Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT
THE DESK.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 11
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-540
OFFERED BY MR. RUSH OF ILLINOIS.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 6 1, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ILLINOIS, MR. RUSH AND A
GENTLEMAN OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS.
GAS PRICES HAVE
SUBSIDED OVER THE PAST FEW
MONTHS, AMERICANS ARE STILL VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF
JOBS AND HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT.
IN MY DISTRICT AND IN THE
AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY IN
GENERAL, JOBLESSNESS IS FAR
HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE
WITH SOME COMMUNITIES
EXPERIENCING UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
UP TO 16%.
YET, EVEN WITH THESE STAGGERING
FIGURES, WE ARE HEARING TODAY
THE BRINGING OF A BILL THAT
WOULD DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO
ADDRESS THIS CRITICAL ISSUE THAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FACING.
ZERO.
ZERO WILL IT DO.
MR. SPEAKER, THE HOUSE WILL ONLY
BE IN SESSION A LITTLE OVER 20
MORE DAYS BEFORE WE RECESS IN
AUGUST.
AND AFTER THAT, THIS HOUSE WILL
BARELY BE IN SESSION UNTIL AFTER
THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.
DURING THIS LIMITED TIME, WE
SHOULD BE FOCUSING OUR ATTENTION
ON LEGISLATION THAT WILL CREATE
JOBS AND MOVE AMERICA FORWARD
TOWARDS A SMARTER ENERGY FUTURE
THAT IS LESS VULNERABLE TO THE
WHIMS OF THE WORLD'S OIL MARKET.
HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN
H.R. 4480, THAT
WOULD DO ANYTHING TO ADDRESS THE
ISSUES MOST IMPORTANT TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
NEITHER JOBS NOR GAS PRICES ARE
DEALT WITH IN THIS BILL.
MR. SPEAKER, MY AMENDMENT, THE
AMENDMENT I'M OFFERING TODAY,
GETS RIGHT TO THE HEART OF THE
MATTER AND SIMPLY STATES, THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENERGY
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
SHOULD MAKE A DETERMINATION AS
TO WHETHER IMPLEMENTATION OF
THIS ACT IS PREDICTED TO LOWER
GASOLINE PRICES OR CREATE JOBS
UNITED STATES WITHIN
A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS.
THAT'S WHAT MY AMENDMENT SAYS
CLEARLY, SIMPLY, CONCISELY.
HOWEVER, IF THE ADMINISTRATION
-- ADMINISTRATOR OF THE E.I.A.
DETERMINES THAT IMPLEMENTATION
OF THIS ACT IS NOT PROJECTED TO
LOWER PRICES OR CREATE JOBS IN
10 YEARS, THEN THE MOST
EGREGIOUS PROVISION OF THIS BILL
, SECTION 205 AND 206, WOULD
ATTEMPT EXISTING CLEAN AIR ACT
PROTECTIONS WOULD CEASE TO BE IN
EFFECT.
SPEAKER, THIS USES HIGHER
EMPLOYMENT AND FLUCTUATING GAS
PRICES AS A RADIOS TO ONCE AGAIN
-- ROOSE TO ONCE AGAIN ATTACK
THE E.P.A. AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT
WITHOUT DOING A SINGLE THING TO
ACTUALLY REDUCE THE COSTS THAT
AMERICANS ARE PAYING AT THE PUMP
OR TO DELIVER MORE JOBS TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
MR. SPEAKER, COMMENTS SHOULD NOT
REMOVE LONG STANDING CLEAN AIR
ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR E.P.A. TO
SET AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS AT THE LEVEL NECESSARY
TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH.
NOR SHOULD THE MAJORITY ATTEMPT
TO BLOCK AND DELAY SEVERAL
E.P.A. AIR QUALITY AND PUBLIC
HEALTH PROVISIONS UNDER THE
GUISE OF -- ON E.P.A. WILL
ACTUALLY CREATE JOBS OR REDUCE
GAS PRICES.
TIME AND TIME AGAIN OVER THE
PAST YEAR AND A HALF THIS
CONGRESS UNDER THE MAJORITY
PARTY'S LEADERSHIP HAS VOTED TO
ROLL BACK PROVISIONS OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT.
MR. SPEAKER, I URGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE FOR THE RUSH
AMENDMENT AND WITH THAT I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RECOGNITION?
CHAIRMAN.
SEEK RECOGNITION IN OPPOSITION
TO THE AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
CHAIRMAN.
WANT TO TELL A LITTLE BIT OF A
STORY.
I GREW UP, LIVE IN A VERY SMALL
TOWN ON THE EASTERN PLAINS OF
THERE'S ABOUT 3,000 PEOPLE THAT
LIVE IN THIS SMALL TOWN AND WHEN
I WAS GROWING UP THERE WAS A
COUPLE, A MOTHER-DAUGHTER THAT
LIVED ACROSS THE STREET FROM
WRIFFS GROWING UP IN A LITTLE
HOME.
AND THEY HAD AN OLDER CAR AND IN
THIS SMALL TOWN THE GROCERY
STORES, GOSH, CAN'T BE MORE THAN
FOUR BLOCKS AWAY, BUT WHEN THEY
WENT TO THE GROCERY STORE THEY
WALKED.
THE
MOTHER GOT OLDER THEY STILL
WALKED TO THE GROCERY STORE.
IN THE WINTER A LOT OF TIMES
THEY WALKED.
IN THE SUMMER THEY WALKED.
AND I REMEMBER ASKING THEM ONE
TIME, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A CAR,
HOW COME THEY'RE NOT DRIVING?
JUST FOUR BLOCKS AWAY.
AND AS SHE GOT OLDER AND MORE
DIFFICULT TO WALK, HER RESPONSE
WAS, BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD THE
GAS.
THAT'S FOUR BLOCKS OF DRIVING.
CAN'T USE MUCH GASOLINE.
BUT THE FACT IS THE PRICE OF GAS
MATTERED TO THAT FAMILY.
MADE THE DIFFERENCE OF GETTING
GROCERIES, PUTTING FOOD ON THE
TABLE.
WE TALK ABOUT PEOPLE'S ABILITY
TO AFFORD HEALTH CARE.
IF YOU'RE LEFT WITH THE OPTION
OF GETTING TO WORK OR BUYING
YOU GOING TO DO?
WHAT CHOICE ARE YOU GOING TO
MAKE?
BY MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE
ABUNDANT AFFORDABLE ENERGY WE'RE
MAKING SURE THAT FAMILIES CAN
MAKE ENDS MEET EASIER.
THAT THEY CAN MAKE THOSE CHOICES
TO GO SEE THE DOCTOR WHEN THEY
NEED TO.
BECAUSE HIGH PRICES OF ENERGY
CERTAINLY IMPACT THE ABILITY OF
FAMILIES TO LIFT THEMSELVES OUT
OF POVERTY, TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY ARE IMPROVING THEIR OWN
LIVES.
YOUR AMENDMENT WOULD STOP THE
LOOK THAT WE ARE ASKING TO TAKE
AT WHAT REGULATIONS DO WHEN IT
COMES TO THE PRICE OF GASOLINE
WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRICE OF
ENERGY.
NOTHING IN THIS BILL PREVENTS
THE E.P.A. FROM DEVELOPING RULES
ON THEIR CURRENT SCHEDULE.
BUT IT DOES SAY WE NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT THAT THEY
ARE GOING TO HAVE ON THE PRICE
OF GASOLINE.
BECAUSE I BET THOSE NEIGHBORS OF
MINE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT
GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO INCREASE
THE COST OF THEM GETTING TO THE
GROCERY STORE OR NOT.
AND MAYBE THEY COULD DRIVE WHEN
IT'S COLD OUTSIDE.
YIELD?
YIELD.
I AM SO GLAD YOU USED
THE STORY AND TOLD THE STORY OF
THAT NEIGHBOR.
BECAUSE YOUR NEIGHBOR IS NOT
LIKE MY NEIGHBORS.
THEY'RE SUFFERING FROM
UNEMPLOYMENT, THEY'RE SUFFERING
FROM HIGH GAS PRICES.
BUT WHAT CONFUSES ME AND WHAT'S
GOT ME ASTOUNDED IS THE FACT
THAT IN THIS BILL YOUR NEIGHBOR,
HER PROBLEMS, MY NEIGHBOR'S
PROBLEMS, THE PROBLEMS OF ALL
THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, ALL OF
OUR NEIGHBORS' PROBLEM, OUR
PROBLEMS, ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS
THAT IF THE E.I.A., AN AGENCY
THAT IS RESPECTED, IF THEY
DETERMINE AFTER LOOKING AT THIS
THAT THIS BILL
WILL NOT CREATE ONE JOB, THIS
BILL DOESN'T ADDRESS RISING
GASOLINE --
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I
COULD RECLAIM MY TIME SO I HAVE
THE ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE
AMENDMENT.
I JUST DON'T SEE --
THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE'S
DEBATE ON THIS.
BUT AGAIN, THIS ISSUE IS NOT
ABOUT STOPPING OR BLOCKING THE
E.P.A. FROM DOING IT.
BECAUSE THEY'RE FULLY ABLE TO
SCHEDULE.
NOTHING PREVENTS THEM FROM
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
THE ENVIRONMENT AS THE LAW
REQUIRES THEM TO DO.
AND SO YOUR AMENDMENT, THOUGH,
IT -- WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT RULES
AFFECTING GAS PRICES SHOULD BE
DELAYED UNTIL THE RULE IS
REPORTED, THOSE THANK COULD
REDUCE GAS PRICES.
ALLOWING EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE TO CIRCUMVENT THE
ANALYSIS WOULD DEFEAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE ACT.
AND SO GAS PRICES IMPACT AS WE
KNOW ALL PARTS OF OUR ECONOMY.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE MULTIPLE
EXPERTS.
BUT THE E.I.A. WHICH YOUR
AMENDMENT DEALS WITH DOESN'T
HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS,
THEY DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN
JOB IMPACTS OR AGRICULTURE
HEALTH BENEFITS ANALYSIS AND I
THINK WE HAVE JUST GOT TO BE AT
THE POINT WHERE WE LET THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S
HAPPENING TO THE PRICE OF
GASOLINE BECAUSE OF THESE
REGULATIONS.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ILLINOIS.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE BE OF THE CHAIR, THE NOES
HAVE -- IN THE OPINION OF THE
CHAIR, THE NOES HAVE.
IT THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS.
I ASK FOR A ROLL CALL
VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS WILL BE
POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 12 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-540.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE
AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 12
PROHIBITED IN HOUSE REPORT
112-540 OFFERED BY MR. HOLT OF
NEW JERSEY.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 691, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEW JERSEY, MR. HOLT, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL CONTROL
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY.
CHAIRMAN.
THE BILL BEFORE US TONIGHT WOULD
ELEVATE ENERGY PRODUCTION ABOVE
ALL OTHER USES OF PUBLIC LANDS
IN REALLY CONTRADICTION OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF MULTIPLE USE UNDER
THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND
THIS WOULD BE TO THE DERT MEANT
OF GRAZING, HUNTING, FISHING AND
OTHER RECREATION ACTIVITIES.
YET THE PLAN ENVISIONED BY THE
MAJORITY'S BILL DOES NOT EVEN
REQUIRE THAT THE INTERIOR
DEPARTMENT CONSIDER THE TENS OF
MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PUBLIC
LANDS THAT OIL COMPANIES ARE
JUST SITTING ON AND NOT USING.
RIGHT NOW OIL COMPANIES HAVE
ROUGHLY 25 MILLION ACRES OF
PUBLIC LAND ONSHORE ON WHICH
THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING.
EVEN WORSE, OIL COMPANIES ARE
NOT EVEN BEGINNING DRILLING
ACTIVITIES ON THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THESE NONPRODUCING AREAS.
IN FACT, LAST MONTH THE INTERIOR
RELEASED A NEW REPORT
WHICH FOUND THAT OIL COMPANIES
HAVE NEARLY 21 MILLION ACRES
ONSHORE, UNDER LEASE, ON WHICH
THEY HAVE NOT EVEN BEGUN
CONDUCTING EXPLORATION
ACTIVITIES.
WELL OVER HALF OF THE PUBLIC
LANDS OIL COMPANIES HAVE
UNDERLEASED ONSHORE ARE IDLE.
THEY ARE WAREHOUSING THESE
LEASES.
THEY ARE SITTING ON THESE
LEASES.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THAT
THE SECRETARY REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF NONPRODUCING LEASES AS PART
OF THE PLAN FOR ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS THAT
WOULD BE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
BEFORE WE RISK DISRUPTING
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC LANDS, LET'S
BEGIN BY GETTING THE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY TO USE THE LEASES THEY
HAVE.
IT'S SIMPLE.
STILL FULL.
IT'S THE HEIGHT OF CYNICISM THAT
THE INDUSTRY WOULD BE SQUATING
ON THESE LEASES AT THE SAME TIME
IT IS ASKING US TO GIVE THEM
TO THE
AMERICANS.
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RECOGNITION?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
RISE TO CLAIM TIME IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I YIELD MYSELF AS
MUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'VE HEARD THIS
ARGUMENT AND THIS DEBATE AND
THIS ISSUE BEFORE.
THIS IS NOTHING BUT A RECYCLED
VERSION OF THE OLD USE IT OR
LOSE IT ARGUMENT THAT WE HAVE
HEARD SO MANY TIMES.
BUT THIS TIME IT'S DISGUISED AT
REDUCED NON-PRODUCING LEASES.
THIS AMENDMENT IS BASED ON A
COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED
PREMISE WHICH IS THAT OIL
COMPANIES ARE SITTING ON OIL AND
GAS LEASES, THEREFORE RENDERING
THEM KNACKTIFIC, AT LEAST THAT'S
HOW THE CLAIM GOES, IF THEY ARE
NOT DILIGENTLY DRILLING FOR AND
PRODUCING OIL.
IS IMPORTANT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
USE IT AND LOSE IT IS ALREADY
WHY?
BECAUSE EVERY LEASE ON FEDERAL
LAND CURRENTLY INCLUDES A
DEVELOPMENT LANGUAGE REQUIRING
MOVING FORWARD BY THE ENERGY
COMPANIES, IF THE COMPANY DOES
NOT PRODUCE WITHIN THOSE LEASE
TERMS, THEN THEIR LEASE REVERTS
PICTURE THIS.
A COMPANY IS PAYING MONEY FOR A
LEASE.
AND THEN THERE ARE CERTAIN
CONDITIONS IN THIS LEASE FOR
THEM TO PRODUCE.
IN A TIME PERIOD.
IF THEY DON'T PRODUCE IN THAT
TIME PERIOD, REVERSE -- VERY
VERTS BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT IS
THAT NOT USE IT OR LOSE IT?
THAT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND AS IS
PART OF THE LEASE SALE.
SO, JUST BECAUSE A LEASE SALE IS
NOT ACTIVELY PRODUCING, THAT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S NOT
WORK ON THAT LEASE SALE.
LEASES CANNOT HELD FOR UP TO
STUDIES OR
PERMITTING OR EVEN LAWSUITS SO
IN ADDITION, IT ISN'T POSSIBLE
TO DRILL EVERY LEASE AT THE SAME
THINK OF LEASES LIKE HOME
BUILDING.
A HOMEBUILDER DOESN'T START
YOU HAVE ROOFERS, YOU HAVE
HAVE DRY WALLS, YOU HAVE
ELECTRICIANS ALL WORKING AT
DIFFERENT TIMES, DIFFERENT PARTS
OF THE HOUSE.
WAY.
YOU HAVE GEOLOGISTS, DRILLERS,
PRODUCTION, PERMITTING,
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, ALL THOSE
THINGS HAPPEN IN DIFFERENT
STEPS.
SO THE ARGUMENT THAT LOSE IT --
USE IT OR LOSE IT, WHICH IS
ALREADY IN PLACE, IS SOMETHING
THAT WE SHOULD EVEN BE DEBATING
HERE IS NONSENSICAL.
IT IGNORES THE REALITIES OF OIL
AND GAS.
THE YEARS OF EXPLORING, OF
DRILLING AND PERMITTING THAT IT
TAKES TO BRING SOMETHING TO THE
FLOOR.
NOT ONLY HAS THE USE IT AND LOSE
IT ARGUMENT FAILED MANY TIMES
WHEN IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO THE
FLOOR OF THIS HOUSE, BUT IN THE
HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION DEALING
WITH THIS, IT LOST ON A
BIPARTISAN VOTE.
AND FRANKLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
SUSPECT IF THERE'S A VOTE CALLED
ON THIS IT TOO WILL LOSE ON A
BIPARTISAN VOTE.
SO IT TO ENCOURAGE -- SO TO
ENCOURAGE THAT I WOULD URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO REJECT THIS
AMENDMENT AND I RESERVE MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I
ASK THE TIME REMAINING ON THIS
THREE MINUTES.
I'D BE PLEASED TO
YIELD 2 1/2 MINUTES TO THE
CO-AUTHOR OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE
RANKING MEMBER, MR. MARKEY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED.
GENTLEMAN.
I HAVE A SUGGESTION TO
SUCCINCTLY TELL THE WHOLE STORY
ABOUT THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF
ACRES THAT OIL COMPANIES ARE
ALLOWING TO SIT IDLE.
FOX SHOULD CREATE A NEW TV SHOW
FOR THE OIL COMPANIES HOLDING
ALL THESE IDLE WELLS AND IT
COULD BE CALLED "AMERICAN IDLE"
WITH EXXON AND CHEVRON AND B.P.
AND ALL THOSE COMPANIES AS THE
CONTESTANTS AND EVERY WEEK THE
OIL COMPANIES CAN COME AND SING
THEIR SAD TUNE ABOUT NEEDING
MORE TAXPAYER-OWNED LAND TO
DRILL, EVEN AS THEIR LEASE
BLOCKS ARE LEFT LONELY FOR YEARS
AT A TIME AND THEY DON'T DRILL
AT ALL.
EXXONMOBIL AND B.P. COULD SING
SONGS LIKE NOT TAKING CARE OF
BUSINESS OR "SITTING ON A BLOCK
IN THE BAY" WHERE THE REFRAIN
SUNG BY THE OIL COMPANY
EXECUTIVES WOULD OF COURSE BE,
WASTING TIME.
AND SIMON COWELL COULD COME BACK
TO THE SHOW HE CREATED SO WE CAN
ALL WATCH AS HE MOCKS THESE
COMPANIES FOR THEIR SUBPAR
DRILLING PERFORMANCE AND OF
COURSE IN TYPICAL FASHION FOR
THE OIL INDUSTRY, THEY'LL STILL
DEMAND TO BE ADVANCED TO THE
NEXT ROUND OF LEASING, EVEN
THOUGH THEY'RE DOING NOTHING.
AND BY THE WAY, IN THIS BILL THE
REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY HAVE A
PROVISION THAT IF THE PRESIDENT,
BECAUSE IRAN ATTACKED US,
DEPLOYED 10% OF THE STRATEGIC
PETROLEUM RESERVE, THAT WE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD THEN HAVE
TO LEASE 200 MILLION ACRES, AN
AREA THE SIZE OF TEXAS, TO THE
OIL COMPANIES TO DRILL BECAUSE
THE PRESIDENT DEPLOYED THE
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE,
EVEN THOUGH THE OIL COMPANIES
KENTUCKY.
. SO THIS WHOLE "AMERICAN
IDLE" PLAYS INTO THE REPUBLICAN
PLAN BECAUSE THE OIL COMPANIES
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SAYING
THEY ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST NOW THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS THE HIGHEST AREA OF OIL
PRODUCTION WHICH THE REPUBLICANS
HAVE A HARD TIME TO COME TO THE
FLOOR AND ADMIT.
VOTE FOR THE HOLT AMENDMENT.
AND
TO THE IDLE WAYS WHICH IS
HURTING THE COUNTRY.
CAN I INQUIRE HOW
MUCH TIME IS REMAINING?
TWO MINUTES
REMAINING.
I RESERVE.
HOLT HOLT MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME
JUST REPEAT, THE OIL COMPANIES
HAVE 25 MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC
LAND ONSHORE ON WHICH THEY ARE
NOT PRODUCING.
THEY HAVE 21 MILLION ACRES OF
PUBLIC ONSHORE UNDER LEASE WHICH
THEY AREN'T EVEN CONDUCTING
EXPLORATION ACTIVITY.
I REST MY CASE.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I YIELD MYSELF THE
BALANCE OF THE TIME.
RECOGNIZED.
THE NATURE OF THE
LEASE SALES THAT COMPANIES ENTER
INTO ARE USE IT OR LOSE IT
BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T WITHIN THE
TIME PERIOD OF THE LEASE UTILIZE
THAT FOR PRODUCTION, THEY GIVE
IT BACK.
THAT'S USE IT OR LOSE IT.
THAT'S THE LAW RIGHT NOW.
BUT LET ME RESPOND HERE IN THE
SHORT TIME I HAVE ABOUT COMMENTS
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE EARLIER
ABOUT INCREASED AMERICAN
PRODUCTION.
THAT'S TRUE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND I'M GLAD FOR THAT.
BUT THE IMPLICATION OF THAT
STATEMENT BEING MADE BY OUR
FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE
POLICIES OF THIS ADMINISTRATION,
MR. CHAIRMAN, NOTHING COULD BE
FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET LAND OR
OFFSHORE UP TO SPEED AND IN
PRODUCTION, SOMETIMES MANY YEARS
, BUT THE REASON PRODUCTION IS
INCREASING IN SOME AREAS AND HAS
BEEN INCREASING, IS NOW GOING
DOWN IN FEDERAL LANDS, IS
BECAUSE OF ACTIONS OF PRIOR
ADMINISTRATIONS.
THAT IS NEVER SAID IT'S BECAUSE
OF PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS'
BECAUSE THE LAST TWO
YEARS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION,
OIL AND NATURAL GAS, THE
PRODUCTION HAS GONE DOWN.
AND FINALLY, THE MAIN REASON,
WHILE OIL PRODUCTION HAS
INCREASED IN THIS COUNTRY IS
BECAUSE FEAS HAPPENING
PRINCIPALLY IN NORTH DAKOTA AND
WEST TEXAS AND ON PRIVATE LAND
AND STATE LAND.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THIS
ADMINISTRATION HAD ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INCREASE
OF THAT PRODUCTION.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE ARE
PROBABLY SOME EFFORTS TO TRY TO
SLOW THAT DOWN.
BUT AT ANY RATE, I HAD HAD TO
MAKE THAT POINT.
THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN AROUND
FOR SOME TIME AND WILL PROBABLY
YIELD BACK.
THE THE GENTLEMAN
YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW JERSEY.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
I ASK FOR A ROLL CALL
VOTE.
THE GENTLEMAN ASKS
FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE, PURSUANT
TO CLAUSE 6, RULE 18, FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW JERSEY WILL BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 13 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-540.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 13
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-540
VIRGINIA.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 691, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM VIRGINIA, MR. CONNOLLY AND
A MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
I OFFER THIS
AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF MY
COLLEAGUE, MR. LEWIS.
I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO REFER
TO THEIR POCKET CONSTITUTIONS,
PAGE 21.
THEY WILL FIND THE FIRST
WHICH READS, AND I
QUOTE, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO
LAWS RESPECTING AND ESTABLISHING
RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE
EXERCISE THEREOF OR ABRIDGING
THE FREEDOM OF PRESS OR THE
RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO PEACEFULLY
GRIEVANCES.
WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS READ
ALLOWED, A BIPARTISAN EXERCISE,
I DON'T RECALL THERE BEING AN
ASTERSK UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION
STANDS IN THE WAY OF BIG OIL.
YET THE LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL
CREATES A $5,000 PROTEST FEE FOR
ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN TO
CHALLENGE THE GRANTING OF A
LEASE, RIGHT-OF--WAY OR PERMIT.
THAT IS BRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND THE PETITION OF
THE REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE ARE
HAPPY TO RUSH BY THE PUBLIC.
THIS IS A TASK AT BEST ON THE
RIGHT TO PROTEST THE RIGHT OF
GOVERNMENT THAT SOMEONE BELIEVES
MIGHT HARM THE GOVERNMENT.
NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE BILL DOES
NOT APPLY A SIMILAR PROTEST FEE
WHO COULD PROTEST THE DENIAL.
ONE WONDERS WHY?
WOULD THAT BE A TAX ON INDUSTRY
INMENT THE BURRO OF LAND
MANAGEMENT OBJECTED TO THIS
CITING AS AN ECONOMIC BARRIER
FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEEK REDRESS
OF AN AGENCY DECISION.
I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT BUT
IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH AND
DOESN'T CAPTURE THE FULL
RAMIFICATIONS AND WOULD TRAMPLE
ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF
THE PUBLIC, SO MUCH FOR THE
OTHER SIDE'S COMMITMENT FOR
BEING STRICT SCRICT NISTS.
AND I YIELD TO MR. MARKEY FOR
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
RECOGNIZED.
AT THIS POINT, I
WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE.
CHARET THE GENTLEMAN RESERVES
THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE CHAIR:.
THE GENTLEMAN RESERVES.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I SEEK TIME IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT.
I YIELD SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
RECOGNIZED.
I WANT TO CLARIFY
SOMETHING.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THIS
LEGISLATION OR THIS ENTIRE
LEGISLATION TAKES AWAY THE RIGHT
OF PEOPLE TO PROTEST OR PETITION
A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS HELD
SAY CREDIT BY ALL AMERICANS.
DURING THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, FLR OVER A
DOZEN OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZENS
TO PROTEST, COMMENT OR
COMPLETELY HALT ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT ON PUBLIC LAND.
SINCE THE 1990'S, HOWEVER, THE
USE OF PROTESTS ON FEDERAL LANDS
HAS INCREASED BY 700% THROUGH A
CONCERTED EFFORT BY SPECIAL
INTEREST GROUPS TO HALT OIL AND
NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT ON OUR
PUBLIC LAND.
THIS EXPLOSION OF PROTESTS HAS
CRIPPLED THE B.L.M. OFFICES
WHILE THEY ARE WORKING TO HANDLE
THE WAVE OF NEW PROTESTS.
A FORMAL PROTEST IS A LEGITIMATE
STEP IN NATURAL GAS LEASING
HOWEVER, AND THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT MOST PEOPLE RECOGNIZE, THE
ABUSE OF PROTESTS TO HALT THAT
DEVELOPMENT IS SOMETHING THAT
NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
SO THE 5,000 PROTEST FEE IN THIS
LEGISLATION GOES DIRECTLY TO
HELPING THE B.L.M. PROCESS
THROUGH THE ONSLAUGHT THEY ARE
DOLLARS.
IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY ANYONE'S
RIGHT TO PROTEST NOR DOES IT
INTERFEAR WITH THE 15 WAYS TO
PARTICIPATE.
THIS PROVISION, AS A MATTER OF
FACT, WILL ENSURE THAT TAXPAYER
DOLLARS GOING THROUGH THE NORMAL
PROCESS ARE SPENT PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT AND NOT TIED UP IN
PAPERWORK RELATED TO ENDLESS
PROTESTS FILED BY SPECIAL
PROTESTS WITH AN AGENDA THAT ONE
HAS TO CONCLUDE IS STOPPING OIL
AND NATURAL GAS LEASING.
I WANT TO MENTION, TOO, MR.
CHAIRMAN, THIS AMENDMENT WAS
OFFERED IN THE NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON THE
LEGISLATION.
AND IT, TOO, WAS DEFEATED ON A
BIPARTISAN BASIS.
AND I SUSPECT THIS IS BROUGHT TO
THE FLOOR AND WILL BE BEATEN ON
A BIPARTISAN BASIS.
I URGE REJECTION OF THIS
AMENDMENT AND I RESERVE MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
HOW MUCH TIME
REMAINS?
2 1/2 MINUTES
REMAINING.
I YIELD THE
REMAINING TIME TO MR. MARKEY OF
MASSACHUSETTS.
RECOGNIZED.
THIS PROVISION
REMINDS ME OF THE FRENCH AUTHOR
ONCE SAID, HE SAID THE LAW IN
ITS EQUALITY FORBIDS THE RICH AS
WELL AS THE POOR TO SLEEP UNDER
BRIDGES AND TO STEAL BREAD.
YES, UNDER THE BILLS, PETROLEUM
PROTESTS, POLL TAX, THE RICH AS
ARE CHARGED $5,000
AS A FEE TO PROTEST AN OIL
COMPANY DRILLING PLAN THAT COULD
JIND MINE THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
SAFETY OR A VIEW OF A PARTICULAR
BUT THE LAW IS CLEARLY TARGETED
AGAINST THE POOR.
SO IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE
SUPERRICH, LIKE MITT ROMNEY,
HAVING TO PAY $5,000 FEE TO
PROTEST IS NOTHING.
IT'S LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT YOU
OFFER UP WHEN WHEN YOU MAKE A
FRIENDLY BET WITH A FRIEND.
OR THE KOCH BROTHERS OR STOP A
PROJECT OF BLOCKING YOUR VIEW
OUT ON THE OCEAN, THAT'S A SMALL
PRICE TO PAY TO BE ABLE TO
UNDERMINE A PROJECT THAT YOU ARE
NOT HAPPY WITH.
BUT FOR EVERYONE ELSE THIS IS A
BASIC DISCRIMINATION, THIS
$5,000 FEE ISN'T A TOLL BOOTH ON
THE HIGHWAY TO JUSTICE BUT A
BRICK WALL.
YOU KNOW, BY CONTRAST, THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THE
HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND
CHARGES $300 TO APPEAL A CASE.
FOR AN AMERICAN CITIZEN EARNING
MINIMUM WAGE IT WOULD TAKE FOUR
MONTHS IN ORDER TO PAY THIS
PROTEST FEE WHICH THE
REPUBLICANS WANT TO PUT ON THE
BOOKS.
SO ORDINARY PEOPLE, THEY ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO PAY UP NOW IF
THEY WANT TO PROTEST AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE THAT HAS
BEEN DENIED POOR PEOPLE IN OUR
COUNTRY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL
THIS.
THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT,
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND YOU
ARE IMPOSING A POLL TAX, AN
ENVIRONMENTAL POLL TAX, A
POLLUTERS' POLL TAX, A PETROLEUM
POLL TAX ON ORDINARY FAMILIES
AND IT'S JUST WRONG,
UNNECESSARY, BUT OH, SO OBVIOUS,
AGENDA IS.
NOT TO BLOCK THE KOCH BROTHERS
BUT RATHER THE ORDINARY CITIZEN
HAVING THEIR DAY IN COURT.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
I YIELD MYSELF THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
I WANT TO POINT OUT WITH THIS
POSTER BEHIND ME AND I KNOW ONE
CAN'T READ ALL OF THE DETAILS
HERE, BUT THIS IS THE PROCESS BY
WHICH SOMEBODY GOES THROUGH A
LEASE PROCESS TO TRY TO DEVELOP
SOME ACTIVITY ON FEDERAL LANDS.
THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT THEY GO
THROUGH, WHICH, OF COURSE, IS
PRETTY LONG.
NOW, I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING
REMARKS, THAT THERE ARE 15
DIFFERENT WAYS THERE CAN BE A
PROTEST MADE OR YOUR VOICES
HEARD OR WHATEVER IN THAT WHOLE
LEASE PROCESS.
ON THE BACK OF ME ON THIS CHART,
THAT IS DENOTED BY THE RED DOTS,
SEE ALL THE WAY
ALONG STARTING WAY OVER TO MY
FAR RIGHT WHERE RIGHT AT THE
START, THERE ARE PLACES YOU CAN
HAVE INPUT AND THAT CONTINUES
THROUGHOUT ALL THE WAY TO
VIRTUALLY THE END.
WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT OF PROCESS
LIKE THIS -- AND I WILL SAY IT
-- IN MANY CASES, SOME OF THESE
RED DOTS ARE USED FOR FRIVOLOUS
PURPOSES.
WELL, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE A WAY
TO MITIGATE SO THE GOVERNMENT
CAN DO THEIR JOB AND WORK UNDER
THE LAW FOR THOSE WHO ARE TRYING
TO LEASE PUBLIC LAND.
THE FEE GOES TO THE AGENCY THAT
PROCESSES THIS.
THAT MEANS YOU CAN ENSURE THAT
YOU WILL HAVE A PROCESS THAT IS
FAIR AND OPEN.
NOTHING IS TAKEN AWAY.
THERE ARE NO RED DOTS TAKEN AWAY
WHATSOEVER.
WE ARE SIMPLY SAYING THERE HAS
TO BE A MEANS IN WHICH WE
FINANCE THIS PROCESS.
WAY TO DO IT.
SO I WOULD URGE REJECTION OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
AS I MENTIONED, IT HAD BEEN
REJECTED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE
AND REJECTED IN COMMITTEE AND I
HOPE IT IS REJECTED ON THE HOUSE
FLOOR AND I YIELD BACK.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
ON BEHALF OF
MYSELF AND MR. LEWIS, I ASK FOR
A RECORDED VOTE.
A RECORDED VOTE IS
REQUESTED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6, RULE 18,
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA WILL BE
POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 14.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEVADA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
BY MR. AMODEI
OF NEVADA.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 691, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEVADA, MR. AMODEI, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL CONTROL
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEVADA.
CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING ME ON
THIS AMENDMENT, ON THIS
IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
THE DOMESTIC ENERGY AND JOBS
ACT, IN ADDITION TO DEVELOPING
OUR ABUNDANT OIL AND NATURAL GAS
RESERVES, IS ALSO IMPORTANT FOR
PURPOSES OF RECOGNIZING ANOTHER
PART OF THE ENERGY SECTOR.
AND THAT IS OUR MINERAL
RESOURCES.
AN OFTEN FORGOTTEN COMPONENT OF
AMERICA'S ECONOMIC ENGINE AND
ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER NATIONS IS
OUR MINERAL AND COAL PRODUCTION.
MINERALS AND MINE MATERIALS ARE
THE RAW INGREDIENTS NEEDED BY
THIS AMENDMENT IS SIMPLE.
IT WOULD PROHIBIT THE SECRETARY
OF INTERIOR FROM MOVING ANY
ASPECT OF THE SOLID MINERALS
PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND
MERGING IT WITH THE OFFICE OF
SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND
ENFORCEMENT, THE O.S.M.
THIS AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY
BECAUSE CURRENTLY THE
PROCEED WITH PLANS TO COMBINE
THESE TWO ENTITIES, DESPITE THE
FACT THAT IT HAS MET WITH HEAVY
BIPARTISAN RESISTANCE AND ALSO
RESIST FRENS STAKEHOLDERS
INCLUDING, YES, EVEN
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS.
LAST YEAR SECRETARY SALAZAR
ANNOUNCED HIS INTENT TO COMBINE
THE O.S.M. AND A PORTION OF
B.O.M.'S SOLID MINERALS PROGRAM
THROUGH A SECRETARIAL ORDER.
APPEARS TO BE IN VOGE THESE DAYS
-- VOGUE THESE DAYS.
THE PROBLEM MISSING HERE IS
RESORT TO CONGRESS.
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE
LOOKED AT THIS AND HAVE
CONCLUDED IN THE RECORD THAT
TO DO THIS.
SO HERE WE ARE TRYING TO
FORESTALL YET ANOTHER
SECRETARIAL OR EXECUTIVE ORDER
THAT FLIES IN THE FACE OF
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.
IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
INDICATED A DESIRE TO CONTINUE
TO EVALUATE THIS.
THIS WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY
COST TO TAXPAYERS AS ITS
DUPLICATIVE.
IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATIONS, BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY O.S.M. SHOULD NOT
HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEASING
FEDERAL COAL.
UNDER THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL
AND RECLAMATION ACT PASSED BY
HOUSE, STATES ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR PERMITTING AND
THE REGULATION OF COAL MINING
AND ABANDON MINE LAND CLEANUP.
ADDITIONALLY, SURFACE MINING AND
CONTROL RECLAMATION ACT
PROHIBITS THE CO-MINGLING OF
EMPLOYEES OF ANY FEDERAL AGENCY
THAT PROMOTES THE DEVELOPMENT OR
USE OF COAL, RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE SOLID MINERALS DIVISION OF
THE B.L.M.
IT'S A CLEAR CONFLICT OF
FINALLY O.S.M. DISEASE NOT HAVE
OFFICES IN ALL FEDERAL WESTERN
STATES AND HARDROCK MINING DOES
NOT FALL UNDER THEIR
JURISDICTION.
NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE
IN THE BROAD RANGE OF MINERAL
COMMODITIES REGULATED BY THE
B.O.
-- B.L.M.
I ASK FOR THE CHAMBER'S SUPPORT
OF THIS AMENDMENT WOULD THANK
WOULD STOP THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR FROM MERGING THE
OPERATIONS OF THESE GROUPS.
I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
I THINK YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD
AMENDMENT AND I SUPPORT THAT
AMENDMENT AND I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR BRINGING IT TO THE
FLOOR AND I YIELD BACK TO HIM.
CHAIRMAN.
I'D LIKE TO RESERVE THE BALANCE
OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
WHO SEEKS TIME IN OPPOSITION?
I CLAIM TIME IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
CHAIRMAN, VERY MUCH.
WE KNOW THAT THE REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY THINKS CURRENT LAW
GOVERNING HARDROCK MINING IN
THIS COUNTRY IS ABOUT AS CLOSE
TO PERFECT AS THEY CAN GET.
AND WE KNOW THAT INTERNATIONAL
MINING GIANTS LIKE BARRETT GOLD
ANDRYOW TINTO AGREE WITH OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.
THE STATUS QUO IS REALLY IDEAL
FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE.
THAT IS BECAUSE THE STATUS QUO
ALLOWS THESE MULTINATIONAL
COMPANIES TO MINE BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS WORTH OF GOLD, SILVER
AND OTHER MINERALS ON FEDERAL
LANDS WITHOUT PAYING A DIME IN
LOYALTIES -- ROYALTIES.
WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE IF YOU'RE A
MULTINATIONAL OFFSHORE COMPANY
THE LAW ALLOWING THIS
DISGRACEFUL WINDFALL WAS SIGNED
BY ULICES S. GRANT IN 1872 AND
SITS, IMMUNE FROM
CHANGE, IMMUNE FROM IMPROVEMENT
OR UPDATE FOR 140 YEARS.
WHAT WE DID NOT REALIZE WAS JUST
HOW FAR THIS MAJORITY WILL GO TO
MAKE SURE EVEN THE SMALLEST
CORNER OF THE CURRENT SETUP IS
NEVER, EVER CHANGED.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ANNOUNCED
PLANS TO CONSIDER WHETHER
MERGING SOME OF THE FUNCTIONS OF
THE OFFICES AND THE BUREAU MIGHT
LEAD TO EFFICIENCY AND SAVE THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS SOME MONEY.
THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON THAT
IDEA.
BUT WE MUST ENSURE THAT WE CAN
CONTINUE TO EXERCISE PROPER
OVERSIGHT OF MINING ACTIVITIES
ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENSURE THAT
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND STATES
CAN CONTINUE TO RECEIVE A PROPER
RETURN ON THESE MINERALS.
A FEBRUARY REPORT TO SECRETARY
SALAZAR RECOMMENDED THAT THE TWO
AGENCIES STAY LARGELY
INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER.
THE MERGER PLANS HAVE YET TO BE
DEVELOPED OR ANNOUNCED AND WOULD
LIKELY BE LIMITED TO
MONEY-SAVING IDEAS LIKE
COMBINING HUMAN RESOURCE
DIVISIONS, EMPLOYEE TRAINING
PROGRAMS AND FLEET MANAGEMENT
OPERATIONS.
THIS STREAMLINING COULD
REPORTEDLY SAVE AS MUCH AS $5
MILLION ANNUALLY OF TAXPAYERS'
MONEY.
SOMETHING THAT THE G.S.A.
PERHAPS COULD TAKE AS A LESSON
AS TO HOW THEY SHOULD OPERATE.
THAT'S THE AT THE VERY LEAST --
AT THE VERY LEAST THE
ADMINISTRATION DESERVES THE TIME
TO FULLY DEVELOP AND PRESENT A
PLAN THAT CAN BE DEBATED ON ITS
MERITS.
BUT THIS AMENDMENT SAYS NO, THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD SPECIFICALLY
PROHIBIT THE ADMINISTRATION FROM
EVEN CONSIDERING WHETHER ASPECTS
OF THIS IDEA HAVE MERIT AND
WOULD SAVE THE TAXPAYERS MONEY.
WHICH IS THE GOAL OF THE
AMENDMENT.
OF THE PLAN THAT THE DEPARTMENT
OF INTERIOR IS CONSIDERING.
NOT ONLY DO OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES REJECT ANY AND ALL
EFFORTS TO BRING THE FEDERAL
21ST CENTURY
OR -- I WOULD EVEN THINK THE
20TH CENTURY FOR THAT MATTER,
BUT THEY BRISTLE AT THE VERY
IDEA OF THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO
BETTER ORGANIZE THE AGENCIES
OVERSEEING MINING ON FEDERAL
LANDS.
WE SHOULD LET THE ADMINISTRATION
WE SHOULD ALSO GET SERIOUS ABOUT
ENDING ROYALTY-FREE MINING ON
PUBLIC LANDS.
THIS AMENDMENT REALLY MISSES THE
WE NEED TO BE MORE EFFICIENT, WE
HAVE TO SAVE THE TAXPAYERS MONEY
AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT
THESE MULTINATIONALS PAY MORE TO
MINE THE MINERALS OF THE
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEVADA.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE LEFT?
THE GENTLEMAN HAS TWO
MINUTES REMAINING.
I YIELD TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM THE BUCKEYE
STATE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OHIO IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO
MR. CHAIRMAN, TODAY I RISE IN
SUPPORT OF THE AMODEI AMENDMENT
THAT WOULD ENSURE THE SECRETARY
OF INTERIOR DOES NOT COMBINE THE
TWO AGENCIES, WITH COMPETING
MISSIONS INTO THE SAME AGENCY.
LAST YEAR, LATE LAST YEAR THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TRIED
TO MERGE THE OFFICE OF SURFACE
MINING AND TO -- INTO THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT.
AFTER SPENDING MONTHS OF TIME
AND VALUABLE TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO
LOOK AT THE ISSUE AND HOLDING
MULTIPLE PUBLIC MEETINGS WITH
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
REALIZED TWO THINGS.
FIRST, HE REALIZED THAT HE
DIDN'T HAVE THE POWER TO MERGE
THE TWO AGENCIES AND SECONDLY HE
REALIZED THAT IT WAS SIMPLY A
NOW THERE ARE REPORTS THAT THE
SECRETARY IS LOOKING AT TAKING
PORTIONS OF BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT AND MOVING THEM ON TO
THE PURVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF
SURFACE MINING.
THE TWO FACTS THAT I JUST
MENTIONED STILL HOLD TRUE TODAY.
THE SECRETARY DOESN'T HAVE THE
POWER WITHOUT IT FIRST BEING
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.
AND BOTH AGENCIES HAVE COMPETING
MISSIONS.
IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO
COMBINE THE TWO AGENCIES.
DURING THE MARKUP IN NATURAL
RESOURCES EARLIER THIS YEAR, YOU
OFFERED AN AMENDMENT SIMILAR
SIMPSON TO THIS THAT STOPPED THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FROM
COMBINING BOTH AGENCIES AND IT
PASSED ON A VOICE VOTE.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS AMENDMENT
PASSES BY A SIMILAR FASHION.
I AM ALL FOR STREAMLINING,
OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS
AND CUTTING WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT
SPENDING BUT IN THIS CASE
THERE'S NO WASTEFUL SPENDING AND
FOR THAT REASON I URGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT AND WITH THAT I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
THE GENTLEMAN HAS 1 1/2 MINUTES
REMAINING.
HOW MUCH IS
REMAINING ON THE MAJORITY?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEVADA HAS 30 SECONDS REMAINING.
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEVADA.
I RESERVE, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD BACK HIS TIME?
WOULD JUST SAY THIS.
THE GOAL OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO
KEEP FROM PICKING UP THE
THE MORNING AND
READING ABOUT A SECRETARIAL OR
EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT HAS
COMBINED TWO AGENCIES THAT THE
RECORD IS REPLETE WITH EVIDENCE
THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND
THE SECRETARY DOES NOT HAVE THE
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OVERSIGHT
AND THE PROPER THING TO DO IN
THESE INSTANCES, AND WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT DEBATED ON ITS MERITS
AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE BAY
THAT.
THAT REQUIRES THAT CONGRESS ACT.
NOT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR AND NOT THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
AYES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
MR. CHAIRMAN.
NEVADA.
THANK YOU.
ON THAT LAST QUESTION I WOULD
VOTE.
A RECORDED VOTE IS
REQUESTED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE 18,
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEVADA WOULD BE
POSTPONED.
IT'S NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 15 PRINTED IN
THE HOUSE REPORT 112-540.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
SEEK RECOGNITION?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE
AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK AND I
TO DEFEND IT.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 15
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 11-540
OFFERED BY MR. MARKEY OF
MASSACHUSETTS.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 691, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MASSACHUSETTS, MR. MARKEY,
AND A MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD MYSELF AS MUCH TIME AS I
MAY CONSUME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS
AMENDMENT IS QUITE SIMPLE.
IT PROHIBITS THE EXPORT OF OIL
AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCED FROM
LEASES ON THE PUBLIC LANDS OF
THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE GOING
TO BE AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS
BILL.
AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE EXPORT LAST
YEAR WAS AMERICAN FUEL.
NUMBER ONE.
NO OTHER PRODUCT THAT WE EXPORT
MORE OF LAST YEAR THAN THE FUEL
THAT IS PRODUCED HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES.
MORE THAN 100 -- $100 BILLION IN
AMERICAN-MADE FUELS WAS SENT
OVERSEAS TO CHINA, TO MOROCCO,
TO SINGAPORE AND OTHER
COUNTRIES.
THIS INFURIATES AMERICANS
PULLING UP TO THE PURN AND
PAYING MORE THAN -- PUMP AND
PAYING MORE THAN $3.50 A GALLON
TO FILL UP.
AND NOT ONLY DO OIL COMPANIES
WANT TO CONTINUE EXPORTING
AMERICAN FUEL, BUT THEY ARE NOW
TALKING ABOUT LIFTING
RESTRICTIONS ON EXPORTING
AMERICA'S CRUDE OIL AS DOMESTIC
PRODUCTION CONTINUES TO
INCREASE.
JUST THIS WEEK THE PRESIDENT OF
THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
ANNOUNCED THAT EXPORTING
AMERICA'S CRUDE OIL SHOULD BE A
SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.
LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN.
BIG OIL IS NOW STATING PUBLICLY
IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THEY
WANT TO BE ABLE TO EXPORT CRUDE
OIL PRODUCED IN THE UNITED
STATES.
NOW, EARLIER THE MAJORITY WHIP
SAID THAT THIS BILL WILL MAKE US
ENERGY INDEPENDENT.
WELL, WITHOUT THE MARKEY
AMENDMENT THERE IS NO WAY THAT
AN OIL COMPANY JUST WON'T EXPORT
THE FUEL AND THE NATURAL GAS AND
NOW THE HEAD OF THE AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE SAYS BIG OIL
ALSO WANTS TO START EXPORTING
AMERICA'S CRUDE OIL AS WELL.
AS AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN ARE ON
THE GROUND IN THE MIDDLE EAST
FIGHTING AND DYING TO PROTECT
OIL SUPPLY LINES COMING FROM THE
MIDDLE EAST INTO THE UNITED
STATES, BIG OIL WANTS TO EXPORT
OIL PRODUCED HERE IN AMERICA TO
TO OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND THE
WORLD.
THAT IS TRULY FRIGHTENING.
AND IT'S WRONG, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN.
WRONG IN TERMS OF OUR
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE YOUNG MEN
AND WOMEN WHO FIGHT FOR US, WHO
DEFEND US AROUND THE WORLD.
BIG OIL IS BEHOLDEN TO
SHAREHOLDER INTERESTS ONLY.
THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT AMERICAN
NATIONAL SECURITY AND THEY
CERTAINLY DON'T LIKE AMERICANS
TO ENJOY LOW ENERGY PRICES WHICH
IS WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW
WITH NATURAL GAS.
THEY WANT A BIGGER CUT.
THEY WANT TO CREATE A GLOBAL,
NATIONAL GAS MARKET AND A GLOBAL
PRICE JUST LIKE THEY HAVE FOR
THAT'S THE PLAN.
AND COMPANIES ARE LINING UP AT
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RIGHT
NOW TO GET PERMITS TO EXPORT
AMERICAN NATURAL GAS.
15 APPLICATIONS SEEKING TO
EXPORT 28% OF OUR CURRENT
NATURAL GAS, AMERICAN NATURAL
GAS.
NATURAL GAS HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES, ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
AND WHY DO THEY WANT TO DO
THAT?
WANT TO DO THAT EVEN
THOUGH THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT
SAYS IT COULD LEAD TO A 54%
INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF
NATURAL GAS FOR AMERICANS.
THEY WANT TO DO IT FOR A VERY
SIMPLE REASON.
THE PRICE OF NATURAL GAS IN
JAPAN RIGHT NOW IS SEVEN TIMES
HIGHER THAN THE PRICE OF
NATURAL GAS HERE IN AMERICA.
AMERICAN COMPANIES WANT TO SELL
THE NATURAL GAS TO THE JAPANESE
RATHER THAN THE AMERICANS
BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE SEVEN
TIMES AS MUCH MONEY.
IN EUROPE IT'S FOUR TIMES AS
THEY WANT TO SELL THE NATURAL
GAS OF AMERICA OVERSEAS RATHER
THAN KEEP THE PRICES LOW FOR
PEOPLE TO KEEP THEIR HOMES
HEATED, TO KEEP OUR INDUSTRIES
THE PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY, THE
FERTILIZER INDUSTRY, THE
PLASTICS INDUSTRY, ALL THOSE
INDUSTRIES DEPENDENT ON THESE
IT'S GOOD FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY,
VERY BAD FOR THE AMERICAN
DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING SECTOR.
BECAUSE LOW PRICE NATURAL GAS
IS WHAT'S FUELING THE INCREASE
IN MANUFACTURING ALL ACROSS
THIS COUNTRY.
AND SO I JUST TOTALLY REJECT
THE PREMISE OF THE MAJORITY IN
ALLOWING FOR THE SALE OF OUR
OIL AND GAS OUT OF OUR LAND
ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND AT THIS
POINT, I AM GOING TO RESERVE
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
SEEBLING RECOGNITION?
I RISE TO CLAIM
TIME IN OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I YIELD MYSELF AS
MUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
I'M AFRAID FROM MY READING OF
THE AMENDMENT THAT THIS
DISPLAYS A LACK OF
UNDERSTANDING REGARDING
EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS AND THE
RL RE-ALITIES OF OIL AND
NATURAL GAS MARKETS.
OIL PRODUCED ON FEDERAL LANDS
IS ALREADY SUBJECT TO EXPORT
ADMINISTRATION ACT.
IN ORDER TO EXPORT CRUDE OIL,
THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR
THE PRESIDENT.
I JUST THINK THAT WHAT THIS IS,
MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, IS AN
EFFORT TO MAKE PRODUCTION ON
FEDERAL LANDS AND THUS LESS
VALUABLE.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT WOULD
BE LESS.
WHAT ABOUT PRODUCTS MADE FROM
OIL.
AND WE KNOW THERE'S A VAST
ARRAY OF PRODUCTS MADE FROM
OIL.
I THINK OF A PRODUCT THAT IS
MADE IN MY STATE, ONE OF THE
BIGGEST MANUFACTURERS IN MY
HOME STATE OF WASHINGTON IS
BOEING.
THERE WAS A BIG FANFARE.
IN FACT, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO,
THEY HAD A -- THEIR LATEST
NATIONAL.
IT'S CALLED THE 787 DREAMLINER,
WHICH OF COURSE IS MADE OF
COMPOSITES.
COMPOSITES MADE OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, INCH E. OIL AND
NATURAL GAS AND OTHERS.
NOW THE WAY THIS AMENDMENT IS
WRITTEN, BECAUSE THERE'S NO
RESTRICTIONS, THAT MEANS THAT
BOEING PROBABLY COULD NOT
EXPORT 787'S.
AND FRANKLY, THEIR BIGGEST
MARKET.
LET'S NOT CONFINE IT TO BOEING.
WHAT ABOUT OTHER BYPRODUCTS
THAT WE MANUFACTURE.
ONE COMES TO MIND BECAUSE MY
WIFE ASKED IF WE WERE USING IT
DOING SOME HOME REPAIRS THIS
WEEKEND, WD-40.
PETROLEUM PRODUCT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT COMPANY
OVERSEAS.
THE WAY THIS AMENDMENT IS
WRITTEN, ONE COULD ASSUME THAT
THAT TOO WOULD BE RESTRICTED.
WHAT WOULD THAT DO, THEN TO THE
JOB MARKET AND OUR ECONOMY IF
WE RESTRICT WHAT IS THE RESULT
AND NATURAL GAS BEING
EXPORTED OVERSEAS.
SO I JUST WANT TO REPEAT, THERE
ARE RESTRICTIONS FOR CRUDE OIL
ON FEDERAL LANDS.
THAT'S EXISTING LAW.
THIS AMENDMENT ADDS NOTHING TO
IT.
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS, I
GUESS, THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE, LET'S NOT GET
OURSES INTO A SITUATION BEFORE
WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT'S IN IT.
I DON'T THINK THIS AMENDMENT IS
A GOOD AMENDMENT.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO REJECT
IT AND I RESERVE MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS HAS 30 SECONDS
REMAINING.
WOULD IT BE
POSSIBLE FOR THE CHAIR TO
RECAPITULATE THE TIME
MINORITY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON HAS TWO MINUTES
REMAINING.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS?
I AM PREPARED TO
CLOSE IF MY FRIEND IS PREPARED
CLOSE.
I WAS PREPARED TO
HEAR THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA MAKE SOME COMMENTS.
WE WILL GET THAT
OPPORTUNITY.
I WILL THEN YIELD
MYSELF THE FINAL TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR 30 SECONDS.
IN SUMMARY, PRICE
WATERHOUSE ESTIMATES THAT U.S.
MANUFACTURING COMPANIES COULD
EMPLOY ONE MILLION MORE WORKERS
IF THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE LOW
PRICED NATURAL GAS.
EXPORTING NATURAL GAS,
EXPORTING CRUDE OIL, IS ONLY
GOING TO HURT OUR DOMESTIC
ECONOMY.
EXCEPT FOR ONE INDUSTRY, THE
OIL INDUSTRY.
AMERICAN OIL PRODUCTION RIGHT
NOW IS AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL
SINCE BILL CLINTON.
NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION, AT ITS
ALL-TIME HIGH EVER.
AND WHAT THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM
INDUSTRY IS NOW SAYING IS, WE
WANT TO START EXPORTING THIS
CRUDE OIL.
START EXPORTING THIS NATURAL
GAS AROUND THE PLANET.
KEEP AMERICAN OIL AND NATURAL
GAS HERE IN AMERICA, DO NOT
EXPORT IT TO OTHER COUNTRIES.
IT SHOULD BE FOR AMERICANS, FOR
AMERICAN COMPANIES.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
VOTE AYE ON THE
MARKEY AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
FIRST, I WOULD
URGE PEOPLE TO REJECT THE
MARKEY AMENDMENT.
I MADE AN OBSERVATION, MAYBE
SOMEBODY IS SAYING, YOU'RE
REALLY STRETCHING IT IF YOU'RE
GOING TO BYPRODUCTS.
I REFERENCED THE WAY THE
AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN.
THE AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN WHERE
IT SAYS, VERY SPECIFICALLY, ALL
OIL AND GAS.
LET'S SEE, A PRODUCT IS MADE
FROM OIL AND GAS, WOULDN'T THAT
QUALIFY?
SO I THINK THIS IS A VERY, VERY
SERIOUS CONCERN AND ONCE AGAIN,
IT'S THE UNINTENDED POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS
LEGISLATION -- OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
SO I URGE REJECTION OF THE
MARQUEE -- MARKEY AMENDMENT AND
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
YIELDS.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
I REQUEST A
RECORDED VOTE.
REQUESTED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
WILL BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 16 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-540.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 16,
OFFERED BY MR. LANDRY OF
LOUISIANA.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THIS AMENDMENT IS
SIMPLE, IT SEEKS TO IMPROVE THE
ENVIRONMENT BY ASSURING THAT
THOSE STATES THAT ALLOW
OFFSHORE DRILLING ARE ALLOWED
TO KEEP MORE REVENUE FROM OFF
THEIR SHORES.
WE PASSED THE HISTORIC GULF OF
MEXICO ACT THAT ALLOWS STATES
TO SHARE IN THE ROYALTIES FROM
OFFSHORE DRILLING.
HOWEVER THE ACT ONLY PROVIDED
37.5% OF THE REVENUE TO THE
STATES AND THEN CAPPED THE
STATES AT NO MORE THAN A
YEAR.
CONDITION VERSELY, THE MINERAL
LEASING ACT REQUIRES THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GIVE 50%
OF THE ENERGY REVENUE GENERATE
OPPED FEDERAL LANDS TO STATES
IN WHICH IT IS GENERATED.
IN LOUISIANA WE WHOLLY SUPPORT
OFFSHORE DRILLING.
BUT WE ARE PROUD TO SUPPLY 80%
OF OUR NATION'S OFFSHORE
ENERGY.
WHY SHOULD WE NOT SHARE IN
THIS?
MY AMENDMENT MOVES THE SHARE OF
DRILLING INTO LINE WITH THE ON
SHORE DRILLING.
MY AMENDMENT DOES NOT IMPACT ON
SHORE PRODUCING STATES.
IF YOUR STATE IS RECEIVING
REVENUE FROM ON SHORE ENERGY
PRODUCTION, NOW, MY AMENDMENT
DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THAT.
ALL THE AMENDMENT DOES IS MOVE
LOUISIANA, TEXAS, MISSISSIPPI,
AND ALABAMA A LITTLE CLOSER TO
WHAT THOSE ON SHORE STATES
CURRENTLY ENJOY.
THIS AMENDMENT IS NEARLY
IDENTICAL TO THE AMENDMENT THAT
BOTH MYSELF AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM LEAST, MR. RICHMOND,
OFFERED DURING CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 3408, THE PIONEERS ACT, OF
WHICH THAT AMENDMENT PASSED BY
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT OF 266-159.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON IS RECOGNIZED.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
I THINK THE GENTLEMAN HAS A
GOOD AMENDMENT.
IT HAS PASSED ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS ON THE FLOOR.
I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT AND
YIELD BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED.
I RISE TO CLAIM
TIME IN OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINS.
MR. SPEAKER, EVERY
DAY WILL BE MARDI GRAS DOWN IN
LOUISIANA IF THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE, THAT IS, ALL THE REST OF US
IN THE COUNTRY, WE ARE ALREADY
GOING TO BE SENDING $150
BILLION TO THESE POOR STATES
OVER THE NEXT 60 YEARS.
I DON'T BLAME THE GENTLEMAN FOR
COMING BACK TO FOR COMING BACK
TO TRY TO GET ANOTHER BITE OF
THE APPLE.
I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM LOUISIANA THAT HIS STATE
ALREADY WON THE BABY IN THE
KING CAKE WHEN THE GOMESA
GIVEAWAY WAS ENACTED IN 2006.
YOU'RE ALREADY ENTITLED TO $150
BILLION OF REVENUE COMING OUT
AT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND HEADING YOUR WAY.
I THINK IT'S TIME FOR YOUR
REGION TO GIVE A LITTLE BACK TO
THE OTHER 46 STATES IN THE
UNION THAT DIDN'T BENEFIT FROM
THAT 2006 GIVEAWAY TO YOU.
WHAT'S DONE, IS DONE.
AND YOU GET THE $150 BILLION.
I THINK IT'S TIME FOR TAOS
REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.
THE MONEY KA.
-- THAT COMES IN FROM THE
REVENUES, FROM THE DRILLING,
SHOULD HELP OUT THE WHOLE
COUNTRY.
I WOULD MAKE THAT CASE, IF YOU
COME FROM ONE OF THOSE POOR
STATES, VOTE FOR THE GENTLEMAN
FROM LOUISIANA'S AMENDMENT.
IT'S A GOOD AMENDMENT FOR YOU
IF YOU COME FROM ONE OF THOSE
POOR STATES.
BUT IF YOU COME FROM ONE OF THE
OTHER 46 STATES, YOU'VE GOT
ROCKS IN YOUR HEAD IF YOU'RE
VOTING FOR THAT AMENDMENT.
JUST ANOTHER $6 BILLION FROM
YOUR POCK INTO THE POCKETS OF
THERE.
IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL AFTER
THE $150 BILLION WE GAVE THEM
SIX YEARS AGO.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA.
I WOULD REMIND THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS,
THIS IS, IF YOU ARE AN
ENVIRONMENTALIST AND YOU WANT