Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 19, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart today that I join my colleagues in paying respects to the victims of the senseless tragedy that took place last weekend in Arizona. I extend my prayers to the families of those who lost their lives, to the wounded, and the recovering, and to our dear colleague, Gabby Giffords.

Gabby is an energetic Member of Congress who works and enjoys and treats all of those she meets with decency and kindness. I was here with her just last week while we read the United States Constitution on the floor of this House. Gabby so eloquently read from that bedrock of our democracy the First Amendment. In a direct reflection of her passion for interacting with those she represents, Gabby read of the established right of the people to peaceably assemble.

All of those gathered in Tucson on Saturday were engaging in what should have been a peaceful activity that is absolutely fundamental to our form of government--spending time with the gentlelady who so proudly advocates on their behalf here in the United States House of Representatives

Among the fallen were Phyllis Schneck, a great-grandmother; Dorothy Morris, a devoted wife; Gabe Zimmerman, a public servant; John Roll, an honorable judge; Christina Taylor Green, a 9-year-old girl who just wanted to learn more about government; and Dorwan Stoddard, a man who gave his life protecting and saving his wife. They are all in our thoughts and prayers.

Our Founding Fathers made no mistake when they included the right to peaceably assemble among the first tenets of democracy. The inexplicable violence of last Saturday is a stark, tragic reminder that we must never waver in our steadfast support of the First Amendment and the precious freedoms it affords us every day.

As our colleague, Gabby, and all of those directly affected by this tragedy continue to heal from Saturday's incomprehensible events, let us remember the victims and their loved ones in our thoughts and in our prayers and in our actions. As those of us here have known, and as people all throughout the Nation are witnessing, Gabby Giffords is a fighter. Let's keep in our prayers the hope that she once again joins us back here on the floor of this, the people's House.

Section 2: ``The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall began at noon on the third day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.''

Section 3: ``If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.''

I want to thank my friend from up the Mississippi River in Missouri, Madam Speaker, for yielding to me and talking about this important issue, because there seems to be a lot of energy as we are talking about energy in this House.

I think yesterday was so exciting to see not only the gavel ceremoniously

passed from Nancy Pelosi to now Speaker Boehner, but also that these principles that are in the Constitution be restored to the people.

This is the people's House, and it should operate as the people's House. And I think now it's starting to get back to those principles that we articulated today when we read the Constitution, a real uplifting experience. It is sad, unfortunately, to note as we look through history that this was the first time that the entire U.S. Constitution was read on the House floor. I think this should be an event that occurs every new Congress so that we reestablish and remind ourselves just what we are up here to uphold.

As we talk about the spending issues of the country, I think one area that shows you where spending has gotten out of control is, if you go to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, as I know my friend from Utah is such a proud proponent: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

And yet, if you look, so many of the things that we are doing up here in Washington, that this Federal Government has gotten so expansive in doing, have absolutely nothing to do with powers that were delegated in the Constitution.

In fact, one of the big debates we are going to have here this week, our first week here under this new Congress, is about this government takeover of health care that a Federal court just ruled is not constitutional. The Federal Government, under Federal court ruling now, does not have the authority to mandate that American citizens have to buy a private product as a condition of citizenship.

So I think the fact that not only today did we put our money where our mouths are by voting to cut our own budgets, because as we are talking about cutting all throughout government where there is duplication, where there are departments that shouldn't even exist, these czars, these 30 or so shadow government figures that are running their own, almost, cabinets, like a secret cabinet that is running out there, and every one of them has multimillion dollar budgets and staffs, and they are not accountable to anybody except the President-- not to the people, not to the Senate, that the Constitution says they should be doing. We are going to be going and looking at all of those areas to make serious cuts.

But then we also have to look--and of course tomorrow we will be voting on the start of the process--to repeal ObamaCare and do what the courts have already said--this isn't constitutional; it shouldn't be on the books--and get rid of that constitutional mandate with all the bad taxes and other things that go with it.

But then we have got to look at creating jobs. And I think that's where you get into an area where, while we are cutting spending, which we need to do aggressively, we also need to unleash the potential of the individual.

It is not government here in Washington that makes this a great country, and really the greatest country in the history of the world. It's the power of our people back home--the small business owner, the stay-at-home mom who is raising a family--the people that actually make this country work. And there is no place I don't think any more evident of what is wrong with Washington and hurting that opportunity than in my home State where you have got this permitorium going on since after the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It's the President's policies, not the actions and failures of BP. It's the President's policies that, according to the White House, have put 12,000 people out of work through what is called a permitorium.

The government has said all of the companies that didn't do anything wrong, the companies that played by the rules, that follow all the best safety guidelines in the world and had no problems, now the government has shut them down, put them out of work, and they are not even issuing permits.

In fact, it's exactly the opposite of the government being the servant. It's the government being the oppressor. And as I mentioned, 12,000 jobs have already been lost in south Louisiana alone. And these aren't my numbers; this is the White House. And the White House and the President's response to that was, well, they could just go get unemployment.

These aren't people who want to get on unemployment rolls. They are hardworking people who love and have a great, strong work ethic. They want to be contributing to America's energy security. But it's this administration that has shut them down and not allowed them to go back to work drilling safely.

And I'm not talking about BP. I'm talking about the companies who have played by the rules all along, who have never had any safety problems because they follow a higher standard. They are the ones that have been shut down and put out of work.

And not only is it affecting Louisiana in terms of the 12,000 jobs; it has now affected America's energy security, because right now, nationally, this is a time, once you get out of the summer, where gas prices typically start falling again. But what are we seeing? We are seeing the opposite of that. Now gas prices are breaking over the $3-a- gallon mark in many States because, in part, this administration has changed our energy policies where we have shut off more areas of energy production in America, which means these Middle Eastern countries, many of whom don't like us, other foreign countries are now producing the energy that we need, which reverses our trade balance. It sends billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to foreign countries out of America, and then it makes our country less secure, which is why we are approaching $100-a-barrel gasoline now, because the Americans have basically said through President Obama's policies: We are going to shut off most of our sources of known energy. But, of course, our demand for energy hasn't dropped in the country, so that means we are now going to have to be more reliant on many of these foreign countries who don't like us.

So it has not only devastating consequences in terms of 12,000 lost jobs in south Louisiana, but also devastating effects on America's energy security which now we are seeing reflected in these gas prices that are now breaking $3 a gallon.

I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Preserving Criminal Assets for Forfeiture Act, and I want to commend my colleagues, both Ms. Chu and Judge Poe, for bringing this forward.

As he talked about, we've got a problem right now where a court case has allowed a loophole, a major loophole, where criminal organizations are able to shield their assets from our Justice Department. We do not want, and we cannot allow, for these foreign criminal organizations, whether it is drug cartels, money launderers, or others, to be able to shield those assets from the law, not only removing the accountability, but allowing them to keep those assets that they may use against our law enforcement here in the United States. It is critical that we get this passed quickly to close this loophole and prevent those types of shielding from the law as it is currently happening.

I also want to point out something else that my colleague from Texas talked about. In the Stanford case, this is a case where somebody created a

Ponzi scheme that affected lots of people in my State, in Texas, and other States. We cannot allow these kinds of people to be able to shield their assets from justice. Ultimately, they need to have their day in court, and they need to have to face justice for the things that they did to our American citizens here.

I strongly support this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to do so as well.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that have been talked about here that I think need to be addressed. One that I want to address point blank is this concept, this myth, that somehow preventing a tax increase adds money to the deficit.

Only in Washington would some liberal politician think that allowing somebody to keep money in their pockets and not have a tax increase somehow adds to the deficit.

In fact, if you really want to see growth in this country, if you really want to see more money coming into the Federal Government, something that's always been proven is having lower tax rates coupled with controlled spending. And that's the problem, that we don't have those issues being addressed here today. Hopefully, we will address that, and, I know in the new Republican Congress, we will address that we should make these tax rates permanent, including a complete repeal of the death tax, and you'll see some real growth in this country.

But there is a moral imperative here, too. There's been this talk about class warfare on this House floor tonight,

and a lot of people running around talking about certain people that should have a tax increase. And that is a moral imperative because who is the greedy one here. Is it the single mother who is struggling to make ends meet right now? Or is it the liberal Washington politician who is trying to saddle her with another 50 percent increase in her tax rate if this bill doesn't pass? Who is the greedy one? Is it the small business owner who is struggling in tough economic times but maybe wants to create another 20 jobs in their small business? Or is it the liberal Washington politician that is going to try to saddle them with thousands of dollars in new taxes that will make it impossible for them to create jobs? That's the moral imperative.

It's time for the liberal Washington politicians to get their hands out of the pockets of the taxpayers and hardworking Americans in this country so we can get some real job growth. I am glad the gentleman from Michigan, when he becomes the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee next year, wants to address the long-term problems. But in the short term, we need to prevent any American from having their taxes raised, and that's what this debate is all about.

I thank my friend from Missouri for hosting this hour and for focusing on this important issue. At a time when we are just weeks away from facing what would be the largest tax increase in the history of our country, we have been pushing to make the current tax rates permanent, to prevent, to stave off what would be that large, massive, job killing tax increase that is pending on January 1 if no action is taken. Unfortunately, the liberal leadership that is running this Congress right now will not address this issue in a proper way that ends that uncertainty.

You know, when you look out there throughout the country, when we talk to small businesses in our districts and all throughout the country, so many companies would like to hire, would like to make investment, even in these tough economic times; but because of the uncertainty created by the threat of these massive tax increases, it is holding back the economy. It is holding back the ability for these companies to make that investment and to create those good jobs. It is so unfortunate because we are at a point where there should be, and there is, I think, bipartisan agreement that, especially now in tough economic times, you shouldn't raise taxes on anybody, especially those small business owners who create the bulk of our jobs in this country, and yet that is exactly what they are facing and it is exactly what we are hearing from the people who say that they can't make decisions, they can't make those investments because they are looking out and they are seeing if Congress takes no action, or tries to play class warfare, which would be even worse, to try and pick winners and losers and say some people are going to see a tax increase and some aren't, what a bad message that sends to those people who are trying to get the economy back on track.

What is so sad about all of this is that history tells us, history tells us, whether you go back to John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, you can go to President Bush, when taxes were cut, especially when you did aggressive tax cuts, not only did you see job growth, but you also saw a tremendous amount of money, billions of dollars more coming into the Federal Government, which goes against this myth that is out there, the President and others say, we can't afford to cut taxes.

Well, I think we can't afford not to keep the current tax rates. We surely can't afford to have a tax increase; but history tells us, any administration you look at, you can go to 1920, you can go to the sixties, the eighties, and 2003, when taxes are cut, job creation follows and more money follows and flows into the Federal Government. The reason we get deficits is because Congresses, both Republican and Democrat, have spent too much money. The deficits come because we spend too much money.

So the formula that has always been proven to be successful and the formula we should be following right now is cut taxes, make sure nobody's taxes go up and control spending at the same time. That way you not only stop getting more deficit spending, but you can actually get on a path to balancing the Federal Government budget, which is what we really need to do.

I thank the gentleman again for yielding.

The chart that you just showed really lays out in a very good graphical form what really does happen when you cut taxes, and unfortunately you don't hear this on the mainstream media. It's something that a lot of the pundits try to ignore. It's unfortunately something that the President I think has tried to cloud over and, in fact, speaks in contradiction to what really did happen when taxes were cut. You know, and the President is going around saying that he can't afford to keep the tax rates where they are and he needs to raise taxes on certain people, otherwise the government will lose money.

The problem with that is, it flies in the face of history. It flies in the face of facts; and in fact, your chart shows just what really did happen when taxes were cut for 48 consecutive months after those 2003 tax cuts. For 48 consecutive months our country had job growth. Every single month for 48 months, more American people were working than the month before, and during that same period of time of unprecedented job growth, 8 million new jobs were created, and your chart shows it very clearly. Not only were those 8 million jobs created, but the Federal Government took in over $750 billion more money.

Of course when I say that, somebody listening might say, well, hold on a second, the President just said, if you cut taxes, it costs money. If you maintain these current rates, rather than raising taxes, you have got to raise the taxes because it's going to cost the Federal Government money. The opposite happened, anytime in history, not just in 2003.

As I said in the 1980s when taxes were cut under President Reagan, tremendous job growth and tremendous growth in revenue to the Federal Government. Now, yes, we had deficits, because even though the Federal Government was taking in more money, they still spent even more money than all of that coming in, which gave you a deficit. But if they'd controlled spending, if they would have just frozen levels and had normal cost of living increases, just normal growth, you would have actually had surpluses because more money was coming into the Federal Government, and the same thing happened in the 1960s when President Kennedy cut taxes.

So this isn't a partisan issue, but this is history. Let's follow history. Instead of people making things up and saying things that are just flat out untrue, if we go back and use history as our guide, when we cut taxes in this country, job creators go out and create jobs, and the facts prove it.

I used the President's own Web site when I pulled the numbers to find out what really happened in terms of job growth which we confirmed on the President's own Web site and in terms of more money coming into the Federal Government. So when they say that they can't afford to keep the current tax rates the way they are, they think they need to raise taxes in order to bring in more money, just the opposite is true.

You know, when you look at these charts, all it really is, you know, is a reflection of what really happened historically. They say, If you don't learn from the mistakes of history, you are doomed to repeat them. You can flip that around and say, Go look at what has always been proven to work. There are things that have been good and bad throughout history. You can go into the 2000's and look at 2003 when taxes were cut. There were some good things and some bad things that came out of that.

The good thing was, when the taxes were cut in 2003, you had, as your chart shows very clearly, a tremendous increase in Federal revenue, and you had a tremendous increase in job creation. Eight million jobs were created. The bad thing that happened was that you had deficits, but it wasn't because of the tax cuts. It was because more money came into the Federal Government, but Congress spent even more than that. When Congress spends more money than that which comes in, you end up with a deficit.

You can control that not by raising taxes, because if you raise taxes--again, use history as a guide. When taxes are increased, one of two things happens. In some cases, you'll get a flat line--you'll get a flat revenue intake--but in many cases, you'll actually get a decrease. Even though you're raising taxes--and it might seem intuitive to some liberals--what happens is it's the cost of doing business. If a company is looking to hire people and now it costs more money in America to create that job or to manufacture that product, then it explains why so many of our manufacturing jobs have been leaving this country and going to other countries.

The tax increase that President Obama is creating might be good for economies, but it's good for foreign economies because it's pushing more and more investment out of this country. So the jobs that will be created will be created in countries like India and China and other places where they don't punish somebody for manufacturing. In our country, unfortunately, there is this mentality, and there are some in this leadership who continue to try to play this class warfare game and pit one American against another.

What we ought to be doing here in Congress and at the White House is working together to put policies in place that will help everybody, that will not just help the job creators but will help the people who are struggling at the bottom, the people who want to find jobs. There are millions of Americans out there who want to find jobs.

You know, in my State of Louisiana, we are seeing the negative repercussions of these policies coming from President Obama: how it's costing us jobs with this permitorium, as we call it now, on drilling, and how the President bragged about lifting the moratorium on drilling but now has replaced it with a policy where they're just not issuing permits.

Then today, just today, the President and Secretary of the Interior came out and said they were going to shut off more areas around the country that were getting ready to be opened for the exploration of energy. They're shutting those off. So now they're not issuing permits in the Gulf of Mexico, which, according to the White House, has already led to about 12,000 more Americans losing their jobs. This is not because of a downturn in the economy. Because of the policies of President Obama, 12,000 more people have lost their jobs, and billions of dollars have left the Federal Government and are going to foreign countries. Our energy security in our country has decreased, and we are now more dependent on foreign oil because of the policies of this President.

So, on one hand, he is trying to raise taxes on our small businesses, which, as your chart shows, is going to devastate the economy and is not going to bring in more money to the Federal Government. On the other hand, he has got policies, like the permitorium and the lack of open areas for the exploration of drilling for natural resources, which are taking away what would have been thousands of more new jobs, and now he is shipping those jobs to other countries, like Brazil and Egypt, which is where some of these rigs are going.

You know, it's sad to think, but it's true. It's a sad day in America when it's a better business climate to do business in Egypt, which is where some of these rigs are going, than in the United States of America because of the President's own policies. This is reality. This is what is really happening, and that's why we have got the job creation problems. That's why we have got the lack of jobs we have today. It is because of the policies of this administration.

Yes, I was.

You know, the gentleman referred to the meeting that we were both at today with Art Laffer, the brilliant economist who worked for President Reagan in the White House, who helped create a lot of those tax policies that gave us that unbridled economic growth. He goes into detail and talks about the decisions that went into that and what works and what doesn't work.

And there are things that don't work, but there are things that have been proven again historically throughout time.

Going back to the 1920s, you can go before that, things that you can do that have always worked in terms of cutting tax rates. And there are levels where you get above certain levels, and in the 20s is where you are starting to get into dangerous territory. Right now the President is trying to bring the highest rate up to 39.6 percent taxes, plus he's going to try to continue to allow this death tax to go to 55 percent. It's at zero today. If someone were to die today and have a family business that they built up over their lifetime, they could pass that onto their family, and there is a zero percent tax on their passing away, a tragic event that shouldn't be made even more tragic by government coming in and confiscating 55 percent of their business to the point where the children's decision, more of their grief is dealing not with the loss of their loved one but now the fact that they have to dismantle the company that their father built for his entire lifetime just to pay the taxes to the Federal Government. And that will happen. Starting January 1, that death tax goes up to 55 percent. It's one of the most onerous, obnoxious, and evil taxes, because you're talking about people who have already paid taxes to create that wealth.

I think one of the other things Art Laffer talked about today is if that person, instead of building up that company, creating that wealth and creating all those jobs that went along with it, if he would have just gone out and blown the money, he wouldn't have been taxed on that. There's no tax on just going out and spending the money and blowing it. But if he built his business and created hundreds of jobs and then wanted to pass that on to his children, the government is going to come in--starting January 1 if Congress doesn't take action--and tax that business 55 percent just by the virtue that that business owner passed away, to the point where now the family has to sell and dismantle the entire business and maybe have to lay off all those employees just to pay the taxes. That's not what America is all about, that's not what made America great, and yet that is tax policy that President Obama wants to put in place starting January 1.

It is such a sad state of affairs that in the greatest country in the history of the world--and you and I both know we've got really serious challenges, we've got real big problems in this country that we're facing, but with all of those problems this is still the greatest country in the history of the world. But what that light of freedom, the Statue of Freedom at the roof of this building right here, the Capitol dome, what that statue stands for, and when you pass through Ellis Island and you see the Statue of Liberty, it represents a freedom that exists nowhere else in the world. All of that is at risk if these kinds of policies continue. I know that's a dramatic statement, but I think most people across the country have recognized that when you take into account the radical level of spending, the unsustainable level of spending going on here in Washington--trillion- dollar-plus deficits as far as the eye can see, the first trillion- dollar deficit in the history of our country was last year, only surpassed now by this year's, and next year looks to be just the same-- everybody knows we can't sustain this level of spending. And then you look, and the President and Speaker Pelosi's plan for taxes is to raise taxes on American families and small businesses. And the American people get it. They know what that means to job creation. They know it's going to stifle job creation. It's going to make it harder for businesses to compete globally. And for many of them, it's going to make it harder for them to even keep their doors open. And yet those are policies that are continuing to be put in place by this administration.

But people know, I think--what's more than all of that, to a small business, if they don't make as much money as they did last year--you want

everybody to be able to be profitable so that they can continue to create jobs. But I think to most people what is the most concerning is not maybe this year they're making less than last year, that's bad, but what I think is concerning most people is that the one great tradition of this country, from the day George Washington took that oath of office until this day today, every generation has had better opportunity than the one that came before them. Every single generation in the history of our country has had better opportunity than the one that came before them. And I think we all know if we stay on this unsustainable path of spending and taxing, with unemployment like it is, the next generation is not going to have that same opportunity, and we cannot let that happen. I don't think the American people are going to let that happen. And I think that's why in November, in that historic election that was just held a few weeks ago, people said they're not sitting on the sidelines anymore because they know what's at stake. They know we can't keep going down this road. And if we want to keep the light lit on that Statue of Freedom, if we want to make sure that the promise that's envisioned and represented in the Statue of Liberty, if we want to keep that torch lit for the next generation, we have to make serious changes right now starting today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the NASA reauthorization bill. Too often people use the term: You know, this isn't rocket science. Well, in my State of Louisiana, we have got the Michoud assembly facility, and they do rocket science. And right now there is tremendous uncertainty over the future of NASA because of the President's budget, and the fact that it actually cedes responsibility and our superiority in space exploration. We can't sit by and let that happen.

With this legislation tonight, we can actually present a clear future for NASA that involves heavy lift, that involves maintaining the United States of America's superiority in the space exploration program. And I don't think any of us can sit by and allow a country like Russia to take that superiority lead that we currently have today. And if we don't take action, that is exactly what will happen.

We need to make sure that we not only preserve those jobs that are so important, but that we also preserve that technological superiority that America enjoys today and America needs to enjoy in space exploration for the future. And we can do that tonight with this vote.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

As American families, as Louisiana families are asking where are the jobs, and they are looking to Congress for those answers, all that they get from this tone-deaf liberal group that is running Congress today is more spending, more taxes, and just continuing with this bailout mentality. Americans are saying enough is enough.

In fact, if we want to get the economy back on track, what we need to do is go back to those principles that have been proven to work every time, and that is to cut taxes for small businesses so that the businesses that are creating jobs can go out and do what they need to do. In fact, businesses today are scared to hire anybody because of the policies coming out of Washington. So you cut taxes and you cut spending. Instead, all we see is more spending, more bailouts, and more tax increases on the backs of businesses that are going to run more jobs out of this country. It is the wrong answer. We should be here focusing on creating jobs, not running more off.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the CLEAR Act, and the only thing clear about this legislation is that it's going to raise $22 billion in new taxes on American families and run more jobs overseas.

If you look at the bill, first of all, when you talk about their $22 billion tax, which, by the way, is yet one more violation of President Obama's pledge that he won't tax American families that make below $250,000, because they are going to pay the bulk of their new tax. It also discriminates by only applying it to American energy producers.

As people's heating bills are going to be going up in the winter, and their gas bills are going to be going up all throughout the year, they are going to be wondering, what is this liberal leadership running Congress doing? They are raising taxes on American families and running off more jobs when the provisions in this bill actually make it harder for our domestic energy producers to continue operating because the bill preserves Big Oil's ability to bid on future leases. But it eliminates 70 percent of their competition, the small domestic guys who are out there doing the same kind of drilling in a safe and environmentally friendly way. It's bad for jobs. It raises $22 billion in new taxes. This isn't the answer to help the gulf. It only helps

I appreciate the gentleman from Washington for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I share in many of the comments that were expressed by my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon.

In fact, when you talk to people on the ground in Louisiana, most will tell you that this moratorium that was arbitrarily issued by the President has actually got the potential to do more long-term damage to our State than the oil spill, itself. Unfortunately, we are already seeing the consequences in terms of lost jobs.

If you look at what would happen, not if this would go 6 months--as Secretary Salazar wants to go--but if this just goes another few weeks, we will lose up to 40,000 high-paying jobs that will go overseas. If anybody is wondering whether or not that is just talk, you can look at what is already happening.

Just 2 days ago, Baker Hughes, a big oilfield service company, sent 300 jobs overseas. It laid off 300 Louisiana workers. These are jobs that have gone overseas because of this moratorium. It is already having a devastating impact. That is why it is so important that we pass an amendment that actually ends this current moratorium.

If you look at the language in the amendment, there are a number of components that I do agree with, and I think the intent was there to actually address those problems; but if you go to page 2, there are a few sections that got added in. In fact, I am a cosponsor with my colleague from Louisiana on an amendment that would actually end the moratorium in its current form. Unfortunately, there was some language added in that allows the Secretary to have statutory authority that he does not have today that actually extends his ability to issue more moratoriums even if this current one is stopped.

So what the industry is dealing with today is this kind of uncertainty. That is why you are already seeing rigs leave. In fact, three rigs have already left. One is going to Egypt. These are all going to foreign countries. So we have got to get this right.

In fact, later today we're going to have a motion to recommit that will actually encompass those things that are necessary to be done to end the moratorium without the damaging language that's in this bill that gives the Secretary even more authority, in fact, even if a company complies with all of the safety requirements, as they should, and they should comply with all the safety recommendations. But even if they do, under this language, the Secretary is given power to decide whether or not to issue that permit. That shouldn't be arbitrary once a company meets all the safety recommendations. BP didn't meet them all. But if a company does, the Secretary can't continue to keep this job- killing moratorium going on. So we have to fix that language. And, in fact, our motion to recommit does that.

If you look, our Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, which is not a representative of the Big Oil companies--in fact, it's a lot of the mom and pop of the independent oil and gas companies throughout Louisiana. They have

strong concerns. In fact, they say, We have concerns that this may codify--they're talking about this extra language and power that's given to the Secretary to deny permits--they say, We have concerns that this may codify the Secretary's authority to suspend offshore drilling permitting and drilling operations.

It is our position that the Secretary does not have the right to do so; and, in fact, a Federal judge has agreed with that by trying to stop this moratorium. Unfortunately, the administration ignored that. And they further go on to say, It is our position that applicants who apply for a permit and meet the proper safety requirements should be issued the permit. The Secretary shouldn't be able to decide arbitrarily if he wants to continue to shut down domestic oil production in this country, as we're seeing today. And we're seeing the consequences of it.

As I said earlier this week, we already lost 300 jobs. And this wasn't the first time; and, unfortunately, it won't be the last. Many companies you talk to are already having conversations about moving jobs overseas, if they haven't already. And as I mentioned, three of the rigs have already decided they have got to leave the country because of this moratorium. That is why it is so important that we get it right. We can't just pass something that sounds good but ultimately ends up giving the Secretary more authority to keep the moratorium going and run more jobs out of our country. So hopefully we will pass the motion to recommit later but not give the Secretary more authority. This does.

I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.

I rise in support of this amendment by my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon). As we all know, this is an unprecedented disaster. It's already extracted a human toll, it's extracting an environmental toll, and of course now with the moratorium it's extracting an economic toll.

So when you look at what this amendment does, it says if somebody breaks the law, if they actually have a spill that's at this level, a million barrels or more, then they actually get hit with heavier penalties. And those penalties would be dedicated to restoring our coast. Because as we can all see, people all across the country who have expressed so much appreciation and support for what we're doing to try to battle this disaster, they also understand just how fragile this ecosystem is. And they've seen the destruction to our ecosystem.

And of course it hasn't just started. Our coast has been eroding for years. In fact, we lose a football field of land along the gulf coast of Louisiana every 37 minutes. So just in the time we have been debating this legislation, the Gulf Coast of Louisiana has lost a football field of land. And this goes on every single day.

So by dedicating these funds that are only generated if somebody spills a million barrels or more into our gulf to this fund to restore our coast, I think it's the right thing to do. It helps us battle this environmental disaster, and then hopefully we can continue to move forward so that we can stop the economic disaster that's also occurring. I appreciate the gentleman from

Louisiana for bringing this amendment.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, the liberals running Congress passed the stimulus bill, claiming they needed to add another $787 billion to the national debt in order to keep unemployment below 8 percent. Of course, now, a year and a half later, unemployment is approaching 10 percent.

Their first plan failed miserably, so regarding unemployment, they are coming with a plan to add another $34 billion to the national debt that they don't want to work with us on to at least pay for by using some of that failed stimulus plan. In fact, they are still trying to defend the stimulus plan that most Americans recognize only grew the size of government and which did nothing to help stimulate the economy. The sad irony of this is that millions of American people are unemployed as a direct result of the policies of this administration.

A very real example is occurring right now in south Louisiana. Just yesterday, there was a rally in south Louisiana where over 10,000 people showed up to oppose this arbitrary and capricious ban by President Obama on drilling in the gulf.

They try to hide behind safety and pit it as safety versus jobs. In fact, the President's own safety commission he appointed after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon said that the moratorium is a bad idea. They went on to say that this moratorium will decrease safety in the gulf. That's right. This is the moratorium that the President, himself, imposed, which is costing our State thousands of jobs and thousands more people to be on unemployment, people who would much rather have jobs than the unemployment checks that President Obama is offering them. Their jobs have been taken away from them by the President, yet not for scientific reasons but for political reasons, because the President's own scientists say the moratorium is a bad idea and will decrease safety.

In fact, as my colleague from Louisiana pointed out, our entire delegation has been trying for 6 weeks now to meet with the President to discuss this ill-conceived idea, and he refuses to meet with us. Though, you still have hundreds of people each week being added to the unemployment rolls because of the President's policy.

What the President needs to do is actually work with us to create jobs instead of continuing to push policies that are running people onto the unemployment rolls, putting more jobs overseas and putting our country at greater risk of energy dependence. Our energy supply hasn't decreased, but now you are going to actually have more oil imported from these Middle Eastern countries that don't like us. By the way, 70 percent of all oil spills come from tankers importing oil.

Now the President has just made our country more dependent on that imported oil with the addition of his ban on drilling. That is creating more unemployment in our State. These policies are wrecking our economy.

What we need is to create jobs. Part of that means you put good policies in place that help create jobs so that people don't continue to go on the unemployment rolls because of the Obama policies. That is what we need to do is to get a different agenda. The American people are saying, Where are the jobs? All they get is more deficit spending from this administration.

They just don't get it.

I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding and for talking about this important issue.

When we talk about jobs, today we had a long debate here on the House floor about unemployment. And, of course, if you look at what's been happening this last year and a half, the policies that have been brought forward by this President and by this leadership here and the people that are running this Congress, these policies have been creating a lot of the unemployment we have today; and you look, since the stimulus bill passed a year and a half ago that you and I opposed because we knew that it would be doing nothing other than growing the size of government, $787 billion of money that we didn't have, that was not only spent to grow the size of government, but the President said it had to be spent to keep unemployment from breaking 8 percent.

Of course, now we are approaching 10 percent unemployment after that bill, after that massive amount of debt dumped onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. And then we look at more and more policies that have been coming since then that are eroding, eroding the economic base of this country.

Of course, we are experiencing some very direct consequences firsthand in our State of Louisiana because of the President's ill- advised moratorium on energy exploration. The President came up with this plan after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon tragic event that was both a human tragedy and now an environmental tragedy,

which the President still to this day is not doing his job under the law in helping direct the effort to keep the oil off our marsh, which our local leaders are battling to do every day.

Unfortunately, our local leaders tell us--and I have spoken to them. Anybody who speaks to them will tell you they are spending more of their time fighting the Federal Government than fighting the oil. But the biggest insult lately has been this moratorium because the moratorium, first of all, was actually opposed by the scientists and experts that the President put together after the explosion of that oil rig.

They were tasked by the President to come up with a 30-day report on safety improvements. They actually came back with that 30-day report, and they made some good safety recommendations that I support. But the other thing they said was they opposed the moratorium on drilling that the President came out with.

So when the President gets this report, he doesn't agree with it because for political reasons he wants to go and ban drilling, so he just discarded the science and trumped it with politics. Not only did they say in that report that they were opposed to the moratorium. I have spoken to a few of those scientists and experts and they said, they lay out a good case why the moratorium imposed by the President actually reduces safety in the gulf.

So here you have got a double whammy kicking people when they are down. The people of south Louisiana are down, and yet the President who is supposed to be helping us is coming up with policies that are hurting the people of south Louisiana. Then this moratorium, not only does it go against the safety recommendations of his own scientific experts, but it actually now is costing us thousands of jobs.

There was an unemployment debate going on in this House today. Well, one of the reasons we've got unemployment is because of the President's policies. He should rescind that moratorium. A Federal court twice now told him to rescind it, and he refuses to do so. He refuses to listen to his own scientific experts who say it actually reduces safety in the gulf because you lose your most experienced crews. You actually increase our dependence on foreign oil, and it's imported by tankers. And 70 percent of all the oil spills occur on tankers. So now the President has increased the likelihood for future spills in the gulf with his moratorium that's running more jobs out of our country. And I yield back.

Sure, I would be happy to share that with my colleague from Georgia.

Of course Speaker Pelosi earlier today, during the debate, she actually said that unemployment creates jobs. Now, the logic of that I don't think anybody can understand, but that's what her statement was.

And that's exactly what the people in the gulf want. The people don't want an unemployment check, they want jobs. They've got good jobs, and they're being taken away by the President. And what they've said is keep this industry going, let's do it safely. And there are good outlines of how to do it safely. In fact, most of the companies out there in the gulf in even deeper waters than BP weren't cutting corners, weren't doing things the wrong way. They were doing everything safe, and they were shut down. BP is the only one out there drilling right now.

If you listened, we had tragic testimony from two of the widows who lost their husbands in that explosion in the committee I serve on. And both of them said it's tragic what happened. The rules should have been enforced that weren't enforced, the safety rules should have been followed. But they said don't shut down this industry, it's our way of life. We know it can be done safely. You need to insist that those rules are enforced, which they weren't. Don't shut down the industry.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I thank both of my colleagues for talking about this important issue because right now as we're battling what is already a human tragedy with eleven deaths, an environmental tragedy, probably the worst in the country's history, we're trying to battle to keep the oil out of our marsh and our seafood beds and the estuaries where the pelicans nest. We're also now fighting a new battle and that's an economic battle against this moratorium on all energy exploration in not only deep water but shallow water, which is going on.

So what we've been trying to point out is that, in fact, if you look at the safety recommendations that were made by the President's own scientific panel right after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, the President assembled a team of scientists, engineers, experts that he picked--we didn't pick, he picked--to come back with a 30-day safety report, report on how to improve safety on the rigs and recommendations on drilling.

In fact, they came back with those recommendations. The interesting part was that many of the recommendations that they came back with are things that are already being implemented out there in the gulf by companies who have a safety record that is much different than BP, companies that have been in even deeper water. The Deepwater Horizon was in 5,000 feet below the surface. There are companies drilling in 10,000 feet that haven't had any problems because they do follow a different set of safety standards. In fact, they have a very high bar for safety.

As you were talking about, over 2,500 wells have been drilled in the deep water, many more, over 50,000 all across the gulf, but over 2,500 wells in the deep water, and yet this is the first time you've had an incident like this. And it's because the companies that are out there, unlike BP, have a different safety approach and haven't cut corners and haven't done the things that led to this disaster.

So as we're trying to find out what went wrong, we already know many of the things that went wrong and what needs to be done to stop it from happening again, not by reinventing the wheel, but actually going and looking at those companies who are already doing it the right way.

And, in fact, that's what the President's group of scientists came back with in their safety report. So we embrace those safety changes that were recommended that most of the industry is already using; but another thing that the President's commission said was the majority of those members said they oppose this moratorium on drilling, and they did it for a number of reasons, but one of the things they point out that's been interesting and hasn't been talked about in this whole debate is, it's not just all the loss of jobs, because there's a tremendous loss of jobs, over 40,000 good, high-paying jobs in Louisiana alone, and I know in Texas it's an even bigger number.

But they point out, the scientists the President appointed said that it would actually reduce safety in the Gulf of Mexico by having a moratorium. Whereas, the Secretary of the Interior tries to call it a pause, he says, we'll just do a 6-month pause, and if there's some magical pause button you can press and then take your hand off 6-months later and the industry magically reappears. The industry will not magically reappear.

What's already happening today is companies are leaving the Gulf of Mexico to go to foreign countries: Brazil, West Africa, many other nations that are competing for these very scarce resources. You have 33 deep water rigs, many of these are assets of half a billion to a billion dollars each, and their operating costs are half a million dollars a day to a million dollars a day. They can't just afford to sit idle.

So what they're doing is they are starting to lay off employees, starting to move to foreign countries, and what that does, number one, it makes our country less safe because it reduces America's energy independence. Our demand for oil in this country hasn't dropped, and I want to support all the alternatives in wind and solar and nuclear, everything, all of the above, but in the meantime our demand in this country hasn't dropped for oil. And so as we reduce the supply by maybe 20 percent, that means we're importing more oil from foreign countries who don't like us.

And how does that oil get here? It doesn't magically appear. It has to come in from supertankers and these big barges that bring in the oil, and 70 percent of all spills of oil come from tankers, not from the drilling. So you have actually increased the likelihood of spills.

But the other side of that is why you also reduce safety is your most experienced crews, your most safe and technologically advanced rigs are the ones that leave first. So you lose your rigs, you lose the experience of those 10- to 20-year employees, people that understand drilling better than anybody in the world. They're not going to sit around idle for 6 months collecting unemployment as the President suggested. They're going to go find work somewhere else, maybe they're going to go to these other countries and so we lose all of that experience. And if you then 6 months later remove your hand from some mysterious pause button, you don't have an industry left and we don't have any experience left; and if you start drilling, you're doing it with people without experience, without those new rigs.

So it poses tremendous damage, not only economically for the jobs lost, but it also poses safety challenges and safety problems by having this pause, as the President calls it, on drilling. It's a horrible policy. It is making our country less energy secure, and it's creating a bigger dependence on Middle Eastern oil

It's correct that there is not a final report. There are a lot of groups out there doing investigations. The Federal Government is, private institutions are, a lot of different investigations are going on as there should be. But we know many of the things that caused the problems on that rig on the Transocean-BP Horizon, and in fact, they were preventable. And that's the sad part of this is that this was a preventable disaster; and if you look at what the companies do that are in deeper waters, that don't have the safety problems BP had, it's because they do things the right way, a much safer way, and that's what we should be following.

We should go and look to what the President's own safety commission came back with. Unfortunately, the President, when he got that 30-day report back from his scientists and engineers, it didn't give him I guess the results he wanted. It didn't suggest a moratorium, and he just wanted to do one anyway. So he threw away the science and trumped science with politics, and that's a sad state of affairs for our country to be in where we're ignoring science that actually recommends the right way to go for safety, and the President chose a path for a less safe approach that actually throws jobs away and makes our country more dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation to give subpoena powers to the commission. I would hope the commission would be an objective commission that actually looks into and helps us find out just what went wrong because I think we all need to know what went wrong on that rig to lead to the explosion that, unfortunately, took the lives of 11 people and has led to not only this human loss but this environmental loss.

I would hope that they would be objective in their deliberations. I think I do have concerns that some of the members appear to maybe come to this with a predisposed outcome. And they would be well served and the country would be well served if they put their political agendas on the side and actually focused on finding out what went wrong and coming up with real recommendations.

Now, if we look at the legislation not only here before us but also some of the problems we're dealing with on the ground, we continue to have problems and we seem to be spending more of our time fighting against this administration rather than fighting the oil because we're not getting the leadership we need from the President. Just yesterday, the sand barrier plan brought forward by our Governor that the President himself bragged about helping approve last week was stopped, halted by the Federal Government. Yet again, this kind of administrative red tape is something that's holding us back from properly responding to this disaster.

But if you look at what's happening with this ban on drilling in general, Secretary Salazar had initially put a commission together to come up with recommendations. They had a 30-day report that they issued. And these were scientists that were put together on recommendation by the National Academy of Engineers, and they came up with some solid recommendations to improve safety; but they opposed a ban on drilling. Unfortunately, Secretary Salazar set that ruling on the side, set that report on the side, and ignored the reports of scientists and put politics over safety and science and went forward with the ban that yesterday a judge ruled was not legal, not proper.

And so as this commission moves forward, I would hope that they would actually follow the rule of law and come up with objective decisions. But I think the Secretary would be well served and the President would be well served to go back to the report that was issued by his own scientific panel that came up with suggestions to improve safety on rigs without shutting down an entire industry.

Unfortunately, the President and the Secretary continue to set those kinds of scientific recommendations on the side and allow politics to trump the science by continuing to pursue this ban, even though the judge said that their decision was arbitrary and capricious; that they did not have the legal authority to have a complete ban on drilling. In fact, the scientists recommended and suggested that a complete ban, as this moratorium that's in effect would currently have, would actually decrease safety on rigs.

So, again, I would urge the President and the Secretary to go back and read that report and follow the recommendations of his own scientists.

I'd like to thank my friend from Missouri for leading tonight's discussion about the economic problems that we're facing today in our country. And of course, as you showed those comments from Henry Morgenthau, who was the Treasury Secretary under FDR, who in fact not only pointed out the problems of the massive spending back then, but really was kind of prescient because some of the things he talked about back then are still as relevant, if not more, today because he predicted the problems, he discussed the problems of government spending and spending and borrowing and borrowing with no results, and in fact with detrimental results because of the damage it's done. And of course here we are today seeing the results of that same failed policy of history, unfortunately, repeating itself.

And of course those who are running things right now-- the liberals who are not only in the White House, but here in Congress--have not learned the lesson of history. And there is that saying that if you don't learn from history, then you're doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately, we've been trying to prevent history from repeating itself, and yet we're seeing that happen right now.

I represent southeast Louisiana, and of course we are battling this devastating oil disaster----

I thank the gentleman for his kind comments. All I've been trying to do is not only represent the people of my district and my State, but also to make sure that the President is meeting his responsibility under the law. And of course under the law in this case, with the Oil Pollution Act, the President himself is responsible for directing the recovery, and the responsible party, BP, is responsible for paying.

BP ought to be paying. The problem is the President is allowing BP to still run the show on the ground in too many different areas, which is not his job. And now something that has really added insult to injury is that the President came out a few weeks ago with this ban, this moratorium on offshore drilling across the board, not focusing on finding out what went wrong on that rig, why the Horizon exploded--and we still continue to battle this oil today. In many cases our local leaders tell me, including just yesterday, our local leaders are spending more time fighting the Federal Government than fighting the oil, which is inexcusable, and it's still going on to this day.