Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Pastor Gene Mills, for opening us up in prayer today.

I have had the privilege of working with Gene Mills for years now in his role as the head of the Louisiana Family Forum, which has been a beacon of light defending family values throughout our State and working with ministers all across the country to spread the good word of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I also want to commend Pastor Mills for the work that he did after Katrina, organizing faith-based groups all around the State and all around the country to go in and do the Lord's work. When government couldn't even get there to help people, the pastors and the faith-based organizations around this country came together and they got that work done.

So I want to thank Gene Mills for being with us here today and for leading us in prayer.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding to talk about this important legislation; because, Mr. Chairman, as I just got back home from New Orleans over the weekend, of course people all throughout the gulf coast, people all throughout the country are frustrated and angry about the high gas prices we are paying at the pump.

In south Louisiana you don't need to look any further than the area that I represent to see the devastating impact of this administration's policies, not only on high gas prices but also on jobs.

We have lost over 13,000 jobs in south Louisiana just because of this administration's refusal to let our people go back to work, people that were drilling safely, exploring for energy in America, that are literally on the verge of being put out of business because this administration won't let them go back to work where there are known barrels of oil, billions of barrels in some of these areas in the Outer Continental Shelf that are closed off because of this administration.

They say there is no moratorium anymore, but we call it a permitorium, because they don't allow companies to go back to work, hiring people, creating jobs, allowing our country to become energy independent.

If you look at the results of their policies, not only has it yielded higher gas prices at the pump, but for anybody on the other side that suggests that cutting off the supply has nothing to do with the price of oil, they need to go back and take a basic economics course.

I don't think OPEC could have developed a better policy than what they have got right now, because they are saying basically we are not allowing our people to go back to work in the United States, but the President wants to encourage drilling in Brazil. He asked the Saudis to produce more energy. We have got billions of barrels in America, and our people can't even go back to work.

So this legislation at least says, enough of this delay, enough of the foolishness and the games and blaming everybody else while gas prices continue to skyrocket. Prices have more than doubled at the pump since President Obama took the oath of office, and it is his policies that are causing this.

So I am glad that this leadership is bringing legislation to the floor here in the House to finally say we are going to do something about it; we are not going to look the other way. Our plan isn't to raise billions more in taxes so people pay even more at the pump and so we are even more dependent on foreign oil. We are actually going to make America energy independent by saying let's let our people go back to work.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying this: If you go throughout south Louisiana and you see the 13,000 jobs that we have lost; you talk to families who are hanging on by a vine; you talk to small business owners who barely can make ends meet and they are just struggling to hold on to their business, and all they want to do is go back to work, and this administration is saying ``no.'' But, no, they want to drill in Brazil. They want our people across the country to pay higher gas prices.

There is a better way. There is an answer. There is a solution, and that is in this legislation being brought forward. I urge that my colleagues from across the country vote to lower gas prices and pass this bill.

I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't disagree more with the comments that were made by the minority leader from California. What we are talking about here are high gas prices that people are paying at the pump today and why we are in this situation. We are in this situation because of this administration's policies that have shut off the American energy supply.

This is supply and demand. Why do prices go up? Well, gee-whiz, if the President of the United States says by policy we are going to close off billions of barrels of known reserves in America, what do you think that does to prices? Do you think that actually lowers prices? Of course, as you are seeing prices skyrocket at the pump, it is because of these policies. That is why we have seen the price of gasoline more than double since Barack Obama has been in office.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we are bringing today and what this rule addresses is the ability to start opening up some of those known areas here in America, because, again, our demand continues to increase for oil here in this country, and while the President is out tilting at windmills, the prices at the pump continue to skyrocket because the President is saying run those jobs off to foreign countries, like Brazil.

He is bragging that he wants to create more energy jobs in Brazil. We are saying, Mr. President, we have thousands of jobs here in America that we can create today. We have got billions of dollars that are being sent to foreign countries, many of whom don't like us, by the way. We can bring those dollars back. And, by the way, that can also help us pay down the national debt that is out of control right now. And that is what this bill addresses.

And what's their answer on the other side? The President is talking about raising taxes on American energy, and the minority leader from California just emphasized it. She talked about a $30 billion tax increase on American energy production. You want to talk about a warped policy? Look at what their plan is.

We're saying let's open up supply. Let's create jobs in America. I have seen it in south Louisiana. We have lost over 13,000 jobs in the energy industry just because of the President's policies in the last year, where he shut down production and said you can't go back to work drilling safely for known oil in America. But he wants to run those jobs off to foreign countries. So that is what is happening.

We saw one of the deepwater rigs go to Egypt just in the last few months. So an employer is saying, I want to take a thousand jobs and it's better to do business in Egypt because of these radical American policies on energy right now. So we are trying to turn that around and say let's actually explore for energy here in America, creating thousands more jobs in America and bringing in billions more dollars that pay down our deficit.

Their answer is raise $30 billion in taxes and, you know, go talk about Big Oil. Big Oil is not going to pay that. Big Oil is leaving. They are going to foreign countries. It is our local energy producers here in America who will pay that tax. And you know what that ends up equating to? That means higher prices at the pump, $30 billion in higher prices at the pump, because of their policy.

And they're bragging about it. They're saying, let's raise taxes on American energy. By the way, their bill doesn't apply to energy that is produced in Saudi Arabia. So what do you think is going to happen?

Now more oil is going to be coming in from Saudi Arabia because of their policies.

We have got to reverse this radical approach and actually create jobs in America, create energy in America and bring down the skyrocketing price of gasoline at the pump, and it can all be accomplished with this legislation here today that I strongly support.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. I appreciate the hard work that you have been doing for years, as I have, on this issue. I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Illinois who just talked about just what is happening here.

In the last 2 weeks we were in our districts, and I got the opportunity to go through parts of my district. When you talk to people about what is happening in this country with the economy, the biggest question that comes up, beyond the short-term issues of the economy and jobs, is the high price of gasoline, and just why is it that right now people are paying almost $4, if not $5 in some parts of the country, $5 per gallon for gasoline, and we are still not even into the heart of the summer.

It is very clear as people look, it is very clear that the policies of this administration that have completely shut off our ability to produce, go and explore for and produce energy in America, is one of the main contributing factors to this high price of gasoline.

Of course, you don't have to go far in south Louisiana to see the direct impact because, as my colleague from Georgia just pointed out, not only the moratorium that was imposed about a year ago, but the permatorium that we are still experiencing today, where the administration won't let our people go back to work exploring safely for energy, people that had absolutely nothing to do with the BP explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, people in much deeper waters, drilling safely back then that now cannot go back to work.

We have lost over 13,000 jobs in the energy industry in south Louisiana in the past year specifically because of President Obama's policies that have shut those areas down. It has literally run thousands of jobs, 13,000 by the White House's estimates--we think the number is much higher, but I will just use the White House's numbers-- 13,000 people in this country who have lost their job in the energy industry, high-paying jobs, by the way, that have gone to foreign countries.

We have tracked some of these deepwater rigs that have left. Of course, the President goes to Rio de Janeiro a few weeks ago and brags that he wants to drill in Brazil. I would suggest, Mr. President, let's drill in America safely, where we know there are billions of barrels of oil here in this country, where we can create thousands of high-paying jobs and generate billions of dollars that the Federal Treasury would take in because of all that economic activity and the royalties that would be paid by those oil companies, that would lower our deficit. And yet, no, the President says we want to shut you down and put your people out of work, but we want to go and spend our resources drilling in Brazil.

This is the backward policy that this administration has pursued that has gotten us to this point where we are paying over $5 in some places in this country--$4, close to $4 in my district--for a gallon of gasoline, and we are not even in the heart of the summer.

So then when you look at what the administration's plan is. Clearly, our plan is we want to let our people go back to work exploring and drilling safely for energy, creating thousands of good jobs, bringing all that tax revenue into this country to lower our deficit. But the Presidents's answer, is, you would think maybe he would be agreeing on us with this. This should be a bipartisan issue, there is bipartisan support, by the way, to do what my colleague from Georgia and I are talking about, but the President not only doesn't support our plan, but the President's proposal is to raise taxes on American energy.

He goes out, and I guess every time he speaks he wants to go and beat up on an American industry, and right now it is the oil companies. Well, frankly, the oil companies that are out there right now, many of them are producing in other countries. But our

local producers, the small businesses, these aren't the big guys. These are the small businesses that are barely hanging on by a thread, struggling to survive, that he would be shutting down by raising taxes. His plan is to raise $22 billion in taxes on American energy production.

Now, his plan, by the way, coincidentally, doesn't apply to foreign countries. So when he goes to Rio and says ``drill in Brazil,'' his package that he actually has asked Congress to pass, and I sure hope we don't pass it, but his package not only raises taxes on American energy. That same tax increase doesn't apply to the drilling in Brazil or in Saudi Arabia or some of these other Middle Eastern countries that use that money to do things that are counterproductive not only to American energy security, but our homeland security.

So the President would say to raise $22 billion in taxes on American energy production, which, by the way, runs even thousands more jobs out of our country and increases our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. This is counterproductive policy, but that is the President's answer to high gas taxes, is to raise taxes on American energy, which means higher prices at the pump. And, by the way, we are already paying too much at the pump. Gas prices have more than doubled since President Obama took office.

It is not just bad luck that gives us high gas prices. It is bad policy that comes out of Washington, D.C. That is why I really appreciate the gentleman from Georgia bringing us here tonight. But also the legislation that we will be voting on tomorrow that actually starts to address this problem and says, you know what, if people in America want to safely explore for and produce energy here in America, we are going to let them do that. We are going to let them go to work here so that we don't send those jobs and those billions of dollars to countries like Brazil, and, even worse, Middle Eastern countries who want to do us harm.

So clearly the policy impacts the price of gas we are paying at the pump. We have got to reverse these policies that make absolutely no sense that are coming out of this White House and get back to an all- of-the-above strategy that actually allows us to utilize our resources here in America in a safe way, that produces thousands of good-paying jobs and brings billions more dollars into the Federal Treasury to pay down the national debt.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This mantra that's thrown out there, frankly, for over 2 years now, yourself, myself, we've been clamoring for policies that actually create jobs. And then when we bring forward legislation, actual bills--not to run up the deficit like our colleagues on the other side, not to run more jobs out of our country like our colleagues on the other side--but when we actually bring bills to say, Stop the madness, change these policies and bring that work back to America, create those jobs here, bring in that revenue here, they actually criticize us and say that has nothing to do with jobs.

Well, it shows, first of all, that they're out of touch. They don't understand how job creation works in this country. But they also, obviously, haven't been tracking the history; tracking exactly what's happening all across America, but especially in using the areas around southeast Louisiana as the prime example. You don't have to go any further than to go down to south Louisiana and you'll see the job losses that have occurred because of this administration's policies which have, one, shut off American energy production, which have led to higher gas prices, but also run thousands of high-paying jobs out of America. We've tracked those rigs, those deepwater rigs, which each of them is about a billion-dollar asset. So you have got an American employer that said, You know what; I can't even do business in America any more with my billion-dollar asset. I've got to move it somewhere else; to a foreign country. One of those rigs went to Egypt. I think we all know what's going on in Egypt right now.

Isn't it a sad indictment on this administration's failed energy policy that an American employer would say I think it's better to do business with my billion-dollar asset, to bring that asset over to Egypt and take the chances over there because of how bad the environment is business-wise in America. By the way, that one rig--and there are multiple rigs that have left our country--that one rig that went to Egypt is representing about a thousand high-paying jobs that are no longer here in America, that are no longer here in America, that are now in Egypt. I think that's a shame. It shows the failure of this administration's policies and it's the reason why--one of the few, but an absolute reason why--American families all across this country are paying higher gas prices at the pump. And there's no reason for it. We can reverse it. We need to reverse it.

I'm glad your committee passed legislation that we'll be voting on tomorrow. I know in our Committee on Energy and Commerce we're working on similar solutions. I think American people want as many solutions as possible. But at least we're finally putting solutions on the table to say, Mr. President, your plan might be to raise taxes on American energy and raise the price of gas at the pump. We've got a different approach. The House Republicans here, and hopefully Senators, will understand and push this issue. But our approach is to lower gas prices by increasing the supply here in America so that we're energy secure, we don't have to rely on these Middle Eastern countries, and we don't have to send our jobs and billions of dollars to those Middle Eastern countries, which jeopardize our security here at home, which as a member of the Homeland Security I know you know about very well, too.

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 37, which prevents the Federal Government from coming in and regulating the Internet. If you look at what's happening in Washington right now, I think there is no clearer sign how broken this town is.

President Obama couldn't even pass a budget last year, and his party controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, which is why we stand here today facing a potential government shutdown. But yet the President is going to come along and say now he wants the government to run the Internet, to have regulations on the Internet.

You know, my colleagues on the other side talk about all these innovations. And I love all the innovations that have happened over the last few decades. The irony of that is all these great innovations have all happened without this government regulation that the FCC is now proposing. They act as if we're trying to take away the things that have allowed the innovation.

In fact, it's the innovations that have happened because the government hadn't figured out how to come in and regulate it in a way where they would be picking winners and losers. And yet the FCC is proposing a plan that picks winners and losers. And they rattled off a big list of some big companies who have done well for themselves and now want to be those winners that the government would protect.

What you don't hear about is what about those small startup companies, that small company that is working out of a garage right now in California that's going to be the next big idea. But if the government picks winners and losers, we all know who usually are the losers: It's those small startup companies that might never be that great idea of innovation.

We have got to be able to protect the next Harvard student who is right now studying at Harvard but may be getting ready to drop out and be the next billionaire who created another great idea. And all those great ideas, again, happen without this government regulation the FCC is proposing, which is why we need to block them from doing it.

Then you can just go look at the innovations. In 2000 less than 5 percent of homes had broadband Internet access. Today more than 70 percent do, and it's growing because of over $500 billion of private investment, because of this innovation in the job creation that's going with it.

Let's protect those jobs. Let's protect the Internet's ability to continue regulating without the heavyhanded government picking winners and losers.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

Madam Chair, we are here today because the EPA has continued to push this effort to pass a national energy tax. It was tried through cap-and-trade over the last year and a half. That bill went through the legislative process and was defeated in a bipartisan way. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue when we're talking about preventing the EPA from running millions of jobs out of our country, and that is literally what's at stake here.

Believe me, as people look through the letters of support and as we comb through the days of testimony that we've had on this over the last 2 years with regard to this concept of the EPA's regulating greenhouse gases, Madam Chair, we are talking about a proposal by the EPA that, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, would run 3 million jobs out of our country.

Now, we should all be here working feverishly to create jobs. In fact, our legislation, the National Energy Tax Prevention Act, will create jobs because it will remove the uncertainty that exists today where so many employers, so many of our job creators, are scared to death of the threat now of regulation coming over; because, again, Congress rejected their proposal for the national energy tax through cap-and-trade in a bipartisan way.

If the gentleman has a parliamentary inquiry, I don't think that comes out of my time.

I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I reclaim my time, Madam Chair, because I am talking specifically about the amendment. If I am allowed the opportunity to continue with my comments, I have to finish a thought first before we talk specifically about the amendment.

First of all, if you look at what happened by legislation, they tried legislation, and the legislation failed. A bipartisan vote defeated that legislation. Then they came back with regulation. So this proposed regulation is being addressed by our bill, the underlying bill.

The amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut proposes to create a loophole to continue to allow the EPA to get their nose back under that tent to regulate greenhouse gases. You can just look at the language to see that it allows for that loophole that we're trying to close.

First of all, in a bipartisan fashion, Madam Chair, Congress has said we don't want the EPA imposing the national energy tax that cap-and- trade would propose. We don't want those millions of jobs leaving our country. Then they came back through regulation, and they said, Well, we'll just do it through regulation, a de facto cap-and-trade energy tax, because they couldn't get it passed through Congress.

Of course, anyone who has taken civics knows you're supposed to go through the legislative process if you want to change policy. So, if our underlying bill passes the House, then they won't be able to go through regulation; but the gentleman's amendment would actually say that there would be a loophole even though Congress would say, No, you don't have the authority to do that. You can't run those jobs to places like China where they have absolutely no environmental controls that we have today, which are dramatically better than those they have in China and India and in some of the other countries, countries which would be happy to take the millions of American jobs that would flee this country if they were able to get away with it.

We have to reject this amendment and take that loophole away. Don't give them that loophole to continue to regulate greenhouse gases through a de facto cap-and-trade national energy tax. So I would ask that we reject this amendment and pass the underlying bill.

I appreciate the offer of the gentleman from California, but I cannot adhere to a United Nations framework. I cannot adhere to the ability for the EPA to continue to keep their nose under the tent to provide whether it's called ``technical assistance'' or whether they try to continue to push things, because the EPA does interact with States on other issues, and I surely would not want to see some kind of situation where the EPA is going to try to hold something else over a State's head and use this threat, because they really do want the chance to regulate greenhouse gases and impose an energy tax.

So I think we've debated it very thoroughly. I understand your position, and I respect the gentleman from Connecticut's position. I just don't agree. I think we need to preserve American jobs and let the States do what they already do such a good job of doing; but we need to tell the EPA that ``no'' means ``no.'' They've got their own role to play, and it's not regulating greenhouse gases.

American Iron and Steel Institute,

Washington, DC, March 9, 2011.

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Upton: On behalf of the American Iron and

Steel Institute (AISI), I am pleased to offer our support for

H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act (EPTA). This

legislation is necessary to prevent EPA from regulating

greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources under the

Clean Air Act, thereby removing a regulatory uncertainty that

is impeding domestic economic growth and job creation.

AISI is comprised of 25 member companies, including

integrated and electric furnace steelmakers, and 140

associate and affiliate members who are suppliers to or

customers of the steel industry. AISI's member companies

represent approximately 80 percent of both U.S. and North

American steel capacity. The steel industry in the U.S. has

substantially reduced its GHG emissions over the past two

decades. The industry has reduced its energy-intensity by 30%

since 1990, and reduced while GHG emissions by 35% over the

same time period. The industry has well exceeded the Kyoto

Protocol targets, is committed to continued improvement, and

hasn't waited for Congress or EPA to act.

The domestic steel industry is both energy-intensive and

subject to substantial international competition. In

particular, this competition comes from nations such as

China, where no similar CO2-reduction legislation

or regulatory policies exist. In the absence of an

international agreement on GHG emissions reductions, EPA

regulation of stationary sources will only transfer

emissions--and high-value manufacturing jobs--overseas. This

will have a negative impact on domestic industry and will not

result in a net emissions reduction worldwide.

As you know, the Clean Air Act was not written to regulate

greenhouse gas emissions, and is therefore the wrong

mechanism for EPA to use in this case. No policies have been

proposed to accompany the EPA regulations to address

competitiveness concerns of energy-intensive, trade-exposed

industries, such as steel. The result will be the ``leakage''

of emissions and manufacturing jobs to competitor nations

without comparable regulations, which is problematic from

both the economic and environmental perspectives.

If the EPA is allowed to proceed with its GHG regulations

from stationary sources, plants in the steel industry will be

forced to adhere to yet another level of new strict

regulations and be required to obtain costly permits. This

would be a devastating blow to investment and growth in the

industry, not to mention the implications of coupling these

regulations with the recession that has hit the country and

the manufacturing economy.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Gibson,

President and Chief Executive Officer.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my good friend from Missouri. When we talk about feared and loved, I'm not sure where we fit in, but I do think it's important----

Thank you.

That's the beauty of the people's House. I think what you're doing, you hold this weekly town hall forum, as we call it, to talk to the American people about what really is happening here in the people's House, in the Congress, and how it affects people all across this country. Of course, I had three town hall meetings last week when I was back in my district, when Congress had finished dealing with one part of this budget problem.

I think when you talk about what's wrong with the spending, how out of control spending is in Washington, we had taken some action 2 weeks ago to say it's finally time to start righting the ship. Speaker Pelosi had the reins of the House of Representatives for 4 years. Of course during that 4 years that Speaker Pelosi was running the House, we saw unbridled runaway spending and record deficits, to the point where we now have a $1.5 trillion deficit.

One thing that she left behind that we're dealing with is the fact that Speaker Pelosi didn't even bring a budget to the House floor last year so there was not even a budget, when families across this country had their own family budgets and families and small businesses are dealing with their crises and shortfalls by cutting spending.

You're exactly right, because when we're talking about where we are today, it's important to look at how we got into this mess and the mess that we're trying to clean up, but the fact that historically last year Speaker Pelosi failed to even bring a budget to the floor when she was Speaker and so there was no budget that was passed.

What that means is, like I said, while families are putting together their own budgets and families and businesses are dealing with the problems in the economy and shortfalls and they're cutting back and doing more with less, the Congress didn't even pass a budget. And so under Speaker Boehner now as we've got this new Republican majority here, we came up with a plan to fund the government for the rest of the year, but to fund it in a way that actually started cutting spending. I think one of the big problems that's been out there for a long time, things that you and I want to deal with, we want to cut spending and start putting our country back on a path to a balanced budget.

And so we had this debate 2 weeks ago in the House where we said, okay, we want to be responsible about funding government, but that means we've got to start making real cuts. You can't just keep spending at the rate you're spending with the deficits that go along with it. We've got to start cutting so that this pie that you showed actually starts getting addressed and shrunk in a way that the Federal spending starts getting closer to matching the amount of revenue that's coming in.

And so finally, to address the real problem in the country with this runaway spending, what we said under both Speaker Boehner and then chairman of Appropriations Committee Hal Rogers is that we've got to stop the bleeding. We've got to start cutting spending. And we brought a bill to the floor that allowed for $100 billion in cuts. That's billion with a B. Real cuts to spending at the Federal level to finally start that process. By no means is this the finished product, but it was the first start of the process of finally getting spending under control.

That bill came to the floor. We had a lot of debate. An open process. Any Member could bring an amendment to that bill. I brought an amendment to get rid of a bunch of these czars, these czars that are killing jobs in our country, that are getting paid millions of dollars to go out there and try to implement radical policies that run jobs to China and India and other places. That amendment passed. A lot of good amendments passed to cut spending, but ultimately we set a new tone. We said, number one, we're going to put our money where our mouth is. We promised that if we get the reins of power in the House, that we would actually really start cutting spending. So we cut $100 billion. We sent that to the Senate. And we're almost at 2 weeks past the point where we sent that bill over to the Senate. They still haven't had one ounce, one minute, of hearings or debate on our bill that we sent to them to cut $100 billion in spending.

I think it became very clear very quickly just what is at stake here. There was a battle line that was drawn. In fact, as we were debating that bill to cut $100 billion and, as I said, with a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, $100 billion is just a start. Well, President Obama comes out and actually starts criticizing us for cutting $100 billion. He said $100 billion is too much. Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said $100 billion is too much to cut. Again, we're saying $100 billion is just the beginning. We've got to cut more than $100 billion. And so you quickly saw a divide. There is a divide right now in Washington. I don't think there's a divide in this country. I think most people, people I talk to when I go back home to south Louisiana, my colleagues that I talk to that are going back home and having town hall meetings, meeting with their constituents, families and small businesses are saying, it's about time that we're finally seeing real cuts coming out of Washington, but yet the President and the Senate leader that were saying $100 billion is too much to cut. And so we've sent them $100 billion, but what's at stake here, it's not just getting spending under control, it's getting jobs created again in America.

One of the reasons we are seeing such stagnant job growth in this country is due to the uncertainty that is created by the runaway spending. These are interlinked issues--the spending problem in Washington and the problem with the slow economic recovery--because people are afraid to create jobs. Our job creators are under attack by Federal bureaucrats, who are bringing out all these regulations every single day to kill jobs.

We are seeing in my home State, in south Louisiana, where the administration doesn't even want to explore for energy in America. They've only issued one permit in 10 months to drill. In fact, now we're looking at the Middle East. We're putting more dependence in this country on Middle Eastern oil, under the Obama administration, at a time when the Middle East has never been in more disarray, which is why people are seeing over $3.20 or so a gallon at the pump. It's because of the President's own policies. This is killing jobs. It's not only running more jobs overseas, but it's also raising the prices of energy and gasoline for families.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. And what is not being pointed out here is, while the gentleman from Massachusetts is talking about companies and royalties, he fails to mention, first of all, that the second largest source of Federal revenue next to income taxes is royalties that are paid by oil companies. They are paying billions of dollars in royalties. They are hiring tens of thousands and, in some cases, probably in the millions of Americans to work in the energy industry. But that, right now, is at jeopardy by this administration's policies. In fact, as my other colleague from Louisiana just pointed out, just last week another company filed for bankruptcy because of this administration's policies shutting off the ability to issue permits and allow people to go back to work.

And so what does this amendment do? Well, my colleague talks about royalties. Let's actually read what his amendment does as opposed to what he says about his amendment.

The amendment by Mr. Markey says: None of the funds made available by this act may be used to issue any new lease that authorizes production of oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

This is about closing off more domestic sources of energy production at a time when the Middle East has never been more volatile. You might as well just call this the OPEC protection amendment, because it ensures that more of these companies, as they are already doing, will be going out of the country.

And by the way, oh, is this hypothetical? Of course it's not. I have got a list here of some of the rigs by some of the very companies my colleague talks about that are already leaving. And one of the countries that they have already left to bring their assets to to drill because they can't do business in America is Egypt. Two of these billion-dollar assets have actually said it's better to do business in Egypt and drill for energy there than to drill in America because of these radical policies.

So I guess my colleague is okay with shutting off more domestic energy, allowing more American companies to go bankrupt. The White House has acknowledged 12,000 Americans have already lost their jobs because of these policies, and then my colleague wants to bring this amendment to shut even more areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off.

OPEC might love this amendment, but I think Americans who are going to be paying $4 and $5 a gallon for gas at the pump this summer don't agree.

I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment because, I think, if you look all across the country--and of course we had a watershed election in November--and if you listen to the voters all throughout this country, as so many of us do who hold town hall meetings--people are tired of all of these government regulations that are killing jobs and stifling innovation. In fact, most people will tell you they are scared to death about the concept of the Federal Government regulating the Internet.

So there was this net neutrality ruling that came up by the FCC in a 3-2 decision where all the Democrats voted for net neutrality, for this regulation, and where all the Republicans voted against. The FCC rarely ever has any kind of major ruling like this on a divided vote.

I think it shows you that there is already controversy. The courts have already said that they don't necessarily have the authority to do this. That's why, as my colleague from Nebraska just pointed out, there is already litigation that is going on because we think the FCC overstepped its boundaries.

You had a bipartisan group in Congress that came together and said, We don't want this kind of action going forward. This is something that should be done and solved in the halls of Congress.

Of course, our colleagues on the other side, Mr. Chairman, haven't even identified a problem. If you actually want to look at it and if you look throughout our economy and at all of the troubles we have with it, one of the few segments that is growing is the technology segment of our economy because of the innovation that has been allowed to thrive, primarily due to the lack of government regulation.

I think that goes to the heart of the real difference between our side and their side. They are the party of regulation, which stifles job growth, which stifles innovation. We are the party that says, let's allow a college student at Harvard University the opportunity to come up with an idea--and he dropped out of Harvard and is now a billionaire. In fact, maybe the largest percentage of billionaires in this country is that of Harvard dropouts, those who actually went out and came up with ideas to innovate, using the Internet, who are now billionaires who are creating thousands and millions of jobs--good, high-paying jobs. These are American jobs. Yet, through this net neutrality ruling, they want to stifle that innovation.

So the first thing, I guess, we would have to ask is: Was net neutrality the reason that we were able to have that innovation that led to Facebook? Was net neutrality the reason that we were able to have such a proliferation of broadband that now over 95 percent of people in this country have access to broadband? By the way, they like it. They're not calling, saying, We want the government to come regulate the Internet now because there's a problem. In fact, they say just the opposite. They say look at this innovation that is happening.

We had a hearing with the FCC yesterday about this issue. One of the FCC commissioners pointed out that, over the last 10 years, Mr. Chairman, over $500 billion--billion with a ``b''--of private investment has been made to develop broadband throughout the country. This is without any kind of taxpayer money.

This is private sector money being put into the marketplace to go and create jobs, to go and create the kinds of technologies that allow you to view and use all the kinds of apps that are available on these kinds of devices. That was done without net neutrality. They would tell you that they need net neutrality in order to have this innovation. Of course, they fail to point out that net neutrality was not in place when all this innovation happened. In fact, most people will tell you that net neutrality is one of the things that's in the way of this kind of innovation, and we're already starting to see a stifling of the growth, a stifling of the private investment because of these threats of new regulations coming in from the FCC.

And that's why it's so important that this amendment actually addresses this problem and says, Federal Government, get your hands off the Internet, allow the innovation to continue, because it happened and it's continuing to happen without that kind of government intervention that they so strongly want through net neutrality.

And so when you look and they talk about these companies that have said that this is a great thing, net neutrality is a great thing. Some of the companies they listed, they failed to mention in that same letter the company said, well, maybe we can live with it but they also have some concerns about it. I didn't hear them mentioning that when they're talking about these companies.

And you look at all of the innovation that has happened, and we're talking about massive job growth. You know, here at a time when our main focus needs to be on jobs, you've got the government coming in with yet another threat of regulation that will stifle innovation and run more jobs out of this country to countries where they don't tell you how to operate your network, they don't tell you what to do with the billions of dollars that you are investing to build broadband.

Maybe our friends on the other side want the Federal Government to be running the Internet because they only want the government to be the one that can tell you what you can and can't do. And, in fact, in our hearing yesterday with the FCC chairman, we pointed out that in this net neutrality ruling, it allows the Federal Government to pick winners and losers. That's not what we should be about. We should be about innovation. We should be about passing this amendment to allow that innovation to grow and get rid of net neutrality.

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

Mr. Chairman, we've seen over the last 2 years under President Obama a very disturbing proliferation of czars, these unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really seem to identify where they are, what they are doing.

But we do know that they're wielding vast amounts of power, many of them making six-figure salaries, and yet you can't find out exactly what they're doing. Yet you have got the separate Cabinet that's actually appointed, goes through the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, which is the process that is supposed to be followed for the people who make these kinds of high-level decisions.

In fact, I support the ability of the President to organize his administration; and, of course, if you look at article II, section 2 of the Constitution, it lays out the process for having these types of appointments, and it requires Senate confirmation. Yet you've got this shadow government that literally, completely avoided the transparency and the accountability of that Senate scrutiny.

What we do in this amendment, which actually sacks these czars, we actually go through, and I'll start with the ObamaCare czar. Of course, we had a vote here on the House floor to repeal ObamaCare, which I'm proud to have supported, hope we continue to see move through the Senate. But in the meantime, we just had a hearing the other day, over 900 companies have already gotten exemptions, went and I guess lined up at the White House and must have known somebody right over there and were able to get exempted from this law that the President says is so important, so great, going to solve all these problems, and yet 900 companies have already been able to get secret exemptions.

How have they done this? Who didn't get an exemption? Of course, our local businesses on Main Street would love to get that exemption. They didn't get that opportunity. We can't even find out who got these exemptions.

So we are getting rid of the ObamaCare czar.

Let's go to the climate czar. Of course you've got a person in there right now that supposedly is going to be leaving. This is a person who's continued to do things behind closed doors. In fact, when the moratorium on drilling came out, it was found out that it was the climate czar that actually doctored the President's own scientific study to try to say that the scientists that the President appointed recommended a moratorium on drilling. It turned out the scientist didn't say that at all. The White House actually had to apologize for the actions of the climate czar, for what they did. Again, behind closed doors, nobody can find out exactly what they are doing. So she's leaving. Let her leave, and take the funding, too.

The global warming czar. There's actually a czar out there trying to still impose the cap-and-trade regime. Of course Congress has rejected cap-and-trade. We've seen study after study. In fact, Spain came up with a study that showed what happened when they tried to implement a cap-and-trade regime. What they found out was that for every green job that they created, they lost over 20 full-time jobs in the private sector. And they detail that out very well in their study about what that policy does. The National Association of Manufacturers said cap- and-trade would run over 3 million jobs out of this country. Yet we have got a global warming czar that's running around out there with taxpayer money, promoting a policy that would destroy jobs that this Congress doesn't even support.

Again, you have got the green job czar. The green job czar, they haven't even filled the job of the green job czar since the last one resigned in disgrace. The last green job czar we had left in disgrace because he expressed comments embracing communism and actually tried to blame the American Government for the September 11 attacks. So of course that person left in disgrace. The job is still vacant. Let's get rid of it.

The Guantanamo closure czar we get rid of in this amendment. Guantanamo Bay--in fact, if you look at it, it's estimated that we have to spend over $200 million to build another facility to hold them. Nobody wants them. New York said, We surely don't want to try these terrorists on American soil right down the street from where the World Trade Center was attacked. And yet you've got a Guantanamo Bay closure czar when the President, himself, now has even backed off of closing Guantanamo Bay. I support him in that. We shouldn't be closing Guantanamo Bay, but we surely shouldn't have a czar that's running around out there doing who knows what for closing down Guantanamo Bay.

There is a fairness doctrine czar that we get rid of. A fairness doctrine czar that is trying to undermine the First Amendment right of talk radio hosts. You know, there may be some people on the other side that don't like some things said on talk radio. That's their prerogative. The beauty is you have got a First Amendment that dictates that, and you have a marketplace.

So the bottom line is it's time that we reestablish our responsibility as a legislative branch. Let's get back to those constitutional principles, and let's get rid of these czars. We shouldn't have the government running car companies. We shouldn't have the government running the shadow government, and we shouldn't have all these czars.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Scalise

Amendment No. 204: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Scalise

Amendment No. 251: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Let's talk really quickly about just what's so important about this resolution.

As my colleague from Illinois talked about, we have had those hearings. In fact, we had the EPA administrator yesterday in committee, and she actually tried to state that her regulations are helping create jobs. The only problem is that, right after that, we had panelist after panelist of American job creators talking about how those exact EPA regulations are running jobs out of the country. So there must be some parallel universe that these bureaucrats are living in. They think they are creating jobs. And I guess, if you want to really look at it, they are creating jobs, in China, in India, in other places around the world instead of in America.

We just had another hearing today on the problems with what is happening with the administration not issuing permits in the Gulf of Mexico. They are actually making our country more dependent on Middle Eastern oil at a time when you are seeing the Middle East in total disarray with what is happening in Egypt. There was just another super tanker that was hijacked by Somali pirates right off the coast of Oman, just yet another example that this is a volatile world. Yet you have got an administration that's using regulations to run more jobs out of this country. This is a time when we should be creating jobs.

I'm really glad that we are actually focusing under this Republican Congress on exposing what those regulations are doing to destroy jobs in America. We can create jobs. We have got to get ahold of these regulations.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

It's such an honor to be able to pay tribute to Ronald Reagan here on the House floor, especially remembering his 100th birthday. It was special about a week and a half ago to be in the gentleman from California's district, going to the Presidential Library--Ronald Reagan's library; actually walking through that Air Force One plane that, among other places, took President Reagan to Germany, where he gave that famous speech and demanded, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

It was Reagan's optimism that pulled our country out of the malaise of the 1970s. We need some more of that optimism here today. But while he is no longer with us, Ronald Reagan's legacy still endures today as an example of how we can get to that ``shining city on a hill'' again.

Mr. Speaker, prevention of discrimination against people with preexisting conditions was something we presented last year. It is something that's going to be one of the hallmarks of our replace bill. I hope the gentlelady supports us in preventing discrimination against preexisting conditions. That's part of the actual replacement that we are going to put forward that is real reform.

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a liberal in Congress, the only person that would suggest that this ObamaCare law would actually reduce the deficit has got to be an Enron accountant.

If you look at this bill, it rations care, it raises health care costs for families--yes, that was scored to raise the cost of health care. It's actually pushing thousands of doctors out of the practice of medicine.

This job-killing bill is not reform. What we need to do is go back to the table and actually repeal this and replace it with real reform. But if all of my colleagues on the other side are correct in what they're saying about what's good about this, then why is it that when this bill was in committee, we actually brought up an amendment that said, if this is so good, all the Members of Congress have to join the government option. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? Every single member of the committee who voted for this bill voted to exempt themselves from it. So clearly that tells you, if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, it's not good law.

Let's repeal this and start over with real reforms that actually lower the cost of health care, that address real problems like making sure people with a preexisting condition can't be discriminated against. Let's restore the doctor-patient relationship. That starts with repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be removed as cosponsors of H.R. 61: Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Cole, Mr. Jeff Duncan, Mr. Franks, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Tom Graves, Mr. Kline, Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. Lummis, and Mr. McHenry.