Floor Statements

I want to thank the gentlelady from Illinois and the entire Financial Services Committee for working with us on this amendment and recognizing the tragedy and disaster that's currently occurring along the Missouri River, with my constituents, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri.

What occurred here is that at the beginning, when they started realizing there was going to be flooding and the Corps had to run the traps through the dam system, one government agency started telling people downriver to buy flood insurance. Then FEMA steps in and sets a start-of-flood or flood-in-progress date that nullified what the constituents and people bought.

Now, what the Terry-Berg amendment does is, it would protect those individuals during a flood in progress if the individual has purchased flood insurance and has not sustained damage or loss of property within that 30-day window. That's the clear language of the policies that they were purchasing that had been nullified by FEMA's declaration. This amendment does not dispute the 30-day waiting period--which is designed to discourage people from waiting until a flood is imminent to buy insurance--it simply ensures American families who purchase flood insurance are covered if they sustain damage after the declaration of a flood in progress. This resolves the conflict caused between two government agencies and adheres to the intent, and I want to thank the Financial Services Committee for including this in the en bloc package.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I rise today with this amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

This amendment would direct the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct and publish a study regarding the flooding of the Missouri River this year. We need to know why this flooding occurred, particularly if our flood control system was utilized for purposes other than flood prevention, so we can prevent this from happening in the future.

Let me be clear. I would assume the Corps of Engineers in charge of flood control would be doing an annual study of whether or not they are succeeding in their legislative-mandated goals, the whole purpose of the dams along the river. So we are just simply asking them to do what they should be doing anyway, especially when this is such an interesting--well, strike the word ``interesting''--devastating year based on the miscalculations of the Corps of Engineers.

As I am standing here now, the Missouri is flooding in five States, including Nebraska and Iowa. In my own district, I have constituents damaged, under water, wiped out. As we stand here, we are wondering if our levees are going to hold back the water preventing downtown Omaha from being

flooded. This is a 90-day sustained flood. It's entitled, ``The Great Missouri River Flood of 2011,'' not to recede until maybe October or November.

Anyone who lives near a powerful body of water knows flooding is a reality and must be expected or planned for. That's the whole point of these dams and the Corps of Engineers' purpose is to reduce the flooding. It's been successful since the dams have been put in except for the last couple of years.

It's imperative that we investigate the decisions, guidelines, and parameters in place to do the flooding to determine if there was any possibility that this disaster could have and, I would say, should have been prevented.

We must implement the necessary additional reforms and controls to ensure our flood control system is utilized for just that, Madam Chairman, flood control.

The issue, well documented in our local papers and some other publications, has shown that either the manual that the Corps of Engineers swears by leads them down the wrong path, which then led to this disaster that we are incurring at this moment, or that their modeling--and/or their modeling. There were other weather experts that predicted, one even said a flood of Biblical proportions, yet it wasn't on the Corps of Engineers' radar.

Something went terribly wrong here. So all we are doing is asking that there be specific language that they do what is inherent to their job and determine if their manuals, their models need to be changed to prevent the devastating flood that we are incurring right now to prevent the next one in the future. That's all we are doing with this amendment here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

I would like to speak.

I tried to make the case that this is basically reiterating already current duties and responsibilities of the Corps but stressing that they need to look specifically at what caused this devastating flood.

I have to admit that you're probably going to rule that this is legislating, but I have got to tell you I'm extremely disappointed. If we had somebody in the Missouri Valley on the Appropriations Committee, they could have done something similar to this in committee, but yet when somebody from outside the committee comes here at the right opportunity, then somehow it's out of order.

I just don't know how I go back to my constituents and tell them that the leadership in the House has raised an objection to this study. So I'm disappointed for my constituents. I'm disappointed, frankly, in the fact that something like this that's so necessary and obvious wasn't accepted.

Offered By: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 36: At the end of title I, insert the

following:

Sec. XX. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment

of this Act, the Army Corps of Engineers shall conduct and

publish the results of a study regarding the reasons and

contributing factors that led to the abnormal flooding of the

Missouri River during the spring and summer of 2011, with

specific focus on whether the water management activities of

the Corps, conducted for any purpose other than flood

prevention and control, contributed to the 2011 flooding and

in what ways.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from H.R. 2109.

I have during my tenure here voted twice to empower our military to take action. The first time was with Afghanistan; and the President came to the Congress and made a powerful case that it was in our national security interest to do so. I supported that. Then it was with Iraq; and the President came to Congress. He spent a significant amount of time providing evidence and making a case that there was a national security interest.

This time, however, it was a surprise to me and to most of my colleagues that this mission was occurring. There has been no attempt to define what the national security interests are, the United States' interests in this military action. Without that, I can't look my constituents in the eyes and tell them why we are in Libya right now and active in military strikes against that nation state.

So the one constitutional power that Congress has explicitly is the purse strings. We are exercising that right. I support the effort to pull those strings tight. Let's stop the flow of money into this action.

Madam Chairman, Mr. Gardner's bill addresses this country's need on energy and power. Mr. Gardner's bill prevents the government from going out of its way to stop the private sector from creating jobs. This job alone in the Chukchi Sea will create 54,000 jobs sustained over 50 years. The economic report from Northern Economics and the University of Alaska I will submit for the Record.

And with 1 million barrels per day going to our country's need of about 19 million barrels per day makes us more energy secure. So what we hear from the EPA and the minority is they will do everything they can to stop fossil fuels even though this is a fossil fuel

economy. Yes, we need all of the above, but to stop all fossil fuels creates national insecurity, making us more dependent on foreign oil, sending more of our financial resources and jobs overseas; and that's what we need to stop, and that's what this bill takes a large step towards doing.

Now, the EPA has made it impossible for new exploration off the coast of Alaska by continually changing the rules. The EPA has even testified before our committee that there is no anticipated human health risk at issue, and we've still been waiting 6 years and counting for this permit to be issued.

Let's make it clear: Bureaucratic delays are blocking energy development. While the EPA's regional office has granted air permits to allow this deep sea drilling, the process has repeatedly been stalled when the administrator's Environmental Appeals Board rejects the permits already granted. Yes, it gets to Washington; they stop it. And this process repeats itself. We'll have a bill maybe in a couple of weeks where the EPA's done the same thing, where they change the rules to stop a project.

The Federal Government's inability to issue viable permits to drill offshore Alaska is keeping resources and domestic jobs from the American people. The Gardner bill, H.R. 2021, aims to eliminate the uncertainty and confusion that has delayed oil exploration in deep sea Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf, and I hope my colleagues will support this bill.

Economic Report Overview

Potential National-Level Benefits of Oil and Gas Development in the

Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea

A new study on potential national-level benefits of Alaska

Arctic OCS development, by Northern Economics and the

University of Alaska Anchorage's Institute of Social and

Economic Research, builds on a previous study of potential

state-level benefits using the same methodology and

assumptions. Both reports are available for download from

www.northerneconomics.com.

Creates Significant Economic Effects

Development of new oil and gas fields in the Beaufort and

Chukchi Seas resulting in production of nearly 10 billion

barrels of oil and 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over

the next 50 years could create significant economic effects

nationwide.

54,700 New Jobs

An estimated annual average of 54,700 new jobs that would

be created by OCS-related development are sustained for 50

years. The total ramps up to 68,600 during production and

91,500 at peak employment. These direct and indirect jobs

would be created both in Alaska and the rest of the United

States.

$145 Billion Payroll

An estimated $63 billion in payroll would be paid to

employees in Alaska as a result of OCS oil and gas

development and another $82 billion in payroll would be paid

to employees in the rest of the United States. The sustained

job creation increases income and further stimulates domestic

economic activity.

$193 Billion Government Revenue

Federal, state, and local governments would all realize

substantial revenue from OCS oil and gas development, with

the base case totaling $193 billion:

$167 billion to the federal government

$15 billion to the State of Alaska

$4 billion to local Alaska governments

$7 billion to other state governments

Sensitivity Cases Are All Higher

The study's base case assumed long-term average prices

through the year 2030 of $65 per barrel (bbl) for oil and

$6.40 per million Btu (mmBtu) for natural gas. The estimated

total government revenue increases if energy prices remain

higher in the future.

Total Government Revenue

[Dollars in billions] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Base Case ($65/bbl, $6.40/mmBtu)........................ $193 Case 1 ($80/bbl, $7.80/mmBtu)........................... 214 Case 2 ($100/bbl, $9.80/mmBtu).......................... 263 Case 3 ($120/bbl, $11.80/mmBtu)......................... 312 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implications of the Study

Critical Infrastructure Protection

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) delivers

approximately 14% of domestic oil production to refineries on

the West Coast and has been identified as critical

infrastructure for national security. Built at a cost of $8

billion in 1977, TAPS throughput has fallen from 2.1 million

barrels per day in 1988 to less than 650,000 barrels per day

as North Slope oil fields age. Without additional oil

development, the TAPS is anticipated to encounter operating

difficulty below about 500,000 barrels per day and shut down

when it reaches 200,000 barrels per day. Alaska OCS

development can help extend the operating life of this

critical infrastructure.

Moreover, Arctic OCS development maximizes the value of

Alaska's and the Nation's oil and gas resources. Much of the

expected incremental revenue from OCS development for the

State of Alaska (55%) comes from enhancement of existing

onshore North Slope production, in both volume and value.

This results from reduced transportation costs (from

infrastructure operating at capacity), and from expanded

infrastructure enabling development of small satellite

fields. OCS development will also enhance the probability of

an Alaska gas pipeline due to increased certainty in the

available gas resource base.

U.S. Energy Production and National Security

Domestic energy production is important for the security

and prosperity of the United States. The money spent on

domestic energy cycles through in the U.S. economy, thereby

increasing domestic economic activity and jobs; while money

spent on imported energy leaves the U.S. economy.

The majority (77%) of world oil reserves are owned or

controlled by national governments; only 23% are accessible

for private sector investment. The United States currently

imports over 60% of the crude oil we use. Arctic offshore

development could cut this by about 9% for a period of 35

years. Increasing domestic energy production would improve

the nation's trade balance.

Potential Benefits Delayed

When the first study of state-level economic impacts was

written in 2009, first oil was anticipated in 2019 and first

gas in 2029 for the Beaufort Sea (2022, 2036 for the Chukchi

Sea). This timeline assumed no major regulatory impediments

or delays.'' However, exploration has been slowed, thus

delaying the potential benefits of OCS oil and gas

development.

Sources

Northern Economics, Inc. (NEI) and Institute of Social and

Economic Research (ISER) Potential National-Level Benefits of

Alaska OCS Development.

NEI and ISER. Economic Analysis of Future Offshore Oil and

Gas Development: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and North

Aleutian Basin.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, www.capp.ca. Shell Exploration and Production. Calculated from TAPS

throughput data and EIA Annual Energy Outlook data for

domestic oil production.

US Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook

2010.

Minerals Management Service. 2006 Oil and Gas Assessment:

Beaufort Sea Planning Area (Alaska) and Chukchi Sea Planning

Province Summaries.

Mr. Chairman, since the founding of the Republic, our patent system has been based on the premise that an inventor is entitled to a patent for their work, and not simply the first person to file a patent application. Indeed, article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution specifically states that to promote the progress of science and useful arts, Congress shall have the power to secure to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Nowhere does it say filers have that right. Under no rule of construction or interpretation can this clause mean anything other than what it says.

And Mr. Chairman, I find it comforting to know that certainly I'm not alone in my concern over the constitutionality over first-to-file. None other than Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts recently wrote in an opinion, joined by six of his fellow Supreme Court justices that, ``Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this legislation raising our nation's debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion without any spending cuts or attempt to balance our nation's budget.

The fact that we have reached the $14 trillion debt ceiling should concern every American. Congress has to get our fiscal house in order and everything needs to be on the table.

If we are going to have this debate, then let's bring everything to the table. Any discussion concerning raising our debt ceiling needs to include significant spending cuts, fiscal reforms to reduce the debt we are leaving our children, and a balanced budget amendment.

We can't afford to continue the same path of spending more and more taxpayer dollars and hoping our nation's debt will somehow go down. And we certainly cannot afford another blind increase in America's debt limit.

It is a fact of life. When you max out your credit card, you cut spending and pay down your debt. It is time Congress does the same.

We have the chance to do the right thing, but this measure--raising the debt ceiling without any attempt to curb spending--fell far short.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor D. Eric Hultman who is retiring from my office as Chief of Staff after eight years of service to the constituents of the Second District of Nebraska and a career of service to all Americans.

Eric, a graduate of Brown University and University of Nebraska College of Law, has served the public for over 20 years on Capitol Hill. He has been in senior positions with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, a U.S. Senator, and a Member of U.S. House of Representatives.

His long and respected career also included the position of Managing Editor for the Legislative Digest for the House Republican Conference and an attorney at several private law firms.

He has worked tirelessly to make our country safer, to make our government more efficient, and to bring a sense of responsibility to Washington, DC. Even though Eric is a committed conservative, he knows the value of working with members from all political stripes. This philosophy has served my office well through the years.

He is a devoted father and husband who somehow always managed to balance both family and professional commitments--a difficult task even for the best of us. But Eric always managed to find that balance through his positive attitude and hard work.

I am proud of Eric's years of public service and am very appreciative of his hard work and friendship. I have also learned to be appreciative of his sense of humor, which during stressful times, has come as welcome relief.

I, along, with all the other members of my staff will miss Eric for not only his patience, but his ability to have an answer for every question. His retirement is well deserved and we wish him the best as he starts the next chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the dedicated professionals working each day in the field of Information and Referral or I&R. These people perform the essential task of bringing people and services together, assistance that has proven to be more important than ever in these difficult economic times.

In particular, I wish to acknowledge the important work of the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems or AIRS which has been serving for more than 30 years as the national organization which developed the professional standards that are a part of thousands of quality Information and Referral programs in this Nation.

In 2010, Information and Referral professionals responded to more than 20 million calls across our Nation from people seeking assistance. This includes people that accessed services through the hundreds of 2- 1-1 organizations. AIRS in partnership with United Way Worldwide were the architects of the 2-1-1 system which has served to transform access to human services in America and Canada.

The United States is currently served by Information and Referral professionals through 2-1-1 programs, aging I&R services, Aging and Disability Resource Centers, child care resource and referral services, military family centers, and other specialty Information and Referral services. In addition, the Aging Network consists of 56 State agencies on aging, 629 area agencies on aging, 244 Tribal organizations, and 2 Native Hawaiian organizations. These entities also provide Information and Referral and are important to moving Information and Referral forward.

The importance of the Information and Referral service is that it links consumers with the most appropriate service that they may need whether it be for housing, nutrition, job training, transportation services or long-term care options counseling. Information and Referral and 2-1-1s have proven to be especially invaluable in times of natural disasters in our Nation working in conjunction with first responders to provide help to persons in need.

Information and Referral services have been recognized in Federal legislation for more than 35 years, including in the 1973 reauthorization of the Older Americans Act and including the establishment of the National Eldercare Locator and the development of Aging and Disability Resource Centers.

Comprehensive and specialized Information and Referral programs help people in every community and operate as a critical component of the health and human services delivery system. Information and Referral organizations have databases of programs and services, and disseminate information through a variety of channels to individuals, professionals and communities.

Let me conclude by commending all those professionals who work in the Information and Referral field and with 2-1-1s. We are especially fortunate in my District and State to have one of the most effective of these professionals, my friend Jamie Moore who serves as Vice President of Volunteer & Community Services at the United Way of the Midlands.

I urge my colleagues to become more familiar with the Information and Referral and 2-1-1 programs in their districts help their constituents learn about who to call for information about local resources.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Engineer Maintenance Company, 4th Maintenance Battalion 4th Marine Logistics Group of the United States Marine Corps for their hard work and dedication--both for defending our freedom, and to the Omaha running community.

The Omaha Marathon, in its 30th year, is an institution dedicated to not only health and fitness, but also to helping numerous charities and improving our environment through recycling. On September 26th, 2010, 40 Marines volunteered at the Omaha Marathon, the Half Marathon, and the Ten Kilometer road race.

The Marines lived up to their reputation--going above and beyond what they were asked to do. Prior to the day of the race, the Marine volunteers stuffed packets for the runners, helped set up the course, and prepared a pasta dinner for the competitors.

On race day, the Marines were available for help starting at 3 a.m. and staying until after the race had ended. The Marines provided a color guard presenting the National Colors, set up and tore down hydration stations, and presented medals to the finishers of the races. They truly made a positive impact on the success of the races.

Today, I want to recognize not only the service and sacrifices these brave Marines have given to our country, but their unfailing dedication to the betterment of the Omaha community.

There are really three major points to bring up here. One is Congress did not give the FCC authorization to regulate the Internet. There is no authorization. Mr. Markey had a bill. It didn't get enough support even in a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass. There was not support for a net neutrality bill in the Senate. So the President, who made campaign promises to some of his biggest supporters from California, had to do it through the FCC. These back-end ways of legislating have to stop. That's what we're doing here today.

The second point is the robust nature of the Internet. I love the argument that as it's been deregulated somehow it's been stifled from innovation. Like we haven't seen the Facebooks and the Googles, which are in favor of net neutrality, come to being. My goodness, it was the robust Internet that allowed these great experiments like Netflix to come up. Now they're so big that they want help through government agencies for advantages in the marketplace.

We hear a lot about blocking, that it's about blocking content. There has been about a half a dozen instances, Madam Speaker, where Internet providers did block, in some way altered the people's, their customers' ability to go to a Web site. All instances were resolved by their customers' pressure and

some encouragement by the FCC. So the fact that these instances were resolved, and everyone knows there should be no blocking, why are we here except for the real reason: to give the FCC power over business plans.

Mr. Markey just mentioned it. The gentlelady from California mentioned it. It's about tiering. If you walk into McDonald's, you pay more for a large Coke than a small Coke. But yet under the FCC's plan, they want one size fits all, one price, which is the Netflix and Google's request.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 910, The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation will amend provisions of the Clean Air Act, to establish general rules prohibiting the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating green house gas emissions to address the issue of climate change.

Being from Nebraska, I meet with a number of agriculture interests, all of them very concerned about the activism that the EPA has and is demonstrating these last few years. Folks joke about green house gas emissions that come from farm animals, especially cows and cattle. While on the one hand it is funny to think that this is a problem; however, on the other hand, it just demonstrates the kind of

people who are working in today's EPA and this is really serious.

When Administrator Jackson testified before the House Agriculture Committee she stated, ``One notion is that EPA intends to regulate the emissions from cows--what is commonly referred to as a `cow tax.' '' ``The truth is--the EPA is proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emission in a responsible, careful manner and we have even exempted agricultural sources from regulation.'' When the Administrator testified before the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as a member, I asked her to clarify if she would exempt agriculture from these regulations and she said she would--twice over. I appreciate her willingness to exempt this very important industry, because not exempting agriculture would have a dramatic impact on the Nebraska economy. My concern is that Administrator Jackson does not have the legal authority to unilaterally exempt agriculture; and even if she does, that industry is only one law suit away from being regulated, due to citizen law suits. I have no doubt that the Sierra Club, PETA, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the U.S. Humane Society, or some other group will sue either individually or together with regards to greenhouse gases on farms.

The EPA's own figures on agriculture state that 37,000 farms are above the threshold of being a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Air Act explicitly states that ``major sources'' must obtain a Title V operating permit. This could have a direct impact on many operations within agriculture, including corn, wheat, grain, cattle, and hog operations. This overzealous regulation will cause the cost of food production to rise and will also cause an indirect impact on bringing goods to market by helping to increase energy costs.

While I appreciate Administrator Jackson's willingness to exempt us from the cow tax, I think it is more important that we pass H.R. 910 and get it to the President for his signature, in order to guarantee that none of our energy is taxed.

Only with the passage of H.R. 910 will we end EPA's over reach on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule to block the FCC from regulating the Internet.

I thought the exchange between the gentleman from Colorado and the good lady from Tennessee was very telling because right now the marketplace controls the Internet. It is free--I call it wild, wild--in its applications.

Now, what the government is trying to do now, in the words of Ed Markey during our hearing on this, was, ``We need to regulate the Internet to keep it unregulated.'' I don't get that, but it is kind of the thought from the left side of the aisle that you have to regulate it in order to prevent anything that they may disagree with.

So what we have here is an instance where now the freedoms of the Internet and the marketplace that are driving it now have to be under a regulatory scheme decided by a group of appointees of the President; not to be free, it has to be built in relation to their image. Listen to his words, it's going to be built on their image.

The analogy of Communist China regulating the content can't happen today. They talk about blocking, that these ISPs will stop us from going to our Web sites. There have been a handful of those situations; and every time, the public marketplace chastises them openly. There were a few times the FCC even called up and said, hey, you can't do that under the principles that were adopted.

And so those were resolved by, yes, a little bit of involvement, but the marketplace.

Now the comparison to Communist China here from the gentleman is appropriate when you look at how this measure was implemented. The President campaigned on net neutrality. Congress would not authorize it because Congress as a whole bipartisanly disagreed with net neutrality, giving a regulatory bureaucratic agency control over the Internet versus free market.

So since Congress wouldn't pass it, sua sponte they just rose up and said we don't have the authority--well, they didn't say they don't have the authority, but Congress never gave them the authority to regulate the Internet, so they're just assuming that they're going to take that power away from the people and the marketplace and do it themselves. That is where the analogy to Communist China is appropriate.

Objection. The gentleman from New York is not speaking to the point of order.

Objection. The gentleman from New York is not speaking to the point of order.