Floor Statements

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

I would like to make a brief comment in support of the gentleman's amendment.

As he said and as I would like to reiterate, there is a class of space exploration that cannot be carried out without these RTGs. Our domestic supply is unreliable at best, essentially nonexistent, and it takes a while to regenerate that.

I strongly support the gentleman's move to restart that program so that we could have a reliable domestic program for deep space exploration that cannot be conducted in any way with other energy sources. I think it is a reasonable amendment and is not overstated, and I would urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite numbers of words.

I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

You know, all of Washington inside the Beltway is abuzz about how much we can save by cutting Federal spending. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, to us, this amendment is a test. Will we put every Federal agency's budget on the table in our quest to control spending and reduce debt, or are there privileged categories? Will we continue down the path of trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the disabled, schoolchildren, and seniors?

The Pentagon spending bill before us, some $650 billion, nearly two- thirds of a trillion dollars, is about equal to all military spending of all the rest of the

world--all of our allies, all of our potential adversaries, and all of those countries that Americans rarely think about all put together.

The amendment that Mr. Frank and I and some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are offering today is truly a modest proposal. It would simply cut the rate of increase in Pentagon spending. Instead of allowing a $17 billion increase over this year's level, it would cut that increase in half just to see if we are willing to do that.

Now, my colleague, Mr. Cole, puts this, I think, in the wrong context. I mean, we should talk about, sure, in 1960 it was a larger part of the budget. That is before we had Medicare, before we had a lot of programs. But when you ask yourself is our military structured to deal with the problems this country faces and to expect from other countries in the world their share of what must be done, the answer surely is this is an unsustainable size.

This amendment was born out of a series of discussions among Mr. Frank and Mr. Paul and Mr. Jones and some other Members and I have had over several months. Recently, we sent a joint letter that outlined our concerns about the state of our spending on national security. We point out not only the excessive, unquestioned overall size of military spending, but also that this is a result of the military that is indeed a remnant of the Cold War, to go back to Mr. Cole's comments. And it bears far more than our share of keeping the peace and is still structured to overwhelm the Soviet Union more than to deal with today's actual threats to our security.

To take one example that the cosponsors of this amendment may or may not agree with me on but we might ask: Why do we need a replacement for the B-2 bomber?

It was not the B-2 bomber or any bomber that killed Osama bin Laden. It was U.S. Special Operations. Buying new nuclear bombers would simply be a form, I think, of defense sector corporate welfare to protect against a threat that went away decades ago. I could cite multiple additional disconnects between our defense spending priorities and the actual threats we face.

One that comes to mind is Libya. As we note in our letter, it has been widely reported in the press that England and France have been pressing the United States to resume its earlier role in Libya because they've been unable to assume it themselves. The explanation is that only America has the capacity to respond.

Our point precisely.

We have allowed other nations in the world to grow into an overdependence on America's military and America's tax dollars and the expenditure of American money and lives far beyond what's appropriate for our share of world peacekeeping. All of us who support this amendment want to protect our country. That's precisely why we've offered our proposal and this amendment: To put ourselves on track for a better structured military.

Spending money on cold war-era weapons to wage undeclared wars of choice is clear evidence of misguided, needlessly expensive priorities. If the House cannot even pass an amendment that simply cuts the rate of increase in Pentagon spending, it will never pass amendments that actually make the kinds of cuts that are truly necessary to restructure our defense in order to meet the real threats we face and to achieve the budget savings that we must secure for our financial future.

I urge my colleagues to support this modest first step to rein in our out-of-control defense budget.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It reduces the Afghan Security Forces account by about 1 part in 500, one five-hundredth, in order to increase the Defense Health Program account by $20 million to save soldiers' lives. It will give the Pentagon a much-needed infusion of funds to address a serious gap in our military's suicide prevention.

I learned about this gap through the tragedy of a young constituent from New Jersey who fell through the cracks. He took his own life in September of 2008. But it is not just one soldier. We have a broad problem here. In each of the past 2 years, more American soldiers have died at their own hands than have been killed in war fighting.

Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey, attended East Brunswick public schools, he enlisted in the Army

in 2001, and he attended Airborne school at Fort Benning. His first assignment with the 173rd Airborne was in Italy. In 2003, he and the rest of the 173rd conducted a combat jump into Iraq.

Like many of his buddies, he saw the horrors of war firsthand, and, like some, he sought treatment from the VA for his diagnosed post- traumatic stress disorder when he returned home in 2004. He was honorably discharged from active duty in 2005, and, like other Army members, Coleman Bean still had 4 years of reserve duty commitment through what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) program. He was recalled to duty in Iraq in 2007 through the IRR and was assigned to serve in northern Iraq. When he returned to New Jersey the following year, he was still suffering from the symptoms of PTSD but managed to conceal his condition from even those closest to him. No one reached out to him. Tragically, he took his own life in September 2008. Ironically, tragically, a few weeks after Coleman took his life, the VA called to say that his appointment was ready.

Two Federal agencies charged with helping prevent suicides among our returning soldiers utterly failed this soldier and his family. Indeed, earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court, siding with two veterans groups that sued the Department of Veterans Affairs for failing to provide timely care for veterans at risk of suicide, noted that an average of 18 veterans per day take their own lives. We must stop this epidemic. This amendment will help. We can't allow another family to lose a son or a daughter, a father or a mother, a husband or a wife because of buck-passing.

When I investigated Coleman Bean's tragedy, the VA confirmed that they don't offer dedicated suicide prevention programs for members of the IRR. They consider that a DOD responsibility. The DOD officials at TRICARE said that treating IRR members is the VA's problem. Simply stated, if you are a member of the Individual Ready Reserve suffering from PTSD, you're on your own.

The same problem applies to other categories of reservists, such as the Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs), and the members of the Inactive National Guard (ING). According to the Defense Department, there are at least 123,000 IRR, IMA, and ING members who have done at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

My amendment would give the Secretary of Defense the funding needed to expand the suicide prevention outreach program to ensure that members of these reserve units who have served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan will receive a call from a properly trained counselor not less than once every 90 days so long as the servicemember remains in the IRR, the IMA or the ING. In these calls, the trained counselor would be required to determine the emotional, psychological, mental, medical and career needs and concerns of the reservist. Covered reservists identified as being at risk would be immediately referred to the nearest military treatment facility.

I have discussed this program with the Pentagon. The Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. Stanley, assures me that the Department has more than adequate legal authority to carry this out. What he needs is funding, and my amendment would provide that funding.

When we get the word out about these counseling services, we save lives. This amendment is budget neutral, it is vitally needed, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, over 19,000 people in New Jersey depend on the goods and services provided by the commissary at Fort Monmouth. The looming closure of Fort Monmouth has cast a cloud over the future of this facility, causing considerable consternation among the active duty, Guard and Reserve, and military retirees who count on the commissary to help them save money and live their quality lives that we have promised them.

In February 2011, the Secretary of the Army recognized the importance of this facility and recommended to the Pentagon leadership that the facility remain open. Department regulations give the Pentagon the ability to decide whether to keep the commissary open after a base closes.

I should point out that the active personnel at Naval Weapons Station Earle, which does not have a commissary, depend on this commissary as well. We in New Jersey, in the New Jersey delegation, strongly agree with Secretary McHugh's recommendation, which is currently under consideration in the Pentagon.

The amendment I am offering, but will withdraw pursuant to a discussion, a colloquy with my colleagues, would bar the use of fiscal 12 funds to close the commissary.

At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I thank both gentlemen. This means a great deal to the people of New Jersey, to whom we owe a great deal for their military work.

Secretary of the Army,

Washington, DC, February 25, 2011.

Hon. Rush Holt,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Holt: Thank you for your August 17,

2010 letter concerning the closure of the commissary and post

exchange on Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.

As we have discussed, the post exchange stores at Fort

Monmouth must close in preparation for the closure of Fort

Monmouth. However, I have directed the Assistant Secretary of

the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment to send an

official request to the Under Secretary of Defense for

Personnel and Readiness [USD(P&R)] to keep the Fort Monmouth

commissary open for a transitional 2-year period following

installation closure.

If USD(P&R) approves this request, the continued operation

of the commissary for this 2-year period will be conditional

on a volume of sales that supports operational costs. Defense

Commissary Agency's (DeCA) projections indicate annual sales

of $9.2M in the year following closure. DeCA will continue to

review sales and cost data and will advise the Army if sales

decline significantly.

Thank you for your inquiry into this matter and for your

continued support of our Soldiers and their Families.

Sincerely,

John M. McHugh.

With that understanding, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Madam Chair, I voted against H.R. 2021, the so-called Jobs and Energy

Permitting Act. H.R. 2021 is the latest piece of legislation from the Majority that puts Big Oil before public welfare.

H.R. 2021 is yet another attack on the Clean Air Act. This harmful legislation would revoke Clean Air Act protections mandating that oil companies use pollution control technology for vessels used in offshore drilling. H.R. 2021 would allow oil companies to measure pollutants and toxics generated from offshore drilling rigs at onshore locations, effectively allowing for offshore sources to generate larger and larger amounts of toxic air pollution.

While these permitting loopholes present clear dangers to public health and welfare, perhaps the most egregious affront to the Clean Air Act is the provision in H.R. 2021 that eliminates the Environmental Appeals Board at EPA. This board provides those citizens directly affected by coastal air pollution access to an impartial review of permitting decisions. To be clear, this misguided legislation puts oil companies before the health of the American public.

For 40 years, the Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing emissions into the atmosphere of pollutants and chemicals that kill people and endanger public health. Its success is due, in large part, to being enacted and strengthened based on the best science to find the most effective ways to remove the worst pollutants from our air. The Clean Air Act should not be undercut to benefit large oil companies.

If enacted into law, this bill would have far reaching consequences and damage public health in the Arctic, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts. The world's most profitable oil companies should be held to the highest public health and environmental safety standards, not given a free pass to generate toxic air pollution. I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful and reckless legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.

I wish our action today were unnecessary. As I noted earlier this year when the President initiated military action in Libya, he would have been better served by putting this matter before this body in advance of taking action, not afterwards. And as I predicted then, the President has been subjected to almost daily second guessing, criticism, and frequently partisan attacks over this operation. All of this was avoidable.

None of us wish to abandon freedom-seeking Libyans or our NATO allies, and a vote for this resolution does not mean we are doing either. Our logistical and intelligence support to NATO will continue uninterrupted. Our capacity to conduct cover action to assist the Libyan rebels will remain unimpeded. And the ability of the international community to continue to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Libya will be unaffected.

I am voting for the Rooney bill for what it says, not for what some in the majority say it says. This should not be used as a club to attack President Obama. I will support this measure because it is absolutely imperative for the Congress, as an institution, to remind the President that the power to authorize military actions and war resides in this body. We strengthen our democracy by passing this resolution, we strengthen this institution by passing this resolution, and we honor our NATO obligations, and we stand by Libyans seeking self-determination, and that is why I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this resolution.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 44: Page 135, line 15, insert after the

dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $35,000,000)''.

Page 146, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 43: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act. This would eliminate, as we have heard, the Election Assistance Commission.

And let me remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more crucial to democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, fairness, accessibility and accuracy of elections. Democracy works only if the citizens believe it does. The system must work, and the people must believe that it works.

But voting shouldn't be an act of blind faith. It should be an act of record. The EAC helps maintain the integrity of the American electoral process. And too many people across the country lack confidence in the legitimacy of election results, and the dismantling of the EAC would further erode that faith that is so essential to democracy.

How quickly Members seem to have forgotten the Florida recount with its hanging chads and pregnant chads and uncertainty counts of ballots to determine voter intent. The 2000 election exposed critical flaws and inconsistencies in how elections were conducted and, in its wake, Congress, under the leadership of Representative Hoyer and others, approved the Help America Vote Act to assist State and local jurisdictions.

Yet, the legislation we're considering today willfully ignores this history. The bill closes the EAC, transfers some of its vital functions to the Election Commission, an agency that doesn't have the capability or the expertise to do the job and has other important work to do.

This bill takes this in exactly the wrong direction. While millions of Americans are casting their votes on unauditable voting machines and the results of many elections are not audited, eliminating the EAC would increase the risks that our electoral process will be compromised by voter system irregularities. Can we afford to take that risk? Certainly not.

H.R. 672 is another example of the desire of this Chamber that seems to exist to cut recklessly valuable services, rather than engage in the hard work of making government work at its best.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2112, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill ignores the plight of hundreds of thousands of women and children who struggle to obtain nutritious food in neighborhoods across America. The measure originally put forward by the Republican majority proposed $833 million in cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, commonly known as WIC. This program provides assistance to new mothers, babies, and children under five who have been identified as nutritionally at risk. In any decent society, this is the most basic obligation we have to our fellow citizens. Yet the funding level proposed by the majority would have left 400,000 to 550,000 women and children without this aid.

I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment by my colleague, Representative DeLauro, to reinstate $147 million in WIC funding. Even with this restoration, however, between 200,000 and 350,000 low-income women and children around the country would be dropped from the program next year. In New Jersey, as many as 6,500 citizens could lose this assistance.

I would remind those who claim that we cannot afford the cost of this program that just one week of lost revenue from the Bush tax breaks for millionaires, which were extended over my objection, would more than fill the gap in funding for this program to ensure that every mother and child has access to healthy

meals. On average, nationwide, we are talking about just 57 dollars per month for nearly 10 million mothers and infants who cannot afford nutritious foods. Almost one-half of the children born in our country rely on WIC. Many of these enter the Medicaid program, and experience has shown that the nutritional benefit to pregnant women results in up to $4.20 in Medicaid savings for each dollar spent through WIC. Restoring full funding for this program is the smart thing to do for our budget, just as it is the right thing to do for our citizens.

Women and infants are not the only vulnerable population put at greater risk of food insecurity by this bill. The 22 percent cut to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program will prevent at least 130,000 low- income seniors from receiving desperately needed food packages. The 23 percent reduction to the Emergency Food Assistance Program will leave empty shelves at our local food banks, pantries, faith-based organizations, soup kitchens, and shelters. With food prices continuing to rise sharply and Americans continuing to struggle to get ahead in a tough economy, now is not the time to remove the critical safety net provided by these food assistance programs. In addition, food aid for 1.1 million people around the world will be unavailable as a result of the $476 million cut to the Food for Peace international humanitarian program and the McGovern-Dole program, which provides for the donation of U.S. agriculture goods to school feeding initiatives around the world.

Furthermore, the drastic reduction to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission budget will leave the U.S. economy and consumers in peril. The Commission will not have the resources necessary to prevent the big banks from making the kinds of speculative bets that led to the recent financial crisis. And as gas prices continue to strain household and small business budgets, this bill will do nothing to help the Commission go after excessive speculation in oil markets--even though recent data suggest that nearly 90 percent of those trading in the oil markets are speculators, not legitimate users of oil. These speculators are driving up the price of petroleum and gasoline, and without an effective CFTC with adequate funding, consumers and taxpayers are the losers.

This bill also includes severe funding cuts for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, which will undermine food safety in America and weaken efforts to ensure that medical products and new drugs are safe and accessible. It underfunds research programs to improve food production, safety, and quality as well as initiatives designed to advance organic farming and related markets. And it eliminates almost one billion dollars in conservation programs to protect soil and farmland, maintain healthy agriculture in rural America, preserve key resources, and restore wildlife habitat that supports associated recreational and economic opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture Appropriations bill before us today is one more step in the wrong direction for the Nation's budget, our economy, and our people. It leaves vulnerable low-income women, infants, children, and seniors to fend for themselves even though we know that good nutrition improves health and saves money in the long run. It allows Wall Street speculation to continue unchecked, threatening our economy and driving up gas prices. It says that we should ignore the needs of our faith- and community-based food service organizations as well as those of hungry children and impoverished people around the world. And it leaves us all at greater risk of encountering food-borne illnesses, sets back research programs, and ignores our conservation needs. The American people expect more of their government, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this deeply flawed bill.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I voted against allowing the United States to default on its debt.

Although the preamble of the bill took a gratuitous poke at the President by stating erroneously that it is the President's budget for Fiscal Year 2012 that makes it necessary to increase the debt ceiling, this statement was insignificant in relation to the effective part of the bill.

For more than two centuries, the United States has been a trustworthy creditor. In previous years, members of both parties have set aside their policy disagreements to ensure the United States fulfills its obligations to creditors and maintains its credit rating.

Unfortunately, the Republicans didn't want Tuesday's vote on the debt ceiling to be about maintaining our creditworthiness. Instead, it was the latest in a series of reckless political games being played by my colleagues who brought this bill to the floor to have it fail. Even the author of this bill voted against it.

We saw this brand of economic brinkmanship just last month, when Congressional Republicans brought the federal government to within minutes of a shutdown. While these actions may please some narrow ideological constituency, they endanger needlessly the financial security of the United States and the economic security of the American people.

Whether one blames the debt on unpaid bills of the Reagan defense buildup, food stamps and other social programs, the Bush tax cuts and two wars not paid for, or any other action of government over the past decade or past century, this was not the place for that argument.

Whether you think taxes are too low or spending is too high, this was not the occasion to try to impose one's own idea of a correction.

This was not the occasion to reshape our economy or score ideological points. If House Republicans were serious about improving the nation's fiscal outlook, then they would have voted in favor of this measure so we could move on to legislation that will help Americans get back to work.

I acted responsibly so the United States can continue to fulfill its financial obligations by voting in favor of this clean debt ceiling bill.

Mr. Speaker, this proposed amendment has a simple purpose: to prevent the reckless cuts to passenger rail security.

Mr. Speaker, you probably read that at the time the al Qaeda leader bin Laden was killed he was planning attacks on U.S. passenger rail systems. Even as we debate this bill, our intelligence and law enforcement communities are running to ground leads about these and other potential terrorist plots. This discovery underscores the need to sustain, not to cut, transit security funding.

Following the terrible events of 2001, our Nation took unprecedented steps to secure our Nation's airlines--appropriately so. However, transit security grant programs remain badly underfunded. We need these funds to field canine teams, install surveillance cameras and security fencing, provide the resources for incident response training, and a host of other mission-critical activities that are required to help secure our trains and buses.

Transit provides 18 times as many passenger trips as aviation, but receives 12 times less security funding. In other words, aviation security receives 215 times as much Federal funding per passenger as land transit. We have to do much, much better because the threat is real. In 2004, terrorist cells conducted successful and deadly bombings in Spain; the next year in the U.K.; in India; in Belarus, hundreds of people killed, thousands of people wounded. Let's not put off the necessary rail security steps until after the tragedy here. Let's thwart bin Laden's plans.

I urge support for this amendment.

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate that this bipartisan amendment offered by my colleague Representative Runyan of New Jersey has been accepted by the majority, and I thank Chair Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop and their staffs for making this possible.

As you may know, Mr. Chairman, last month the Federal Ninth Circuit Court sided with two veterans groups that sued the Department of Veterans Affairs for failing to provide timely care to veterans at risk of suicide. The court noted that on average, 18 veterans per day take their own lives. I'll repeat. On average, 18 veterans per day take their own lives. We must end this suicide epidemic.

This amendment is one important step in that process. Our amendment is simple. It fences $20 million of the billion dollars in advance funding for the VA for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and dedicates these funds to suicide prevention outreach. Specifically, our intention is to use television ads and social media. We know that when veterans are made aware of the national suicide prevention number, which is 1-800- 273-TALK, they use it. And lives are saved. 1-800-273-TALK. Indeed, in the State of New Jersey, we have our own veteran counseling hotline, the Vet-to-Vet Program run by the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey.

Since it went live a half dozen years ago, no New Jersey Guard member who has used its services has taken his or her own life. It is a successful program. We want to see this expanded. When we get the word out about these counseling services, we save lives. It's past time that we push the VA to do the advertising and the outreach that's necessary to reach the people who need it.

This amendment is budget neutral, it's vitally needed, and I thank my colleagues for carrying it forward.

Mr. Speaker, the House is once again in an unexamined rush to make semi-permanent the government's ability to seek all matter of records on citizens without having to demonstrate to a court that citizens under suspicion are actually engaged in terrorist activities.

The power of government for surveillance and enforcement are among the most important but also the most fearsome. We know these authorities and others have been abused, because the Department of Justice Inspector General has told us so. I know it, because for 8 years I served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Let me tell you, American freedom and security are not well-served by the excessive secrecy imposed on our society and government by this legislation.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is responsible for approving government surveillance requests under the PATRIOT Act, is the kind of court that should be used only rarely and in the most special circumstances. Instead, it has become part of a kind of routine clandestine government.

Treating some Americans as above suspicion and others as suspect without cause has made us a less just and also a less secure society.

The PATRIOT Act was originally passed at a time of high emotion in this country. Nearly a decade at the PATRIOT Act enactment, the death of Osama bin Laden has provided us with an opportunity to stop and reflect on all that has transpired over the last 10 years. It is past time for us to pause and reexamine the validity of the assumptions that led to the passage of the PATRIOT Act and the validity of its current application.

But, you say, we cannot debate the validity of its current application because those applications are classified at a very high level. That is precisely one of the points we should be debating thoroughly before any reauthorization.

Sitting on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 years, let me tell you, that secrecy does not serve America well.

Today and each day, on average, 18 American warriors take their own lives. Over the last 2 years, America has lost more troops to suicide than to combat itself. Yes, you heard me correctly. These painful facts were ignored by the majority last night when they blocked an amendment I offered to this bill.

As I explained to the Rules Committee, this amendment that I offered had passed the House previously, and would have provided badly needed suicide prevention services to over 123,000 Guard and Reserve combat veterans who currently have no established suicide prevention network. My amendment proposed a tested, effective approach to counseling.

The message to these Guard and Reserve combat veterans is unmistakable. If the intrusive memories of the horrors you have witnessed in war are too much for you and you are thinking of ending your own life, you are on your own.

Yes, I am angry. Blocking this amendment is an insult to the servicemembers and the families who have already lost a loved one to suicide. The deliberate exclusion of this badly needed suicide prevention, by itself, is a compelling reason to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, time and again over the past week, I have referred to the majority's trio of offshore drilling bills as ``amnesia acts.'' They willfully forget the lessons derived at great cost in lives and livelihoods from the Deepwater Horizon spill last summer. Mr. Speaker, and with these amnesia acts, the majority offers false promises to Americans who are struggling to make ends meet as gas prices continue to rise.

The truth is that giving away more of the American people's offshore resources to Big Oil companies will do absolutely nothing to ease the prices at the pump. How do we know? Because the oil giants already are sitting on 11.6 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico without lifting a finger to extract it.

If my colleagues really believe that more domestic drilling is the answer to high gas prices, then they should support this final amendment, which does two things: first, to encourage the oil companies to drill on the tens of millions of acres of public land they already hold so that Americans can benefit from domestic oil production before the oil companies rush to lock up more land; and second, the amendment would help to keep the oil produced within the United States of America here at home.

Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. Opening vast portions of the east and west coasts to drilling makes no sense when 79 percent of all the potential oil resources on the whole continental shelf already are available in the current offshore leasing program. Why risk every inch of American coastline, which supports millions of jobs in tourism and fishing and over $225 billion in related economic activity when the Energy Information Administration tells us that unrestrained offshore drilling might lower gas prices not at all in the foreseeable future and maybe pennies two decades from now?

Oil companies are active on just 10 million of the 34 million acres under lease in the gulf. My Republican colleagues say, yes, but it takes time and money to explore before you can start production. Well, the fact is that of the 24 million lease acres lying fallow in the gulf, they hold 70 percent of the region's technically recoverable oil, but the companies aren't exploring on a single one of those acres. They haven't even submitted exploration plans in those areas. Why should they when they can squat on these resources and still make $32 billion in profits just in the last 3 months?

Mr. Speaker, every kindergartner knows you should clean your plate before you get a second helping. Evidently the oil company executives never learned that lesson. Here is our chance to deliver the lesson to them, and if my colleagues truly believe that we need more drilling, not just more giveaways to Big Oil, then let's at least make sure the oil companies use the resources they have already leased instead of stockpiling them, and let's make sure that Americans get to use the oil produced on their land.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield to the ranking member of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.