Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks another tax day, culminating another year that Americans have been subjected to an outdated and overcomplicated Tax Code.

Three years ago on tax day, I attended the first Tea Party rally in my hometown of New Iberia. I was fed up with an overreaching government and fed up with an overburdensome Tax Code.

As a small business owner in the oil and gas industry, I've created jobs; I have made payroll; I have paid insurance; I have balanced budgets. I did these things like the majority of small businesses out there across America did, with hard work, determination, and, of course, a fantastic accountant to sift through the 3,837,105 words of the United States Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, it's no secret that small businesses are the real drivers of our economy. To date, small businesses employ half of the U.S. workers. And despite our lagging recovery, they have managed to generate nearly 65 percent of all of the new jobs created over the past 15 years, often outperforming their larger counterparts.

I often speak with small business owners in my district. The one word I hear again and again from them is ``uncertainty.'' From looming health care mandates to volatile energy prices, American small businesses simply don't know what to expect. To the farmer out there who is watching his energy prices and his fertilizer prices increase, to the small business owner trying to determine if hiring that new talent is the responsible thing to do, to building a new factory, the uncertainty in the current environment is what is keeping them from expanding and what is keeping them from creating jobs.

The oil and gas industry is a classic example. And I'm not talking about Big Oil. I'm talking about the nearly 18,000 independent oil and gas producers here in this country who are small business owners. These small business owners develop 95 percent of all oil and gas wells, produce 68 percent of America's oil, produce 82 percent of America's gas. In total, America's onshore independent oil and gas small businesses supported 2.1 million direct jobs here in the United States in 2010.

In my State alone, over 47,000 people are employed directly by the oil and gas sector. When you add in other aspects of the oil and gas industry--refining, transportation, pipeline--there are over 111,000 people in the State of Louisiana directly employed by the oil and gas industry.

And just like every other small business, these businesses, the ones that literally fuel America, are faced with a crushing tax burden that threatens their very survival. And they hear from our President who is threatening to take away parts of the Tax Code that helps them.

I'm not talking about Big Oil subsidies. I'm not talking about lowering the corporate tax rate either. Believe it or not, most of our domestic energy producers don't pay that corporate tax rate. They don't get a subsidy. They don't get a direct check from the government. They simply are taking advantage of the same credits out there that other small businesses around this country partake in.

Logically, as most small businesses deduct their expenses, these small businesses deduct theirs as well. These independent producers, like other small businesses, like I said, do not receive a direct check from the government. Instead, it's a cost of doing business.

Without the ability to expense these ordinary and necessary business costs, an independent producer would have to reduce its drilling budget by 20 percent to 35 percent almost immediately and bring a drastic decrease of energy production here in this country.

Without this reinvestment, U.S. production would decline rapidly because wells deplete as they are produced. America cannot afford a decrease in energy production, and small oil and gas businesses cannot afford a tax hike.

Tax hikes would also hurt American retirees whose mutual funds, pension plans, IRAs are invested in these publicly traded oil and gas companies, all the while harming American energy.

With so much uncertainty being created here in Washington, the threat of billions of dollars in new job-crushing tax hikes, a Federal takeover of hydraulic fracturing, regulations, less access to taxpayer- owned energy resources of our Federal lands, the permitting process still lagging, the cost of doing business continues to be challenging.

Mr. Speaker, Washington can do better. We can do better. We owe it to our small business owners in every industry to provide for a basic sense of consistency and certainty in our Tax Code.

Tomorrow the House will consider the Small Business Tax Cut Act, legislation that would allow small businesses to deduct 20 percent of their active income in order to retain more capital and create more jobs.

I congratulate our majority leader for bringing this bill to the floor. I'm confident that with a strong step in the right direction, we will continue to work to make sure that our small businesses have the certainty they need to grow and to thrive.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today as Louisiana mourns the loss of another member of the Greatest Generation. Yesterday evening, Mr. Louis Michot, Jr., passed away, and he passed away at the ripe old age of 89. As I visited with his son this morning on the telephone, he had a nice remark of saying, you know, my dad would constantly say that if he knew he was going to live that long, he would have taken better care of himself. Imagine that.

Mr. Michot was born in 1922 in south central Louisiana. At the age of 24, he bravely served our country during World War II in the Marine Corps. After serving his country, he came back and began living the American Dream. He became an entrepreneur. He started his own businesses. In 1958, he bought a restaurant franchise which he expanded all across south Louisiana. He ventured into other businesses, from cattle ranching to real estate to oil and gas.

Later, in 1960, Mr. Michot sought to serve his community and his State. He was elected to the State House of Representatives, where he served for 4 years before making a run for Governor. He reentered the political arena in 1968, when he won a seat on the Louisiana State Board of Education, and went on to serve the State as the State superintendent from 1972 to 1976.

Outside the political sphere, Mr. Michot was an admirable community leader, a faithful husband, a loyal friend, and a proud father of 10 beautiful children. He passed on his belief of civic responsibility and serving his community to his children; three of them served in public office, one continuing to serve as a district judge, another as a State senator, and another on the parish council. He was a longtime member of the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, and he received the esteemed Lafayette Civic Cup for his many community service efforts in 1994.

As Mr. Michot is laid to rest, it is my hope that we reflect upon his life and learn from the shining examples of selfless service and civic duty that he set forth. Though I'm sure he will be missed by many, I'm confident that his legacy of hard work and determination will live on for many generations through his children and their children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank our guest chaplain, Mr. Gerald Theriot, for his dedicated life of public service.

Chaplain Theriot is a retired veteran of the United States Air Force, a cryptologic linguist specializing in French, Vietnamese, and Korean. Mr. Theriot rose through the ranks and retired as a first sergeant. Following his military service, Mr. Theriot served his Louisiana neighbors in the Department of Social Services.

Chaplain Theriot is a loyal member of American Legion Post 513 in Thibodaux, Louisiana, where he has served as a vice commander, historian, service officer, and chaplain. He has also served as Louisiana's department chaplain since 1997. And on September 1, 2011, Mr. Theriot was appointed the national chaplain of The American Legion.

Chaplain Theriot is the proud husband of Mrs. Ethel Theriot, father of four, and grandfather of our State's future leaders.

On behalf of Louisiana's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I applaud Mr. Gerald Theriot for his sacrifice and service and commitment to our country.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment offered in cooperation with my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cedric Richmond.

As the gentleman said earlier, Louisianians invented offshore oil exploration, and it has been drilling off its coast ever since the mid- 1940s. Yet, for the first 60 years of drilling off the coast of Louisiana, our State and other Gulf Coast States had received no money--not a dime--from the revenue derived from these wells.

Starting in 2007, Congress passed an act called the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. This act provided that a small portion of offshore revenues would finally start to trickle in to our Gulf Coast States. Those of us in the Gulf Coast States will continue to receive a small portion of those revenues through 2017 when, at that time, we will start to receive the 37.5 percent of the offshore revenue of each of those wells producing at that time. However, in GOMESA, it included a cap so that, collectively, those four Gulf Coast States could never receive more than a collective amount of $500 million.

As the current bill is now going to provide revenue sharing without a cap for additional States, we are simply asking for fundamental fairness here in that the cap of $500 million be raised to $750 million. That's what this amendment does. This amendment simply raises the collective cap amongst those four States from $500 million to $750 million, reminding everyone that there will be no cap on the additional States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time remains?

I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

Mr. Chairman, I will just close with this: As the gentleman from Louisiana just indicated, 30 percent of all oil and gas produced in this country comes from Louisiana shores. A quarter of all the seafood is caught in Louisiana. In Louisiana, we have made it a constitutional amendment that any revenue we receive from the Federal Government or offshore royalties goes to coastal protection and the building of the coast that we are so rapidly losing. And again, this is not an amendment whereby we're asking for more of our share. We are simply asking to raise a cap when other States will have no cap. This is only fundamental fairness here, and I certainly would urge all Members to consider that and to please support this amendment when it comes to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call out hypocrisy because it is amazing that the same level of uncertainty that my colleagues from across the aisle have injected into our economy today, which is failing our economy, they now want to inject that type of uncertainty into the American family's budget.

Two months? One of the pillars of the President's jobs bill was the extension of the payroll tax for 1 year, and Republicans agreed with him and sent over to the Senate a bill which extends that payroll tax holiday for 1 year, and yet, the Senate can only give us a sixth of that.

Where is the compromise? Where is the agreement? Where have the Senate majority leader and the President missed each other? The President wanted a 1-year extension, and that is what we stand for today, a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday to give certainty to American families at a time when they need it the most.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to fulfill my constitutional duty of ensuring that the liberties and freedoms are protected of the men and women that this bill authorizes to fight for. The protections bestowed on U.S. citizens are the ones that I am concerned with the most.

The question now upon us is whether or not the NDAA impacts the rights of a U.S. citizen to receive due process to challenge the legality of detention by the executive before an article III court.

My concern is that when the writ is suspended, the government is entirely free of judicial oversight.

So do we agree that no section of the NDAA purports to suspend the writ of habeas corpus?

Do you agree that, as the Supreme Court has held, ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of our citizens''?

Will the chairman assure me that together we will work with the committee to further clarify the language contained in this bill in order to ensure that the clear and precise language which protects the constitutional rights of American citizens is protected?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk to business owners around the country, there are two things that I hear prevent them from putting Americans back to work, and that is regulatory uncertainty and inequity in government regulations.

Both the industry and the administration have confirmed the existence of ambiguity in the current law governing energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf. This is creating uncertainty and inequity, affecting job creation.

This bill corrects the problem and strengthens our renewable energy industry by giving our stakeholders the information needed to make the right business decisions and investments. It levels the playing field for all industries operating on the Outer Continental Shelf.

We agree that to effectively rid ourselves of foreign oil we need an all-of-the-above approach to energy development, and our laws should follow suit as this industry develops.

Both sides of the aisle don't often agree on ways to strengthen our energy independence and on ways to create jobs; however, this bill affords us the opportunity to do just that.

I'm proud to have bipartisan support for this bill and want to thank both the distinguished chairman from the State of Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who helped us on this bill.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

My amendment is simple. It says that if another country is fine with having an offshore supply vessel carry a certain cargo in that country's water, then Coast Guard cannot object to it.

I bring this amendment because a company in my district is trying to get a vessel certified to operate in Mexico trying to preserve American jobs. Mexico has okayed the vessel and the AVS has said it has no objection. The only holdup is the Coast Guard. As a result, the company in my district currently has my vessel sitting at the dock and workers sitting at home and capital tied up fighting the regulation.

Again, my amendment is simple. It allows an offshore supply vessel to carry as much oil as it does drilling fluids when that vessel is operating outside of U.S. waters if that vessel is in compliance with the international safety standards for that class vessel.

This is a commonsense change. Drilling fluids have the same flash point as oil, as such, an equal risk. Thus, there should be a uniform standard for how much of that type of cargo the vessel can carry outside of U.S. waters.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that Congress needs to act on this matter. I believe that the Coast Guard can easily make the necessary changes by simply adopting commonsense language and listening to the host country.

For this reason, I would offer to withdraw my amendment if the chairman will promise to help me work with the Coast Guard to get this commonsense approach made and American workers back at work.

I yield to the chairman.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today in memory of one of Louisiana's great public servants, Ms. Sydnie Mae Durand.

As the parish in which I grew up lays her to rest today, it is notable to recognize that she grew up at a time when a woman's place in the South was culturally in the home. She pioneered her way into a male-dominated oil and gas industry. She constructed and then walked proudly through the door that many women of south Louisiana would soon follow.

During the 37 years she devoted to the oil and gas industry, she found time to serve her community--again, leading women into politics locally by becoming the first woman to preside over the St. Martin Parish Council and then by becoming the first woman to be elected to serve as the District 46 State House representative, where she served for 16 years. Her passion involved health care, where she chaired the House Health and Welfare Committee and served on many other national and State boards that dealt with the health care needs of children.

While she will be missed by all, her work and legacy will continue to have a positive impact on the great State she leaves behind.

Madam Speaker, this is not a divisive issue; this is a bipartisan issue. The language in H.R. 358 was in the Stupak-Pitts amendment passed in the Democrat-led House last Congress.

If they supported it then, why would they not support it now? Because of Executive order? Absolutely not.

ObamaCare created a fund specifically reserved for abortion coverage. So what in the world makes one think this money will not support abortion coverage? We all remember, ``We have to pass this bill before we find out what's in it.''

Unfortunately, they passed the bill, and we found no language to ensure taxpayers won't have to pay for something the majority of Americans don't support.

Madam Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted the health care law prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion, then they should support the bipartisan H.R. 358 to ensure that it is, indeed, the case.

Mr. Speaker, with the free trade agreements being debated this week, some of my Democratic colleagues have been talking about our trade deficit. However, if they really want to reduce the trade deficit, they'd help me end the President's de facto moratorium on offshore drilling.

You see, if oil were a country, it would be our biggest trading partner. Oil makes up 65 percent of our trade deficit. And it's simple: Drilling equals jobs. It equals American jobs.

You see what I have here is a parking lot to one of the heliports down in my district. In 2004, the parking lot was full. Last year, the parking lot was empty. And you don't have to worry because that parking lot, when we're drilling offshore, is this full 365 days a year.

Here is a port in my district which supplies over 30 percent of the oil and gas that fuels this Nation. You can see the boats in 2004 in the busy port; and today, it's empty.

If we really want a jobs bill, this is it. In the past year, deepwater permit issuance is 39 percent below the monthly averages observed over the past 3 years; and shallow water permits, permits that were supposedly never impacted by the moratorium, are off 80 percent over historical averages. As a result of this de facto moratorium, 11 offshore rigs scheduled to drill in the gulf have relocated to countries like Brazil, Nigeria, Egypt, Congo, French Guiana, and Liberia.

Now, what does this say about American policies when businesses prefer the regulatory certainty offered by Egypt over the bureaucratic uncertainty off our own shores? And while 11 rigs might not seem like a lot, each drilling platform supports 200 to 300 workers every month. Additionally, each exploration and production job supports four other positions. Therefore, 900 to 1,400 jobs per idle rig platform are at risk if production does not resume as soon as possible.

Wages for those jobs average $1,800 per week, so the potential for lost wages is more than $5 million to $10 million per month, per platform.

Drilling equals good-paying jobs.

According to the Obama administration's own estimates, the 6-month ``official moratorium'' on drilling cost up to 12,000 jobs. However, the long-term impacts of the de facto moratorium could be significantly higher. A study by Louisiana State University predicts, if the de facto ban on deepwater drilling were sustained for 18 more months, we could lose 36,000 jobs nationwide, 24,000 of those along the gulf coast region alone. If the administration would accelerate the permit issuance instead of continuing this de facto moratorium, we could create a quarter of a million jobs in this country, and we could increase the GDP by $8 trillion over the next 10 years.

As I said, the solution is actually very simple--at no cost to the taxpayer and with the ability to bring revenue into the Federal Government.

It's simple, Mr. Speaker: Drilling equals jobs.

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

I find it very amusing that the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Washington would use an argument that we are overburdening a Federal agency when it is that side of the aisle that has a tendency to overburden and overregulate and demand reporting from our private sector. They have no problem asking the private sector to report things to the government so that they can discern whether or not the private sector is conducting its business accordingly.

And when this amendment comes up--and we're simply asking for transparency in order to see whether or not my constituents are being disingenuous or whether it is the government that is being disingenuous in the permitting process. That is simply all we're asking here.

This allows us to help separate fact from fiction as to whether or not BOEMRE is rejecting permits for ridiculous reasons or legitimate reasons.

And so, again, it just amazes me that when we have an opportunity to shed a little light on a Federal agency that the party who has claimed that it's all about transparency and open government is now trying to shield that agency.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment should fail.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered by Mr. Landry

Amendment No. 77: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

funding limitation related to regulation of offshore service

contractors

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity this weekend to go home to Louisiana, which I enjoyed doing. I heard from a State senator of mine who is also a banker. He said that he had a gentleman come in his office this weekend, asking for some more money on his loan. He said, Well, in order to do that, you have to give us some more information. We have to see your debt-to-income ratio--your assets versus your liabilities. So, after looking at that, he explained to him that, if the ratio doesn't work, he can't lend him any more money.

If you were to plug in that same ratio of what our Federal regulators are requiring of our financial institutions when they look upon the American people and American businesses, you would find that if we put that same set

of rules on this government that, basically, our Federal regulators would not let us borrow any more money.

The point of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a spending problem here in Washington. We cannot raise this debt ceiling unless we do three things: unless we cut, we cap, and we balance our budget.

Offered By: Mr. Landry

Amendment No. 19: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: