-term, and a long-term solution for the fiscal health of our country.

Now, if others say, Well, I don't like that plan; I'm going to vote against it, I'd like to see their plan. The status quo is simply unacceptable. We are headed toward a Greece-type default and bankruptcy, and we just simply do not need to do that. So we have to reduce our spending.

Representative Franks, you know this as well as I do. I have watched and respect your voting record, and you're one for holding the line on extraneous spending. And that's what it takes. Every family has to do it. Every business has to do it. Every individual has to do it. When your income is not as much as your outgo, you have to reprioritize. You have to stop spending as much as you want to and you have to live within your means. Every other government in the country has to do that--cities, States, counties. They all have to do it. The Federal Government is, for some reason, the only one that's exempt from these fiscal laws of nature.

So we have this historic vote tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to voting to cut, cap, and balance our Nation's finances. And Representative Franks, I'm so glad that you are sponsoring this time so that we can discuss this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an exemplary Colorado family: Nelson and Cruz Moore and their children, Rachel and Jacob. I would like to express my gratitude to the Moore family for their service to the State of Colorado. They have taken upon themselves to care for and preserve a culturally and historically significant Jewish gravesite in Cotopaxi, Colorado.

Cotopaxi, Colorado is the site of the unsuccessful Jewish agricultural resettlement effort of 1882-1884. It was the first Jewish American agricultural colony sponsored as part of the American Jewish aid movement through the Hebrew Emigrant Aide Society. The Jewish settlers endured difficult circumstances as they sought to establish themselves as farmers in Cotopaxi. Despite assistance from the local Christian community, the Jewish agricultural community still failed due to the harsh Colorado winters, unsuitable terrain, and the lack of promised housing and provisions by their local sponsor. Today, all that is left of the colony is the small graveyard of three Jewish children that lost their lives during the first winter of the attempted settlement. A historic marker has been erected by the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation telling the story of the colony, helping preserve its memory, and highlighting the friendship of the two groups, united as Americans.

At the Cotopaxi grave site, Moore cleared the overgrown grasses and stabilized the area. He placed decorative stones around the three Jewish graves taken from a local silver mine that some of the Jewish men worked in. He also created and arranged the stones in the shape of the Star of David in the middle of the three graves. The Moore family is continuing their Christian friendship for the Jewish people, even though it has been 130 years since the Jewish settlers first arrived in Cotopaxi. The memory of these immigrants is honored and carried on through the Moore family's efforts to preserve the history of Colorado and America.

I am honored to acknowledge and to thank them publicly for their exemplary dedication and Christian friendship with the Jewish people.

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

Mr. Chairman, my constituents in Colorado, like all Americans, are demanding that Congress cut spending. We must look for every opportunity, large and small, to cut wasteful government programs. This amendment does just that.

The Weatherization Assistance Program, otherwise known as ``Cash for Caulkers,'' and part of the failed stimulus package, has been plagued by bureaucratic mismanagement. This $5 billion program was supposed to create jobs, but we all know that didn't work out so well. In fact, with unemployment ticking up for 2 months in a row, we must reverse course and cut all unspent stimulus dollars.

In the stimulus, $5 billion was injected into ``Cash for Caulkers'' through the Department of Energy in an attempt to help lower the cost of energy and increase efficiency for people who qualified. The goal was to make 593,000 homes more energy efficient by March 2012.

This program, however, has been marked by mismanagement, fraud, waste, and abuse. Most notably is the case of Delaware, where Federal auditors found mismanagement issues and potential fraudulent activities. Reportedly, subsequent repairs and other inspections will cost the State a sizable amount of their remaining funds. Issues have arisen in other States as well.

When large sums of money are spent too quickly, the opportunities for waste and abuse are rampant. The Obama administration, in its haste to create government jobs, failed to thoughtfully and prudently assess how money was spent. In these tough fiscal times, we must have accountability for every dollar spent by the Federal Government.

States have until March of 2012 to use Cash for Clunkers funds or risk having them returned to the Treasury. I am concerned that this could leave a large slush fund of $1.5 billion in the hands of federal bureaucrats. They could spend that money with very little Congressional oversight.

My amendment is simple. It will prevent the Secretary of Energy from reallocating funds remaining from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act from one State to another. This will leave up to $1.5 billion that can be returned to the Treasury next March, thus reducing our massive deficit.

I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Lamborn

Amendment No. 5: Page 23, line 4, strike ``expended:'' and

all that follows through ``6864(a)).'', and insert

``expended.''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Steve Martyn, Field Representative and Case Worker for the 5th district of Colorado, and would like to express my gratitude for his service and congratulate him on his well-earned admission to the University of Colorado School of Law.

Mr. Martyn's career has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to public service as he has been involved in numerous service activities at the state and federal level. He has been a tremendous researcher, team leader, event planner, writer, and more specifically, an invaluable member of my staff. He has represented me and my office with excellence and has given his best efforts to serve the wonderful citizens of Colorado Springs.

For the past two years, Mr. Martyn has proven himself to be an exceptional case worker, field representative, and respected team member among his colleagues. Thousands of constituents have been directly aided and positively influenced by the expertise, customer service, and distinguished work ethic of Mr. Martyn.

As he transitions into life as a full-time law student, I am greatly honored to acknowledge

and thank him publically for his service. The benefits that my wife and I, our staff, and the many citizens of the 5th district of Colorado have received due to his hard work are beyond measure. Mr. Martyn has set an impressive precedent for service, proof of his path to a highly successful career. I would like to join in celebration with his colleagues, family, and friends as we congratulate him on his achievements as he continues to further his commitment to public service through the practice of law.

Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment and consider it harmful to our Nation's defense.

We already know President Obama is no fan of missile defense based on his budget priorities. He cut this same program, Ground Based Midcourse Defense, by $445 million in fiscal year 2010. His request for 2012 cuts this program by another $185 million.

Remember, this program is the only defense we have against an intercontinental ballistic missile fired by a rogue country or a terrorist group. On top of Obama's cuts, this amendment would cut another $100 million. All we have today is a couple of dozen Interceptors on the west coast. We have nothing on the east coast. We should be adding money, not slashing it.

The general in charge of the Missile Defense Agency said in April in a hearing before our subcommittee that he wants more money than what the President requested for testing and additional Interceptors. The Secretary of Defense said in January we have underestimated the threat from North Korea from its missile and nuclear programs. The Director of National Intelligence said in February that Iran's missile technology could be used for ICBMs.

Now is not the time to slash our only defense for intercontinental threats from countries like North Korea or Iran. The threat is real. The consequences would be devastating. We must reject this reckless amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 63rd anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel, declared on May 14, 1948. Israel has provided Jews from all over the world with the opportunity to reestablish and participate in a Jewish state and society in their ancient homeland, the Land of Israel, with the city of Jerusalem as its undivided capital. Not only is Israel home to many religious sites sacred to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but Israel has provided a refuge to Jews who survived the unprecedented horrors of the Holocaust and Jewish refugees who fled persecution around the world.

The people of Israel have established a pluralistic democracy that includes the freedoms cherished by the people of the United States, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and government by the consent of the governed. Israel continues to serve as a shining model of democratic values by regularly holding free and fair elections, promoting the free exchange of ideas, and vigorously exercising in its Parliament, the Knesset, a democratic government that is fully representative of its citizens.

Additionally, Israel has bravely defended itself from terrorist and military attacks repeatedly since independence. With thousands of rocket attacks from violent extremist groups in Gaza against Israeli civilian targets in recent years that have caused hundreds of casualties and have destroyed homes, schools, buildings, roads, power lines, and other significant infrastructure, Israel has stood strong. Even with the deaths of over 1,000 innocent Israelis over the last several years at the hands of murderous, suicide bombers and other terrorists, the people of Israel stand strong. Israel continues to seek peace with their Palestinian neighbors and have signed landmark peace treaties and successfully established peaceful bilateral relations with neighboring Egypt and Jordan.

Moreover, Iran, which continues to reject Israel's right to exist as a nation, remains a continued threat to Israel's safety and security, both through its support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and through its ongoing efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

A strong and valuable ally, the United States and Israel enjoy a strategic partnership based on shared democratic values, friendship, and respect. The United States share a deep affinity with the people of Israel and view Israel as a strong and trusted ally. Not only was the United States the first nation to offer de facto recognition, but did so only 11 minutes after the creation of the state of Israel.

In recognizing the 63rd anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel, I reaffirm enduring, bipartisan support for the alliance and friendship between the Governments and peoples of the United States and Israel, for Israel to exist as a democratic Jewish state, and for its right to defend itself. I look forward to continued cooperation in resolving future mutual challenges and extend warm congratulations and best wishes to the people of Israel as they celebrate independence.

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. 1229.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, families and businesses across the country are struggling with skyrocketing gasoline prices that in many places have already passed $4 per gallon. Everyday activities, such as commuting to work or taking the kids to soccer practice, have strained family budgets, forcing Americans to make tough choices and sacrifices. Unfortunately, rising gasoline prices are not the only energy crisis currently hurting our country. For over a year, communities along the Gulf of Mexico have suffered through a real and then de facto moratorium on offshore drilling imposed by the Obama administration. The administration's intentional slow-walking of drilling permits has cost 12,000 jobs according to their own estimates. According to economist Dr. Joseph Mason, this could cost over 36,000 jobs nationwide if businesses and their employees are not allowed to return to work soon. Over the past month, the Natural Resources Committee has heard from numerous small businesses in Louisiana that have had to lay off hundreds of people, eliminate benefits and diminish their savings just to try to stay afloat.

The bill being considered by the House today will help address all of these concerns. It will put the people and businesses along the gulf back to work by requiring the administration to act on new drilling permits in a timely manner. For Americans across the country who are suffering from rising gasoline prices, this bill acts now to expand American production to help lower costs. H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act, sets a firm time line for the Secretary of the Interior to act on permits. Let me be very clear. Action does not necessarily mean approval. Action simply means that the Secretary must make a decision either to approve or to deny a permit. The bill gives the Secretary 30 days to act, along with two 15-day extensions. This 30-day time frame is consistent with the time line for approving exploration plans, which are far more complicated. A deadline is necessary in order to stop the endless bureaucratic delays and inaction that are currently taking place and to provide companies with some certainty.

There are over 50 permitted projects in the Gulf of Mexico that were under way when the Obama administration imposed the moratorium in May 2010. Nearly a year later, over 40 of those same 50 projects have yet to resume work. This bill would give the Secretary 30 days to restart these projects that have already been approved.

I want to stress that H.R. 1229 will have an immediate impact on jobs and energy production. Each drilling platform supports 800 to 1,400 jobs. Each permit that is issued translates into several hundred people returning to work. In addition, there are production wells just waiting for permits to resume work, meaning that more American energy could come online within months of a permit being issued. Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 1229 also makes significant safety improvements. U.S. offshore drilling helps create American energy and American jobs, but it must be done in a safe and responsible manner.

The bill reforms current law by requiring a drilling company to obtain a permit to drill from the Secretary. Currently, such a permit is not required by law, only by regulation. The bill further reforms the law by requiring the Secretary to conduct a safety review. The bill ensures that all proposed drilling operations must, quote, meet all critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention, and oil spill response and containment requirements.

Finally, this bill establishes an expedited judicial review process for resolving lawsuits relating to gulf permits. This reform ensures that ending the de facto moratorium imposed by the Obama administration isn't replaced by paralyzing and frivolous lawsuits that could take years to resolve.

What we will see today during the course of this debate are two very different approaches to America's energy future. Republicans are pursuing an all-of-the-above energy approach to American energy production to create jobs, generate revenue, lower gasoline prices, and strengthen our national security. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats, on the other hand, want to make energy more expensive. Their agenda is to raise taxes to make energy production more difficult and costly. We saw proof of this last Congress when they did everything they could to push through the job-destroying Waxman- Markey national energy tax. Now they are trying to increase taxes on American energy producers.

While Americans are looking for solutions to lower gasoline prices, the Democrats' proposals would increase prices even higher. How in the world higher prices and taxes on energy would help Americans at the gas pump is beyond me.

It's time for Congress to take steps to end the economic pain in the gulf by allowing people to return to work. It's time to ease the pain of high gasoline prices by expanding American energy production. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to create jobs, to lower prices, including the price of gas at the pump, and to strengthen our national security.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a new member of the Natural Resources Committee, a member who is jumping in and making an immediate impact on the need for increasing our energy production, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a Member who is doing an excellent job of pointing out the need for bringing jobs and production back online in Louisiana and in the gulf, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 1 minute to a new member of the committee who represents a district right on the gulf coast and is passionate about what is happening and not happening down there and what should be happening, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, who's a new member of the committee and understands these issues well, Mr. Gosar.

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

I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining for both sides.

Then I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that anyone who reads the bill will see on the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2, ``Safety review required. The Secretary shall not issue a permit under paragraph one without ensuring that the proposed drilling operations meet all, A, critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention; and B, oil spill response and containment requirements.''

So when we look at the facts, we should start with the text of the bill itself.

At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time is remaining to our side and if any remains on the other side.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, I have been listening very closely and I still haven't heard a clear answer as to how $4 billion of additional taxes on energy companies will translate into lower costs at the pump. Now, I don't think it can be done, but I haven't even heard a cogent argument to establish that. So I am still listening, and maybe I will hear that later.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, who lives on and represents a district on the Gulf of Mexico, Mr. Landry.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the issue of safety that has been raised a couple of times here.

I quoted from the bill text earlier to show that there, indeed, are safety requirements that have been put into the bill as part of H.R. 1229:

The Secretary will not issue a permit unless critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements, have been satisfied.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I thank the gentleman and the others from the Natural Resources Committee on the Republican side who have spoken on this issue or are with the Energy and Commerce Committee and made great comments about how we do need to do what

we can in Congress to lower the price of gasoline. We do that by increasing production. The two go together. We don't do it by increasing taxes on the energy producers. We allow for policies to allow for more production.

We have to pass H.R. 1229 to make sure that, whether it is deliberate or not, this administration will not continue to stonewall the permitting process. It is a long and lengthy process. There are multiple environmental reviews that take place. Then to hold it up at the last and not allow for a permit to be issued is just not acceptable. All the work has been done when it becomes time to issue the permit.

So what this bill says is you have 30 days, with a couple of extensions, if necessary, to make the final decision. And you don't have to issue the permit. You can say no, if that is the best decision. Just take action, and let's have a little certainty in the business world and in the economy of our country, especially the Gulf of Mexico and the coastal States like Louisiana that are so heavily affected.

On the issue of safety, Mr. Chairman, we all do share the goal of wanting to make sure that offshore drilling is the safest in the world. Significant and fundamental changes have taken place over the past year to improve offshore drilling safety and response. Regulations have been enhanced and strengthened, standards have been increased, new technology has been developed, reviewed, tested and is being currently deployed.

BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich came to our committee and testified in front of the Natural Resources Committee and he said, ``We have confidence that offshore drilling can be conducted now more safely than it had been before and that we would be better able to deal with a blowout than we were before.''

Now, if anyone on the other side of the aisle wants to act as if nothing has been changed and there have been no safety reforms imposed, they are indicting the Obama administration in saying that they have turned a blind eye to the situation since the BP crisis took place, and that is simply not true. As I said a minute ago, new regulations have been imposed and standards have been strengthened. So I am not going to sit here and indict the administration on the safety aspect. There have been a lot of safety regulations by bureaucratic regulation put into place.

This bill does acknowledge that two additional things will be part of our law when this bill passes. H.R. 1229 says, number one, the Secretary will issue a permit. The need for a permit has not been ever codified, so we are requiring that a permit has to be issued before drilling can take place. Number two, the Secretary is to conduct a safety review. That is being mandated and put into law.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1229. We are going to be looking at some amendments shortly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Although well intended, this amendment is duplicative and would add delays to the permitting process and production of American-made energy. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior as overseers of permitting in the gulf to ensure safe and environmentally responsible drilling in the gulf.

Since the spill last year, the Department of the Interior has made extensive changes to permitting requirements for offshore operations. Every drilling permit is required to go through multiple environmental reviews before the application can be approved. This begins with an initial programmatic environmental impact statement and is followed by a lease sale-specific environmental impact statement and continues with additional environmental reviews as drilling activities move forward.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the department already must comply with numerous environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive orders. These regulations include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. And I may have left some out. This demonstrates the redundancy in this amendment and why it is not necessary.

Administration officials and even Director Bromwich have stated on numerous occasions to both the Natural Resources Committee and the American people that they would not permit operations if they did not believe they meet all the requirements to be conducted safely, efficiently, and in an environmentally responsible manner. The Interior Department already complies with these particular environmental regulations when approving permits. And the fact that the Department is permitting operations, although at a slower pace than I would like to see, demonstrates that they have confidence in the regulations that the agency has set for offshore drilling operations. The real effect of this amendment, whether intended or not, is more delays to offshore energy production and more lengthy and burdensome lawsuits.

So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do oppose this amendment. Although well intended, the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act itself makes drilling already safer by requiring that the Secretary ensure that any proposed drilling operation be subject to a safety review--it's there in the bill already--and that it meet established critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements, and this has to be done before the issuance of a permit.

The decision to approve individual permit applications is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. I don't believe it should be farmed out to other organizations that may or may not have the background, the expertise, or the resources to evaluate drilling permits.

In fiscal year 2011, House Republicans voted to increase funding for the Department of the Interior in order to ensure that they have the resources to safely, responsibly, and effectively approve permits.

The Interior Department has a responsibility, as it drafts legislation, to solicit public comment; and they do take advice and counsel from all Americans, including those with expertise in these areas. However, once the standards are set, it is the responsibility of the government to enforce the standards.

Oversight is the Federal Government's responsibility, and it should not be delegated to outside organizations. Whether intended or not, this amendment would slow down and make more complicated the already lengthy and involved permitting process. So I urge opposition to this amendment, and urge opponents to vote ``no'' on it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there is a public comment period that is available right now, and that is a proper and appropriate forum for an outside group to make the kind of standards- related comments that would be possibly helpful.

But when it comes to actually issuing the permit, that is something that should be delegated to the Federal Government. They do have the resources. In fact, they have expanded resources to do a better job of that, hopefully, in the future.

So, for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment was already rejected by a bipartisan vote of the full Natural Resources Committee and, once again, I urge opposition to it. This amendment micromanages and dictates specific safety and blowout preventer standards for permit applications. Many of these standards would do little or nothing different than what is already being done by the Department of the Interior.

However, these restrictions would, if this amendment passes, be etched into law, making Congress the technical arbiter and micromanager of Outer Continental Shelf regulations, and reducing the flexibility and ability of the Department to adapt to new technology and new development in drilling safety. So if we're lagging behind developments in the industry, this would actually prevent us, or could prevent us, from adopting those new and better standards in the future.

The technical standards proposed in this amendment have not been subject to a thorough review or understanding of the impacts of such changes. This is particularly troubling when you consider that this language was written before we even knew why the blowout preventer failed.

H.R. 1229 already takes steps to increase the safety of offshore drilling by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review to ensure that the proposed drilling operations meet ``critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements.'' That language is lifted straight out of the bill.

So my colleagues on the other side are acting as if nothing has changed and no safety reforms have been made. By doing so, they are ignoring the facts on the ground and the actions of their own party's administration. I'm not willing to indict the administration and say that they have done nothing in this regard.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying that the experts that we should rely on are those that are in the Department of the Interior, Director Michael Bromwich with BOEMRE and all the way down, who have been working on this for the last year. They have extensive regulations. Some of what is proposed are actually regulations right now.

And while the bill does call for certain safety standards to be satisfied and met, we have delegated the responsibility for the exact language and implementation of those regulations to those who deal with this 8 hours a day, day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out. So there is a balance. We give the broad parameters. They carry out, as a regulatory agency, every last final detail.

And Congress, as has been admitted, does not have the technical expertise to foresee every single development and foresee every single problem that could arise. So while overseeing, we have to do some delegation. This bill does that. We strike that fine balance.

And the administration's department has been doing a strong job of strengthening the safety requirements. I do take issue with the pace of their permitting. But as far as the safety implementation, they have put very aggressive safety measures into place.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

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.

I do oppose this amendment because it is duplicative and unnecessary. This amendment attempts to expand upon the language in the bill that already mandates that the Secretary conduct a safety review to affirm oil spill response and containment capability prior to issuing a permit. We believe that the Department of the Interior already requires that applicants must calculate worst-case discharge before approving a permit.

On June 18 of last year, the Department issued a notice to lessees outlining the information requirements and standards to be met before a permit could be approved. In the notice it is required that a lessee ``describe the assumption and calculations that you used to determine the volume of your worst-case discharge scenario.''

This exact language, this exact intention has already been addressed, so I would oppose this amendment as redundant and unnecessary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee who has a district in the State of Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, so at this point I am going to wait and close as soon as the gentlelady is done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying that this amendment, though well intended, is duplicative; and I think that has been admitted by the other side and therefore is unnecessary.

I would urge a ``no'' vote.

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.

The legislation on the floor today is designed to put Americans in the gulf region back to work and to ensure that permits are processed in a timely fashion and that bureaucratic delays are not hampering the Nation's energy production. There are critics of the timeline that is proposed in this bill on both sides of that timeline. Some say it's too short. Others say it is too long. It's important that people understand that nowhere in this bill do we require the administration to do anything but reach a decision, whatever that decision might be. They may deny an application at any time in the process as long as they provide a clear description of why they are doing so.

Prior to the incident in the gulf, the administration was very capable of processing permits in 5 to 15 days on average. The 30-day timeline in the bill is significantly longer, and allows the administration extensions. In the end, the administration must reach a decision. The provision this amendment proposes to remove is the final deadline that the administration must meet and one that should be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that no de facto moratorium or permitorium is instituted.

This amendment, if adopted, would simply further delay offshore energy production. It would continue to allow the Department to arbitrarily impose a de facto drilling moratorium that could cost thousands of jobs and allow higher prices on energy with less supply.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to apologize. I was confused as to whether the gentleman was asking a rhetorical question or really wanted to have a colloquy. By the time I figured that out, he had moved on to the remainder of his argument. I would have been happy to and hopefully in the future I could have a colloquy on that with him.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

I will conclude by saying that what this bill wants to accomplish is that the administration must reach a decision on whether a permit should be issued. This amendment proposes to remove the final deadline that the administration would have to meet and one that should be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that no de facto moratorium is instituted.

This amendment would simply further delay offshore energy production. That does not help jobs. It does not help the supply or cost of energy in this country. It would allow the Department to arbitrarily impose a de facto drilling moratorium that would cost thousands of jobs.

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

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. I will do my best to be brief.

The purpose of H.R. 1229 is to get residents of the gulf back to work in producing offshore energy. It is not only good for them; it is good for the entire country.

This amendment, whether intended or not, would allow the administration to continue to impose a de facto moratorium that would delay American energy production and keep thousands of people out of work. The residents of the gulf are simply in a holding pattern, waiting for their jobs to come back. Some of them are even seeing their jobs outsourced to other countries as rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico, bound for other parts of the world.

Now, there is an established process for the administration to propose and advocate for funding and resources, which is different from what this amendment addresses. This annual process, the budget process, provides ample opportunity for considering what is needed to safely and responsibly oversee offshore energy production. Let us note that the House Republican majority, in enacting a budget, acted to increase funding for reviewing and approving offshore permits for the current year, which was not done by the Democratic Congress last year.

This amendment would delay American energy production. For that reason, I oppose it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the intent of H.R. 1229 is to put Americans in the gulf back to work and to ensure a steady domestic supply of oil for our citizens and our consumers, thereby lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

I must oppose this amendment. The effect of the amendment is that we are going to hold ourselves hostage to foreign energy unless we can prove that domestic energy meets some abstract standard and satisfies some bureaucrat.

Where I disagree with this amendment the most is the assumption that domestic energy production might not be good for America and might not be allowed. More supply cannot help but to lower prices, reduce dependence, generate revenue and create jobs. I see all these results of domestic energy production as good: good for America, good for consumers and good for our balance of trade. This is true whether the impact from a single well is sufficient in and of itself to move the price of oil prices overseas or not. The real result of this amendment would be that we don't create jobs, revenue and more energy.

For these reasons, Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would just point out that it is skewing the statistics and not accurate to say that the U.S. only has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. When you look at Btus, energy production, we have more energy available in this country than any other country in the world; and looking at oil specifically, we have 145 billion barrels of recoverable oil, according to the CRS. So that is much larger than what some people say.

On the point of whether the President has taken a position, this is the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, and there is no veto threat in here. So if we are fortunate to see this bill not just pass the House but the Senate as well, I am sure the White House will seriously consider this, and I would be hopeful that it would be signed into law.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In order to ensure that there is a circuit court that is familiar with the legal issues surrounding civil actions involving gulf energy production, it is important that venue be restricted to the Fifth Circuit so that those district and appeals court judges would have the essential experience and legal precedent to fairly rule on these technical cases. For that reason, I oppose this amendment.

The Fifth Circuit, as was pointed out earlier, does include Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, all Gulf Coast States. If various district courts and courts of appeal throughout the country were able to hear these cases, there may be a result of having no uniformity in decisionmaking, and judges who do not have as much expertise or background could be making vital decisions in which the energy security of our Nation hangs in the balance.

It is essential that there be one Federal judicial circuit that understands the technical aspects of these cases with judges who have a background in understanding offshore energy policies and practices. That will ensure that all cases are handled fairly and expeditiously and uniformly without any confusion or delay. By requiring all cases to go through the Fifth Circuit, we accomplish this important goal.

For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman wanted to make sure that the judges of Alabama and Florida were included, then maybe the amendment should have been written that way, and I think we would have a strong point of debate and that would be a legitimate item to discuss. However, that's not how the amendment is drafted. The amendment talks about letting in judges of the entire country, circuits of the entire country. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, I would say that we would have a more legitimate issue to debate. We could go into that. But it's too late, the amendment doesn't say that. And so that's not an option in front of us.

I would say that those judges certainly would have a closeness to the situation that would be helpful. But the circuit, I believe it's the 11th Circuit, includes a number of other States that are not as situated like Alabama and Florida. So in choosing the Fifth Circuit, all the States there are Gulf Coast States.

Reclaiming my time, my understanding is the Judiciary Committee did not have any problems with this particular revision. But having discussed all the issues around this amendment, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let's stand back and look for a moment at the big picture. This administration has been held in contempt of court for slow-walking permits and is currently trying to appeal a Federal judge's warning that ordered them to act on stalled deepwater permits. While the administration continues to hold up the permitting process, thousands of Americans remain unemployed, and American energy is locked up.

This legislation encourages courts that are hearing permitting cases to act as expeditiously as possible. Environmental groups are already working to prepare lawsuits aimed at stalling and holding up offshore energy production. This bill encourages the courts to work expeditiously so that lawsuits can be settled quickly.

Now, in seeking to replace the word ``expeditiously'' with ``justly,'' we are doing something that is totally unnecessary. Those of us supporting this bill already assume that the courts will act justly. That's what they're appointed for, and that's what we expect and require them to do. So it is superfluous and unnecessary to say that they have to act justly when that's what they're going to do. At least that's our assumption over here anyway. Yet we need to say that they act expeditiously as well as justly because of the slow-walking nature of this current administration's approach to permitting.

The effect of this amendment, were it to be adopted, would slow down American energy production at a time when prices are skyrocketing. We need judges to move cases in an expeditious manner so that we can use American energy. This bill ensures that everyone will have their day in court, but it also ensures that the slow walking of permits by this executive branch will not continue.

I urge a ``no'' vote and for my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Equal Access to Justice Act provisions in this bill are necessary to avoid costly delays to domestic energy development based on the extreme anti-energy agenda of a few groups. The Equal Access to Justice Act was intended to allow people and small businesses with limited financial means the ability to challenge the actions of the Federal Government. However, it is now being abused by deep-pocketed special interest organizations.

For example, in 2005, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council received nearly $200,000 in taxpayer dollars after suing the Federal Government in an offshore energy project in California. The Sierra Club has annual revenues of $85 million, and the Natural Resources Defense Council has annual revenues of over $100 million.

There is no justification for forcing the American taxpayer to pay the attorneys' fees of special interest groups that have ample funds of their own. Wealthy, ideological groups opposed to more American-made offshore energy can continue to sue to their hearts' content, but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Taxpayer dollars should not go to lawsuits being filed by special interests that are making millions and millions of dollars in annual revenue. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill is the first step for Republicans to bring a new energy policy to this country, the American Energy Initiative. Look at this chart. It says it all. Under Barack Obama and his regulators, the average price of gasoline in this country has gone up from $1.84 a gallon when he took office to just under $4. Under his watch, gasoline has more than doubled. We need more supply, and everyone agrees it should be our own energy, not foreign. Under the law of supply and demand, which my friends across the aisle have not found a way to repeal, more supply means lower prices, in addition to thousands of more jobs for Americans and billions of revenue dollars for the Treasury.

H.R. 1230 requires that four promising lease sale areas, three in the gulf and one off Virginia, must be opened up for production. No more stonewalling by this administration and extreme environmentalists. After this bill came out of my committee and the full Natural Resources Committee, this administration belatedly said it would start action on one of these four lease areas. If the only way we can get action is to shame them into it, Republicans will do so. If the administration still refuses, we will do our best to force action by changing the law.

This bill is the first step to get gasoline prices down. The American people deserve no less.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, the underlying bill already protects the Defense Department's responsibilities in the Outer Continental Shelf of Virginia. So this amendment is totally unnecessary.

Because preserving the working relationship between the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior is of great importance to the Virginia congressional delegation and to the Natural Resources Committee, H.R. 1230 already ensures the mutual goals of national security and energy independence by requiring that the lease sale be conducted with stipulations on surface use, as well as additional requirements to make certain that the leases issued in this area would not impact defense operations.

I also want to point out that bipartisan support for energy production offshore of Virginia does exist. According to a study by the Southeast Energy Alliance, offshore energy development in Virginia could create nearly 2,000 jobs in Virginia and produce more than one- half billion barrels of oil and 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

This natural gas is important, because in the last few years the Dominion liquefied natural gas terminal in Baltimore, Maryland, received huge amounts of foreign natural gas. Developing energy production in offshore Virginia could displace foreign natural gas as well as mean more energy for Virginia.

Now, in context, one-half billion barrels of oil is enough to fuel all 4 million cars in Virginia for more than 4 years, and 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could heat all 3.2 million Virginia households for more than 11 years. And, developing resources off Virginia's coast could generate nearly $19.5 billion in revenues to Federal, State, and local governments.

Virginians, along with their Governor, both Democratic Senators, and a majority of the congressional delegation here in Congress, and the city council of Virginia Beach, off of which much of the development would take place, do support offshore leasing and development because they understand it can bring much-needed jobs and revenues to the State.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the Governor of Virginia supports this, the majority of the House Members from Virginia support this without the amendment, and the Democratic Senators from Virginia have in the past agreed to legislation identical in wording to what this legislation says about offshore activity. So because the offshore activities are adequately and responsibly dealt with in the bill as it is, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 2011, the world will commemorate Armenian Remembrance Day and remember the one-and-a-half million Armenians that endured unspeakable suffering and loss at the hand of the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

In addition to the loss of so many Armenian lives, the twentieth century also bore witness to the loss of six-million Jews and four- hundred thousand other persons deemed ``non-desirable'' by the Nazis, the loss of millions of lives in Russia and in China by communist tyrannies, and modern day horrors in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur. All too often, we have not learned from past genocides. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states ``No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'' and that ``Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.''

Though nothing changes the fact that mass killings and unspeakable acts of brutality occurred, today I wish to learn from the past to better bring about hope for a brighter, more peaceful future and reconciliation of the people of Armenia and Turkey.

Only with a thorough examination of history and open acknowledgement of the past will the plight of the Armenians be fully understood.

As we continue confronting atrocities taking place today, and seek to prevent them from occurring in the future, we must also be resolute in acknowledging genocides of the past.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support this rule, H. Res. 174, and the underlying bill, my legislation, H.R. 1076, to prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content. It is time for American citizens to stop funding an organization that can stand on its own feet.

Long before any of the recent news stories on videos or the Juan Williams fiasco, I sponsored legislation in Congress to pull the plug on taxpayer funding for NPR. I enjoy some programs on NPR, but I have long believed that it can stand on its own.

The point at issue is not the quality or content of programming on NPR. The point is not the degree to which Americans support the arts, radio, news, and educational programs. The point today is whether government programs and services that can be funded privately or that are otherwise available in the private sector should receive taxpayer funding.

Apart from constitutional concerns, as a country we no longer have this luxury anymore. With the national debt over $13 trillion, the government simply can't continue to fund nonessential services.

Let me add that no one can really argue that these programs will disappear if Americans are no longer forced to subsidize them with Federal tax dollars. NPR can survive on its own.

This bill will accomplish three things:

One, it will prohibit direct funding of NPR. It now receives money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of Education and Commerce, and the NEA, among others.

Two, it prohibits the use of Federal funds provided to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for the payment of dues by local radio stations to NPR.

And, three, it prohibits the use of Federal funds provided through Corporation for Public Broadcasting for acquiring or producing programming.

Now, local stations could use Federal funds from the corporation for their operating expenses, but they would have to produce their content or acquire it with non-Federal funds.

Unemployment is now about 9 percent. When we get Federal spending under control, the economy will be stronger and there will be more jobs. That is why we are doing this.

NPR reports that only 2 percent of its funding comes from the Federal Government; however, that is only half the story. NPR local radio stations directly received congressionally appropriated funds that reached $64 million in 2010 alone. Plus, local stations directly receive grants from other Federal sources such as the National Endowment for the Arts. NPR stations then use these taxpayer dollars on licensing fees for NPR programming which goes back to the headquarters in Washington. Taking this indirect funding into account, Federal funds now make up, I would say, closer to 20 percent of their annual budget.

But let me be clear. This measure will not prohibit local stations from receiving any funding. It will just not allow them to use taxpayer dollars to pay NPR programming and pay NPR dues. They can do it without Federal dollars by embracing the private sector. I want NPR to grow on its own. I want to see it thrive. Just remove the taxpayer from the equation.

I thank the Rules Committee for this resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Thank you, Madam Blackburn, for your great work that you do on the committee.

I introduced H.R. 1076 because the Federal Government can no longer afford to fund programs that are fully capable of standing on their own. This is

not about the ideology of NPR executives or the content that NPR produces; but whether, in this age of trillion-dollar annual deficits, taxpayers should subsidize a nonessential entity.

Plain and simple, this bill accomplishes three things. First, it prohibits public radio stations from using Federal funds to purchase programming. Current Federal law requires that about 26 percent of Federal grants to public radio stations be used for the production or acquisition of programming. Many stations use these restricted grants to purchase programming from NPR. These programming fees are the largest single source of NPR revenue at $56 million in fiscal year '10.

Second, H.R. 1076 prohibits stations from using Federal funds to pay NPR dues: in fiscal year '10, over 400 member stations paid a total of $2.8 million in dues to NPR.

Third, my bill prohibits direct Federal fundings of National Public Radio. For fiscal year '10, NPR received over $5 million in direct funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Departments of Education and Commerce, and the National Endowment for the Arts. These three sources of revenues I just described totaled about $64 million in fiscal year '10.

Local public radio stations would not be able to use Federal tax dollars under this bill to purchase content, whether it's from NPR or any other vendor. However, under this bill, a station could use other dollars for the payment of NPR dues or the acquisition of programming. Should this bill become law, the prohibition of funds would take effect immediately.

But the real issue today is the proper role of the Federal Government with National Public Radio and whether government programs and services that can be funded privately should receive taxpayer dollars. We live in an age of digital radio, computerized digital streaming, commercial all-news radio, and radio talk shows, many of which are also streamed on the Internet or over satellite radio; and these provide sources of news and opinion without Federal taxpayer dollars. NPR should do the same.

With the national debt over $13 trillion, the government should simply not continue to fund nonessential services, and this bill is just one step.

Long before any firings, videos, and executive comments at NPR, I sponsored legislation in Congress to pull the plug on taxpayer funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR's parent company, as well as NPR. Last year, many of you will remember this issue came up as a YouCut item, and we voted in support of de-funding.

Last month, this House passed H.R. 1. Within that bill, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's unobligated funds for fiscal year '11 would be rescinded. When you couple H.R. 1 with this bill, H.R. 1076, we end up with taxpayers having to subsidize National Public Radio.

I'm a strong believer in the free market. I'd like to see NPR rework its business model and begin to compete for all of its income. NPR already receives a huge amount of funding from private individuals and organizations through donations and sponsorships. NPR can and should be entirely supported with private sources.

In my own State of Colorado, Colorado Public Radio received in fiscal year '10 only 6 percent of its funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now, according to this bill, Colorado Public Radio is still permitted to apply for and receive Federal grants through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but they cannot use Federal money for the NPR dues or purchasing of content. They could use the other 94 percent of their money to purchase program content. Will this potentially require them to review and reprioritize where money is spent? I'm sure it will. But will it kill its programming? No way.

According to NPR, Federal funding to supplement operations amounts to less than 2 percent of its annual budget. Some have said this Congress should not bother with such a small amount of money. Only in Washington would anyone say $64 million is not worth saving. You have to start somewhere if you're truly serious about getting our fiscal house in order. If Congress cannot make difficult decisions in the small areas, how can we even begin to tackle entitlements or other major programs?

If we look at the sting video that has received so much attention, Ron Shuler admits that NPR would be better off without Federal funding. There is no need for further debate. NPR does not need taxpayer dollars. We can save a program, or we can save our country. Americans want Washington to get serious about ending our overspending. If we can do that, the economy will get better, and we will have less unemployment and more jobs.

To wrap up, like many Americans, I enjoy much of NPR's programming; but let it live on its own. It can do that simply by changing its business model. Just take the taxpayer out of the equation.