[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 60 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3067-H3078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1229, PUTTING THE GULF OF MEXICO
BACK TO WORK ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1230,
RESTARTING AMERICAN OFFSHORE LEASING NOW ACT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 245
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1229) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to facilitate the safe and timely production of
American energy resources from the Gulf of Mexico. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The amendment recommended by the
Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall
be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part A of the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1230) to require the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to
the bill shall be in order except those printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 3. In the engrossment of H.R. 1229, the Clerk shall--
(1) add the text of H.R. 1230, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 1229;
(2) conform the title of H.R. 1229 to reflect the addition
of H.R. 1230, as passed by the House, to the engrossment;
(3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(4) conform cross-references and provisions for short
titles within the engrossment.
{time} 0920
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Utah is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 245 provides for
the consideration of two very important bills, H.R. 1229, the Putting
the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, and H.R. 1230, the Restarting
American Offshore Leasing Now Act, both under a structured rule. With
many amendments, all of which are Democrat amendments having been made
in order, this is a very fair rule.
I commend the sponsor of the two bills, the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, for his leadership in
bringing both of these bills to the House.
H.R. 1229 is a bill that goes to the heart of the bureaucratic
delays, which are preventing the approval of drilling permits within
the Gulf of Mexico; and it modifies the standards and procedures
governing Federal leases and permits in order to streamline the
process, making the development of these domestic resources a reality
instead of the status quo of paying lip service to drilling and then
stifling drilling through bureaucratic inaction.
H.R. 1230 is a bill that would direct the sale of oil and gas leases
within the Outer Continental Shelf, reversing a failed administration
policy of canceling and delaying those processes.
Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years, many Republicans have come to
this floor and have sung the same refrain of ``show us the jobs.'' It
was, indeed, a nice song and a catchy tune--so catchy that the minority
of today seems to have been picking up on that kind of song as well. I
don't expect to hear that today, or at least we ought not to hear it
today, because the two bills before us under this rule are real bills
that create real jobs for people.
Unlike the bills we have seen over the past couple of years which
have led us to a situation where today there are twice as many workers
in the government as there are in all of manufacturing in this Nation,
which is an exact reverse of the situation this Nation was in in 1960,
these are not going to be government jobs which attack the taxpayers
and suck the money out of their wallets to fund them. These are going
to be real jobs that grow the private sector, that expand the economy,
that provide wealth, and that will provide, actually, millions of new
government revenues coming into this country.
The situation we find ourselves in today with regard to energy is one
that is detrimental to everybody. Everyone who goes to the pump to fill
their cars recognizes the cost is increasing and will continue to
increase. They recognize that the situation we are in puts all our jobs
in jeopardy, and it is because of the inaction of this particular
administration. The President has continually said that he wants to do
action, to move forward, to develop American energy, but the actions of
his administration have, quite frankly, failed to meet the rhetoric of
the administration.
[[Page H3068]]
The problem has always been a fundamental flaw in our Nation's energy
plan. Last May, the Deepwater Horizon accident occurred, which was a
tragedy; and we must thank all of those who helped to solve that
particular problem; but, unfortunately, the administration's response
to that tragedy has turned it into a catastrophe and one which destroys
jobs.
Immediately, a moratorium on all sorts of development was put into
place. Prior to that moratorium being put into place, there were 52
approved and pending permits, and that moratorium was lifted in
October; but of those 52, only 10 permits have been issued since that
time. Two of them are new in deepwater and are eight of the 52 that
were originally done. That means there are over 40 still approved and
still stalled in what has become a de facto moratorium, caused by a
foot-dragging of this administration that, what one columnist said, is
moving at a glacial pace. More rigs have left our shore--12--to go to
other places in the world where they are welcomed and where they are
developing energy sources, where they don't have to face the red tape
and the foot-dragging than have actually been approved by this
administration.
A perfect example is Seahawk Drilling, a company that had over 500
jobs and 20 rigs that went into chapter 11 bankruptcy. The president of
that company stated only one reason for that bankruptcy and that loss
of jobs, which was the de facto moratorium of inaction done by this
administration in this area in 2008 in a response to an arbitrary
drilling ban that was lifted by both the President and Congress. It
created a 5-year plan. Virginia was supposed to start the exploration
process in 2011, but the Secretary of the Interior delayed that until
2012 and then later delayed all exploration on the Atlantic coast until
after 2017.
In the Gulf of Mexico, two other sales were canceled and moved out
from this year, which was when they were supposed to begin, once again
into next year. It became so bad that a judge in New Orleans gave the
administration 30 days to start moving on these projects, saying that
what was happening by this administration was increasingly inexcusable
and that not acting at all is not a lawful action.
The result of this has simply been catastrophic for jobs in America.
The Obama administration has admitted in its official memorandum that,
for those days of its official moratorium, 12,000 jobs were lost; but
what is more significant is the de facto moratorium there. An LSU study
simply said, if this were sustained for 18 months in the gulf area,
there would be 24,532 jobs lost and in the Nation 36,137 jobs lost
simply because of what we are not doing in the Gulf of Mexico.
It is very simple to understand how this works. Each platform that is
out there drilling has 90 to 150 employees. If you add the production
team as well as the exploration team, you can multiply that by a factor
of four. So you have almost per every drilling up to 1,400 jobs that
are tied to that particular project with $1,800 a week as the average
wage.
That means for every one of those drills that is not put back into
production, it is $5 million to $10 million per month per platform that
is lost to this economy; and the ripple effect within the economy for
our energy uses as well as jobs is, once again, staggering as
this administration is, indeed, going at a glacial pace. In Virginia
alone, 2,000 jobs will be estimated to be lost if the de facto
moratorium that pushes everything to 2017 is allowed to take place.
Now, this action, or inaction, by the administration costs every
American. It costs us at the gas pump as we see the cost of running our
cars increasing almost daily, and this hurts the poor worse than anyone
else. It is estimated that every American will pay $700 more this year
for gasoline than least year. Obviously, those at the lower end of the
economic scale are the ones who are hurt the most. For every cent that
is increased in gas at the pump, that is $1 billion that is taken out
of household incomes in this country; and it makes sure that Americans
are then put at the mercy of foreign oil development and foreign energy
sources, which may not necessarily like us, and sometimes they're just
flat out bad guys.
It also has other areas in which it has affected everyone--once
again, those at the lower end of the income scale the most. For every
dime that diesel goes up, that is $400 million that is added to the
agricultural industry, which is what we eat, which is tacked onto our
food prices. You have to have oil for fertilizer. As that goes up, the
cost of fertilizer goes up; the cost of running machinery goes up; the
cost of food goes up; the cost of pharmaceuticals, plastics. If you go
into the emergency room, everything that is not metal has some element
of oil that developed it, and all of those are increasing.
Now, there are only two ways that we can handle this situation.
First, you can go with the old concept of supply and demand and simply
increase production, which is what these two bills are trying to do; or
you can go to the approach that this administration seems to be asking
us to do, which is to cut our standard of living, accept gasoline
prices at the European level, and beg Saudi Arabia to be nice to us--to
put our futures in the hands of OPEC and then amazingly say we can also
solve these problems simply by taxing oil companies at a higher rate.
Since 2010, the domestic production of energy in this country has
decreased 16 percent. In this year, next year and the year after that,
we estimate, unless we make changes, that a quarter of a million
barrels of oil will be decreased in our production rate in each of
those years. The only area in which any energy production has been
increasing is on private property. Unfortunately for this country,
almost all of the energy that we have, most of the energy that we can
develop, is on public lands, which is controlled by the government,
which is doing nothing now to help develop that.
This is a time where pragmatism is much better than a failed ideology
of restrictions. Now, what these two bills do is to simply reverse the
job-killing delays that have been taking place. In H.R. 1229, it
reforms the law to require leaseholders to receive permits to drill
before they start drilling; and it will do it for the first time by
law, not simply by a regulation. It demands that the Secretary of the
Interior conduct and approve safety revenues, once again, for the first
time in history.
More importantly, it ends the de facto moratorium by demanding prompt
guidelines and action. It says that the Secretary of the Interior will
have 30 days in which to deal with these issues and then can have up to
two 15-day extensions--a total of 60 days to do the review.
Now, while that may seem to some as a quick path, it's not when you
look at the history of what has been done. Before the moratorium went
into effect, it was taking 5 to 15 days to do the drilling leases and
permits.
{time} 0930
One company was done in nine days just recently. What the problem is
is that most of these are simply not being done simply because of
inaction. It also says for those that were approved prior to the May 27
moratorium, you've got 30 days to get them going again. This is plenty
of time to do the work.
It also does something else for the first time. It provides an
expedited hearing process so that legal rights are not lost--they are
protected--but you will not go back into a concept of a never-ending
lawsuit moratorium.
In 1230, the bill recognizes that this year will be the first time
since 1958 that we have a possibility of no offshore lease sales. And
it wants to reverse that action to proceed promptly with the 5-year
plan so that things, for example, in Virginia will be in effect within
1 year, and those that were scheduled in the gulf can be done within 1
year of the passage of this bill.
This bill simply will create billions in Federal Reserve revenues
coming in, and it will create billions in our economy, and it will
create jobs.
I hate to say this, but under President Obama, the cost of energy has
skyrocketed. The administration has actively blocked and delayed energy
production. It's cost jobs. It's raised energy prices. It's made the
United States more reliant on unstable foreign countries for our
energy. Through the American Energy Initiative, this House is actively
working to increase American energy production to lower gas prices, to
create American jobs, to generate revenue to help reduce the deficit,
and to decrease our dependence on foreign energy.
[[Page H3069]]
The United States Government has had a long history of sporadic
attempts to respond to oil and gas prices. Usually, we have missed the
mark. But, unfortunately, oil is still the lifeblood of the world and
will be for most of our lives. That is why 70 countries and 31 States
in the United States are involved in the process. Prices are influenced
by the signals that are given by worldwide circumstances and also by
government policy.
These two bills are the first of several signals that this House
wants to send to the world and to the economy that says our goal should
be to come as close to economic and energy self-sufficiency and
independence as possible. We are not an energy-poor Nation; and we need
to be developing the resources in every way possible, including in the
gulf, including in the Outer Continental Shelf, and including on our
land sources. That is our future if we want to do anything to create
jobs and help the American people. That is specifically what these two
bills are aimed to do.
With such, Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule and a fair rule; and the
underlying piece of legislation is entirely worthy of our support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers the BP respill
bills. That might not be what they are officially called, but it's a
much more accurate title for this legislation. It's clear that the
authors of these BP respill bills did not learn any lessons from the
Deepwater Horizon disasters. These bills would make offshore drilling
more dangerous for offshore workers, 11 of whom died on the Deepwater
Horizon. These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for
the environment, which was coated with 4.1 million barrels of oil along
the Gulf Coast and is killing fish and wildlife in the area to this day
as a result of BP's recklessness.
These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for our
national security because they reinforce the complete myth that America
can somehow drill our way out of dependence on oil. And these bills are
more dangerous for the economy, risking destroying fishing and tourism
jobs in affected areas.
But one thing these bills do not do is make filling up at the pump
any more affordable at all for American families. According to the
American Petroleum Institute itself, the main advocacy group for oil
interests, even if we opened all Federal land to oil drilling,
including offshore areas, including Alaska's wildlife refuge and all
Federal land that is in the national parks, they can't even say that it
would reduce gas prices or oil prices. In fact, the cheap oil analyst
at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for
AAA, the motorist organization, said: ``This drill, drill, drill thing
is tired. It's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't
exist.''
So if this legislation isn't about reducing the price at the pump,
what is it about? It's about exploiting our legitimate concerns about
high gas prices to deliver another huge giveaway to Big Oil, an
industry that made over $35 billion in profits in the last quarter
alone. Meanwhile, the majority refuses to end Big Oil's nearly $50
billion of special interest tax breaks.
Yesterday in the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern brought forth a bill
that would have ended the giveaway of tax revenue to Big Oil.
Unfortunately, the Republican majority chose not to allow that
amendment in this rule.
Had that been allowed under the open rule that Mr. McGovern proposed,
I would have brought forth an amendment on the floor to use those $50
billion of revenue to reduce the corporate tax rate to help create jobs
in America. Instead, the Republican majority is continuing to seek to
keep American taxes high, to keep corporate taxes high, and this is
another example of a job-destroying bill that keeps taxes high while
picking winners and losers in the economy and using government
subsidies to aid an industry that is one of our most profitable
industries.
We should allow American businesses of all sizes to compete. The
America corporate tax rate of 35 percent is higher than most of the
rest of the world, which is why many companies continue to engage in
operations overseas. If we can reduce it from 35 percent to 30 or 28 or
26 percent--and we could have done had Mr. McGovern's amendment passed
in the Rules Committee yesterday, and that is one of the reasons I
oppose this rule today--that would create an enormous engine of
economic growth.
While frequently the Republicans give lip service to lower taxes,
they continue to use special interest tax breaks to keep taxes high on
small- and middle-sized American companies that don't have the same
lobbyists here in Washington to lobby us for special interest tax
breaks.
We know that Big Oil would rather do without the fuss of showing that
they can drill safely; but that's what this bill, in fact, delivers.
This legislation states that the Interior Secretary must act on any
drilling permit within 60 days, or it's automatically approved. What
should be a very serious process to ensure safe drilling, to ensure
that there aren't further disasters, and to ensure that jobs are not
destroyed turns into little more than a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp
for the further degradation of our economy and of our environment.
The second bill this rule makes in order claims to restart the
process, or issuing, of oil and gas leases. Now, what the majority is
doing in this is essentially validating what the administration has
already done. The administration has already restarted offshore
drilling in February. In fact, the administration has announced plans
to offer all three Gulf of Mexico lease sales that are mandated in this
bill this year or early next year. Again, this particular policy is one
that I don't agree with fully with the administration, but I am glad to
see that the Republican majority is validating President Obama's
leadership on this energy issue.
Together, these bills will not relieve pain at the pump, but they
will increase the chances of another Deepwater Horizon disaster,
costing lives, livelihoods, and hurting some of our precious natural
resources. Why? Because that's what Big Oil wants. If Big Oil wants to
keep taxes high for American companies, if Big Oil wants to destroy
jobs, then the Republican majority is giving them that. In fact, even
the problem the majority purports to be addressing with these bills,
the speed of permitting in the gulf and restarting offshore oil
drilling, doesn't even exist.
Here are the facts: Following the temporary pause on deepwater
drilling last year, what Secretary Salazar listed in October, the oil
industry wasn't able to demonstrate that it possessed the capacity to
contain a deepwater blowout until February 2011. Once oil companies
demonstrated that they had the capability to contain a blowout, the
first permit was issued 11 days later, February 28, 2011. There have
now been a total of 10 deepwater drilling permits issued since that
time. In addition, there have been 39 shallow water permits approved
since last October, matching the number from before the spill. Let me
repeat that: matching the number of permits from before the spill. If
anything, the majority, by acting through this bill, is effectively
congratulating the administration on its leadership for speedily
approving permits.
In addition, in the gulf region, the number of jobs that depend on
tourism and fishing is five times the number of jobs related to the oil
and gas industry. Gulf jobs related to oil and gas and other resource
extraction total about 154,000. The total number of jobs for tourism
and fishing are 777,000 jobs. So with this bill, the majority is
putting at risk those 777,000 jobs for the benefit of 154,000. We
should not put them at risk just to make the permitting process easier
for Big Oil to exploit.
{time} 0940
Passage of these bills is not good for the gulf coast's economy or
its ecology, although it is best for Big Oil.
Again, while I appreciate the Republican majority's efforts to
validate the leadership of President Obama on energy issues, this rule
could be a lot better. Rather than keeping corporate taxes high, we
could help make America more competitive by reducing corporate taxes
and helping make American businesses more competitive, including the
critical tourism and fishing industries in the gulf coast.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of very
quick points, if I could.
[[Page H3070]]
Once again, the purpose of these two bills is to start our process
going towards Americans having adequate energy supplies to live their
lives. And it's one of the things that you either increase production
or you try to cut back. Our goal is to increase the production.
The idea that what we are doing is in some way making safety less
significant is silly. There are new safety rules that have been in
place. They are ready. They are prepared. They are ready to go forward.
The myth of subsidies to Big Oil is one of the things also that we
need to talk about because even my fellow Democrats have admitted that
the President's plan to push a tax hike on energy taxes does result in
the loss of American jobs and higher taxes on independent oil and gas
companies.
I love the fact that we always spin things by talking about Big Oil.
But the nonpartisan Politifact.com noted that a majority of the U.S.
oil production comes not from the biggest multinational oil companies
but from independent firms. American production activities are
dominated by these independent producers who drill 95 percent of the
Nation's natural gas and oil wells, accounting for as much as 67
percent of the total U.S. natural gas and oil production.
Often we try to find some kind of straw man which to attack, and the
idea of Big Oil is one of those easiest ones to do. But in reality, if
those tax hikes were to go into place on production, you would not be
hitting the Big Oil companies; you're going to be hitting small
companies which have 100 or fewer employees, not only offshore, but on
the shore as well. That is the attack.
I'm sorry. I am not validating President Obama's leadership on this
issue. To me, leadership means you do something. Inaction is not
leadership.
It's not the government picking winners and losers. What this
administration is doing by the de facto moratorium, the inability to
move forward on this issue is simply picking losers, losers in the
field, losers for America, losers in jobs, and that is wrong.
This tries to get us going ahead in an area and in a way in which we
can do it, we should do it, we have the capability of doing it. All we
simply need to do is do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule
because my constituents in the State of Rhode Island can no longer wait
for action to reduce the price of gas at the pump, and this bill does
nothing at all to address this issue today.
Just last week the price of gasoline shot up to more than $4 and, as
we all know, this is an increasingly familiar story for States all
across this Nation, hurting families and small businesses. And it
really underscores what I heard from my own constituents, hundreds of
men, women, and families all throughout Rhode Island in recent weeks.
We have got to find immediate solutions to lower the price of gas.
But the legislation before us this morning calling for domestic
drilling will not provide the short-term relief that's needed right
now. At the same time, it will make drilling more dangerous for our
environment, for our economy, and for our national security.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have refused to take up the
recommendations of the independent commission convened after the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and instead, continue to fight to protect
Big Oil and continue to fight to protect subsidies while the American
people are struggling with higher gasoline prices.
We've got to find solutions to lower the cost of fuel now. We've got
to find solutions and ways to end the $4 billion in tax breaks that pad
the profits of Big Oil.
And the way to do that, Mr. Speaker, is to bring legislation already
drafted, already introduced to the House floor for a vote immediately
that would address the issue of the rising cost of gas. Legislation to
release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and legislation aimed
at preventing Big Oil from engaging in price-gouging schemes which
drive up the price of oil at the pump would go much further than
anything that's in this bill and would help to ease the pain at the
pump that American families are experiencing.
We need to do those two things. End the subsidies, and begin to
address this urgent problem now. And stop taking measures that continue
to advance the interests of Big Oil rather than the American people.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. For the moment I will reserve the balance of my
time and enjoy the spin.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
and the underlying bill. We all understand the desire to do something
about high gas prices, and we all sympathize with families in this
economy who are struggling with $4 a gallon gasoline.
But these bills will do nothing to provide American families with
relief. They could threaten coastal ecosystems and the millions of
Americans who rely on them.
It's been a year since we watched the horror in the gulf coast. We
found that the agencies who oversee offshore drilling and the oil
companies that engage in it were not prepared for the disaster. And
Americans will be paying for that failure for years.
The administration has taken a number of steps to prevent future
spills. Unfortunately, these bills undermine that process, making
drilling less safe.
Instead of pretending as if one of these terrible environmental
disasters never happened, Congress should implement the recommendations
of the oil spill commission. We should be pursuing legislation that
will reduce our dependence on oil by investing in things that give
American commuters choices, in terms of more efficient vehicles,
transportation alternatives, alternative fuels.
This bill, fortunately, will never be enacted into law. But I'm
disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order any of the
amendments to repeal unnecessary tax subsidies to the oil industry. At
a time of record profits, it's adding insult to injury that billions of
dollars are going to flow to the largest oil companies and make no
difference to the consumer, no difference in the production of oil. It
just adds to the bottom line of these international corporations.
I hope that at some point the House will be able to deal with these
subsidies, which, even our Republican Speaker recently said, should be
examined. And I've had legislation ready and ready to go for months
now, and I hope it gets a chance to be voted on on this floor.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the subsidy issue, the simple
fact of the matter is that the Republicans are not for free markets.
But what they are for is Big Oil co-opting free markets. In fact, 70
percent of all energy-related subsidies go to fossil fuels like oil and
coal. Less than 5 percent of subsidies go to renewable energies like
wind and solar.
The gentleman from Utah pointed out that many of these subsidies help
small drillers, and, in fact, that can be true. But it is easy to apply
changes only to the Big Oil companies and not even affect independent
producers.
There's simply no excuse not to end this corporate welfare which
keeps taxes for all Americans who pay their taxes artificially high. In
fact, at the same time that BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from
leasing the Deepwater Horizon rig, it turned out that the company was
using the tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the
rent for Deepwater Horizon. That tax subsidy cost American taxpayers
$225,000 a day since the lease for Deepwater Horizon began. And that's
just one example of many.
I also want to address some misperceptions regarding President
Obama's policies regarding oil resources. The Obama administration is
allowing, on average, more drilling than the Bush administration did.
In fact, the Obama administration approved more leases in 2010 than the
Bush administration did in any year except one of his presidency.
Again, in moving forward and reissuing permits, which the
administration has already begun to do, this bill helps validate
President Obama's leadership on this issue.
[[Page H3071]]
The real issues at hand are the subsidies that the industry continues
to receive. As long as we continue a policy of using taxpayer dollars
to artificially pick winners and losers in the economy, the winner here
being Big Oil, the loser being American taxpayers, we will continue to
hurt energy security, destroy jobs, and continue to put our environment
at risk.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0950
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Fleming).
Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Bishop.
I am from Louisiana, and of course these leasing issues, the issues
of drilling and oil production are very important to my State. And
certainly any issue with regard to oil spills affects my State the most
in the last year or so because of the Deepwater Horizon.
But here is the point I want to make: The President has said that oil
production in the United States and offshore in the gulf is the highest
it has ever been. When I asked Secretary Salazar in the Natural
Resources Committee, he said the same thing. Then I asked Mr. Bromwich
and he gave the same answer.
The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the oil production off the Gulf of
Mexico peaked at 1.7 million barrels a day. It is now down to 1.5
million barrels a day, and in the next year it will decrease by another
225,000 barrels a day. And even if we restore drilling permits at the
level they have been previously, it will continue to decline over the
next several years.
So I think we can ill afford, Mr. Speaker, at a time when our gas
prices continue to go up, to continue this activity that we have, this
ruse, where we have a slowatorium off the Gulf of Mexico.
I think we are up to about 12 permits in the deep water at this
point. And I was speaking with the gentleman, an expert on this,
yesterday. He said that we normally pace about 40 or 50 permits a year.
So that means that we are at a fraction of what the actual permitting
process would normally be in the best of times.
Now, some would say, well, we haven't proven that it is safe. Well,
if that is true, why is the administration releasing permits? Obviously
that is proof that the administration is comfortable that we can again
drill in the deep water off the Gulf of Mexico.
So I say today that with America being at gas prices that will soon
approach $5 a gallon and the USGS now saying that we now have more
coal, natural gas, and oil than we have ever thought we would have,
really more than any other country in the world, including Russia, and
many more times than what Saudi Arabia has, 1.3 trillion barrels of oil
equivalent if you add coal, natural gas, and oil, why in the world are
we pulling back on the exploration and production of these vital
resources that we have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman.
I will say in summary, I am from the Fourth District of Louisiana
where we have a veritable Saudi Arabia of natural gas in my district,
the most natural gas in North America and the fourth largest deposit in
the world, and we didn't even know about it 4 years ago. That just goes
to show you how new technologies in the area of exploration and
development are creating many more resources than we ever thought we
had, and it will help stabilize our prices.
So I ask that we pass this bill today and that we finally get this
country back onto stable footing.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House
adopts this rule, we will bring up H.R. 1689, the Big Oil Welfare
Repeal Act of 2011.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, in its
analysis of the administration's budget, stated that the repeal of oil
and gas preferences are ``likely to have no effect on the world price
of fossil fuels, and any increase in prices for domestically consumed
fossil fuels are likely to be attenuated.''
Again, when we talk about ending the giveaway to Big Oil and Gas, it
will have no effect with regard to actual energy prices.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership
on this very important issue, important in having an immediate impact
on America's families.
They are feeling the pain at the pump. Our families, our workers, our
small businesses, every day it gets worse for them, the price at the
pump. So what can we do about it? Well, we can do a number of things,
and we will, that we have been advocating for.
Of course we must increase domestic production, and there is a way to
do that. But that is not all that we have to do. The American people
understand that their tax dollars are going to subsidies for Big Oil.
If we ended those subsidies, we could save over $30 billion for the
American people.
To put it into context, my colleagues, for the first quarter of this
year, the Big Five oil companies made profits of over $30 billion. Why
are we, the taxpayers, subsidizing their drilling of oil when they are
making huge profits, doing it in the free market?
President Obama has written to leaders in Congress asking to bring a
bill to the floor to end these subsidies. I have written to Speaker
Boehner asking him to do so. He has said the oil companies should pay
their fair share. Mr. Ryan, the chair of the Budget Committee, has
acknowledged that in his own district. And yet, in the budget that is
proposed by the Republicans, Big Oil still gets a big subsidy from the
taxpayer. It would mean a great deal to us, in a situation where we are
saying to seniors, We are going to cut Medicare; you are going to have
to pay $6,000 a year more, at a minimum, for fewer benefits because we
want to cut Medicare at the same time we are giving tax cuts, big tax
breaks to Big Oil.
So here we are today. Just last week, ExxonMobil reported $10.7
billion in profits during the first quarter of 2011. Over $10 billion
in profits, a 69 percent jump from last year. In fact, this quarter
marked some of the largest oil profits since 2008.
Democrats are introducing comprehensive legislation. Mr. Tim Bishop
is going to be leading us on the previous question, which we urge our
colleagues to vote ``no'' on so that we can bring up Mr. Bishop's
legislation.
Much of what that does is to eliminate tax breaks for the five
largest oil companies, saving over $31 billion over 10 years. Think of
it. We are trying to just save $31 billion over 10 years, when the oil
companies made $31 billion in profits in the first quarter of this
year. That is so unfair to the taxpayer.
Legislation to ensure that oil companies are paying the royalties
that are due the American taxpayer. Hold Big Oil and the industry
accountable for price gouging at the pump. Use the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve to increase the oil supply and combat price hikes. In addition
to that, we must end the harmful speculation which Wall Street tells us
accounts for a large percentage of the increase in the price at the
pump.
We also will have measures that increase American energy production.
It is very important. We don't disagree that we have to have
production, but we do agree that we have to do other things that have a
more immediate effect on the price at the pump. And we can do that. And
we must invest in our clean energy future, which will reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, which is a national security issue, which
will enable us to create new green jobs in our country, a jobs issue
which is a moral obligation we have to the American people to create
jobs.
But what the Republicans are proposing today has blinders on it. It
does not recognize that what it is doing does nothing to reduce the
price at the pump in the short term; that there are
[[Page H3072]]
many other avenues that we can proceed down in addition to increasing
domestic production; and that the American people need something
fresher and newer on this than being sabotaged every few years about
the price at the pump while we, the taxpayers, are giving subsidies to
Big Oil to drill while they are making profits in the first quarter of
1 year that are almost more than what we would save for the taxpayer.
{time} 1000
They don't need a subsidy to drill. They don't need an incentive.
They have the profit motive, and it has served them well.
We in this Congress have to be thinking about the future. How do we
prevent this from happening again, but also how do we have the most
immediate effect on the price at the pump? Congressman Tim Bishop gives
us that opportunity today, recognizing that we want to have the full
diversity of energy possibilities available to us so that the American
taxpayer and the American consumer are well-served.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to
allow Mr. Tim Bishop to bring up an initiative that he will talk about
that addresses concerns of the American people that they know about,
that they want to end subsidies on Big Oil, especially when we are
talking about it in the context of we must cut investments in Medicare,
seniors must pay more, but don't ask us to cut subsidies to Big Oil.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), who lives in this area and understands
the situation firsthand.
Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I couldn't disagree more with the comments that were
made by the minority leader from California. What we are talking about
here are high gas prices that people are paying at the pump today and
why we are in this situation. We are in this situation because of this
administration's policies that have shut off the American energy
supply.
This is supply and demand. Why do prices go up? Well, gee-whiz, if
the President of the United States says by policy we are going to close
off billions of barrels of known reserves in America, what do you think
that does to prices? Do you think that actually lowers prices? Of
course, as you are seeing prices skyrocket at the pump, it is because
of these policies. That is why we have seen the price of gasoline more
than double since Barack Obama has been in office.
So, Mr. Speaker, what we are bringing today and what this rule
addresses is the ability to start opening up some of those known areas
here in America, because, again, our demand continues to increase for
oil here in this country, and while the President is out tilting at
windmills, the prices at the pump continue to skyrocket because the
President is saying run those jobs off to foreign countries, like
Brazil.
He is bragging that he wants to create more energy jobs in Brazil. We
are saying, Mr. President, we have thousands of jobs here in America
that we can create today. We have got billions of dollars that are
being sent to foreign countries, many of whom don't like us, by the
way. We can bring those dollars back. And, by the way, that can also
help us pay down the national debt that is out of control right now.
And that is what this bill addresses.
And what's their answer on the other side? The President is talking
about raising taxes on American energy, and the minority leader from
California just emphasized it. She talked about a $30 billion tax
increase on American energy production. You want to talk about a warped
policy? Look at what their plan is.
We're saying let's open up supply. Let's create jobs in America. I
have seen it in south Louisiana. We have lost over 13,000 jobs in the
energy industry just because of the President's policies in the last
year, where he shut down production and said you can't go back to work
drilling safely for known oil in America. But he wants to run those
jobs off to foreign countries. So that is what is happening.
We saw one of the deepwater rigs go to Egypt just in the last few
months. So an employer is saying, I want to take a thousand jobs and
it's better to do business in Egypt because of these radical American
policies on energy right now. So we are trying to turn that around and
say let's actually explore for energy here in America, creating
thousands more jobs in America and bringing in billions more dollars
that pay down our deficit.
Their answer is raise $30 billion in taxes and, you know, go talk
about Big Oil. Big Oil is not going to pay that. Big Oil is leaving.
They are going to foreign countries. It is our local energy producers
here in America who will pay that tax. And you know what that ends up
equating to? That means higher prices at the pump, $30 billion in
higher prices at the pump, because of their policy.
And they're bragging about it. They're saying, let's raise taxes on
American energy. By the way, their bill doesn't apply to energy that is
produced in Saudi Arabia. So what do you think is going to happen?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. SCALISE. Now more oil is going to be coming in from Saudi Arabia
because of their policies.
We have got to reverse this radical approach and actually create jobs
in America, create energy in America and bring down the skyrocketing
price of gasoline at the pump, and it can all be accomplished with this
legislation here today that I strongly support.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much.
The oil companies are making windfall profits right now. Look at what
just happened in the last 3 months: ExxonMobil made $10 billion; Shell,
$8 billion; BP, $7 billion; $6 billion for Chevron; $3 billion for
Conoco. Yet the Republicans oppose allowing the Democrats to bring out
here a motion that will take away tax breaks that are meant for
companies that make toasters or aluminum foil, but not the oil
industry.
The oil industry does not need a subsidy from the American taxpayer
as they are tipping consumers upside down at the pump every single day.
We need to take back those tax breaks and use them; use them to reduce
the deficit, use them to help grandma with Medicare, use them for
things that are important, but not for oil companies at this time.
So, what have the Republicans decided to do? The Republicans instead
have decided to squeeze--to squeeze Medicare, to squeeze the program
for grandma, so that they can find the revenues to give tax breaks for
oil companies. I will tell you, the GOP has set up a legislative drill
rig on top of the Medicare program to poke holes in our seniors' safety
net. That is right, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are building a
pipeline into the pocketbooks of our seniors so that they can pump them
dry. No money for Medicare, but plenty of breaks for the oil companies.
And they are going to deny the Democrats the ability to have a vote
here on the House floor on those tax breaks for oil companies here
today.
There is one thing that we can do in order to ensure that the
speculators in the marketplace are told there is a cop on the beat, and
that is to deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right now. In 1991,
Bush the First used it. The price went down 33 percent. In 2000, the
President used the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, President Clinton. It
went down 18 percent. Bush the Second used it in 2005 after Katrina.
The price went down 9 percent. That is the weapon we can use right now,
and send a message to Big Oil, to OPEC, and to the speculators that we
mean business.
What the Republicans are saying here today is we are going to cut
Medicare in order to have tax breaks for the wealthiest oil companies
in the history of the world. That is not what the American people want
to hear at this time of high energy prices in our country, with a
dagger pointed right at the heart of the American economy, and that is
what OPEC and the speculators and Big Oil are doing to our country.
Vote ``yes'' today on the previous question to give the American
taxpayers the relief they need from these
[[Page H3073]]
gifts which we give to Big Oil. Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the previous question.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I
rise to ask in particular that we have a reasoned debate on this
question.
I come from the gulf region and was appalled at the horror of the BP
oil spill. My constituents are still suffering from that spill. I
recognize that we have a dual responsibility, and that is to ensure
that those individuals are made whole--and I might add that a better
compensation system needs to be in place--but also that we restore
jobs.
A civil discussion is what is needed. As an oil and gas lawyer and
also a member of the Homeland Security Committee which addresses the
question of our own safety and security, we have to find a way to
restore offshore deepwater drilling in a safe and secure manner.
{time} 1010
I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not take an amendment
that I offered that would have modified the processing procedures of
H.R. 1229, to restart that leasing process to extend the time for the
Department of the Interior to review safely and securely and to
eliminate the deemed provision, though I am supporting the Holt
amendment and, of course, the Moran amendment.
But, frankly, I think the issue is, energy at this time is
multitasking, from nuclear energy to solar, to wind, to biofuels and
fossil fuels (oil and gas). If we are in agreement with Brazil to do
offshore deepwater drilling off the coast of Brazil, we need to restart
that deepwater drilling here in the United States, safely and securely.
As relates to the expanded lease sales, the question has to be whether
States are prepared for that offshore drilling and whether or not we
have secured the kind of technology that will allow us to do it safely
and securely. I believe new containment processes are being put in
place to help deepwater drilling to lower costs for the America people.
Energy companies have organized something called a containment group
to develop that new technology. What I would say is that this
discussion should not be captured by special interests where we try the
``get you'' politics for the Department of the Interior or ``get you''
politics for President Obama. This is the time to get the best politics
for the American people, to bring down gasoline prices, invest in
energy which includes deepwater drilling and oil and gas, and let's get
going on helping the American people to boost energy resource and to
create jobs.
I ask for a reasoned discussion on this important issue.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we heard from our friend from Massachusetts
the allegation that we over here on this side of the aisle were
squeezing Medicare. Good grief. Even now has the gentleman from
Massachusetts not read the ObamaCare bill? It cuts $500 billion out of
Medicare.
We heard from Minority Leader Pelosi that we have a moral obligation
to create jobs. Then what this administration has done under her
definition is immoral, because this administration has been killing
jobs. We hear so much from the other side about the working poor.
Coming from an area in Texas where we have lots of hardworking poor
folks, that's who is being hurt by this administration's policies. When
you shut off the jobs in the Gulf of Mexico, when you come out and say
we're going to tax these American companies even more, we're going to
take away their subsidies, they're called business deductions, the cost
of drilling, the cost of doing business.
And who will be taxed? American companies. We will be putting further
tariffs on, not foreign products but American companies. We drive
ourselves more and more to foreign oil, and that's a mistake. Price
controls is what President Carter did. He was going to show the energy
companies, and as a result we had no gas, we ran out of gas, it was a
disaster. Salazar has shut down leases that were let after a 7-year
process that could have produced as many as a trillion barrels of oil.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. GOHMERT. You could have an immediate effect if you would
encourage your party's President to change course and start creating
jobs. The energy industry would create a million jobs across the
country if we opened up the OCS. We've heard the testimony a million
jobs if ANWR is opened. A million jobs if the North Slope is opened.
What is more, we've also heard from people that know that a dollar
out of four is most likely attributable to speculation. The speculators
look at what we do. And we make it harder and harder to produce our own
energy, the speculation keeps going up. You could turn around a dollar
out of four overnight if we showed the world, we're going to use our
own energy.
This country has been blessed with more natural resources when you
put them all together, and this administration and the former majority
has done more to put them off-limits. It's time to get back to what the
former Speaker said was our moral obligation. You lower energy prices
by using more of our own energy, you create jobs, and you bring down
the price that is killing the working poor. And that's a moral
obligation.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague from Colorado.
I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. In
the State of Florida, we are still recovering from last year's BP oil
blowout disaster. We're recovering economically and environmentally
from the policies of the past that elevated oil company profits over
safety.
To add insult to injury, every summer the price of gas goes up, and
we see it in Florida because our economy is largely tied to tourism,
and we see it and it pains us and consumers know that they are messing
around with the American consumer. They understand that the Wall Street
speculators are making a profit, maybe 20 percent in the price of gas,
and that is not fair.
Why don't we start with a meaningful energy policy that addresses
those speculators? Instead of continuing oil company giveaways, why
don't we start with ending the taxpayer subsidies to the big oil
companies? Just in the first quarter of this year, BP has made over $5
billion in profit. Exxon has made over $10 billion in profit. With the
skyrocketing debt and deficit, why is it fair for the American taxpayer
to be subsidizing the most profitable companies in the world? That is
where we should begin this debate today, ending those oil company
subsidies to bring down the price of gas and tackling the outrageous
profits that go to the oil companies while the consumer is paying
through the nose at the pump.
My Republican friends are on the wrong track when it comes to energy
policy. We've got to prohibit Wall Street speculators from artificially
inflating prices. We've got to adopt the oil spill commission's
recommendations to make drilling safe before we charge ahead and open
up new areas to drill. There are millions of acres to drill. Millions
of acres. All we're asking is fairness and safety as they proceed in
doing so so the American taxpayer will not have to pay any more.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Landry). He is a member of the Resources Committee
that provides a great deal of insight from his personal background.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, what amazes me is that the gentlelady from
Florida must have missed the AP report a couple of weeks ago when it
said that Florida was getting ready to experience another oil crisis
and it was in the fact that the price at the pump is going to impact
tourism.
Tourism. That's what I hear here all the time. Our tourism jobs. Jobs
that normally pay minimum wage. When in my State, oil and gas jobs pay
much better than that.
If we want to get this economy rolling, we have to provide that
economy
[[Page H3074]]
with affordable energy, not make-believe energy, not energy that comes
in possibly 40 or 50 years from now. We need to apply affordable energy
to this economy now. It will not get any better in this country until
we give middle class Americans affordable energy, so that they can get
to and from their job.
Repealing section 199 will endanger 600,000 barrels per day, 10
percent of our domestic production by 2017. Boy, that's really going to
lower the price at the pump.
They're concerned about Medicare and Medicaid. Well, where do you
think those profits to shareholders go? Do you know who those
shareholders are? They're the American people. Do you know how many
pension plans hold those shares of Exxon and Chevron in their
portfolio?
Why are we picking those winners and losers? As a freshman, it's hard
for me to understand how we continue in this town to reward failure and
punish winners. It just amazes me.
{time} 1020
Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, one thing we do know is that our constituents
are paying about $4 a gallon for gas. What they have to ask is: Where's
all this money that they're paying going? Well, as you have seen, it's
going in profits to the biggest oil companies. In fact, almost $30
billion went just in the last 3 months to the top three oil companies--
about $11 billion to Exxon, about $9 billion to Shell, and over $7
billion to BP. Remember BP? And that's after they've taken $5 billion
in subsidies from the taxpayer and as in the case of ExxonMobil paid
zero corporate taxes.
Well, what are they doing with that profit? What they're doing is
spending 90 percent of it on stock buy-backs so that, of course, the
remaining stock outstanding becomes even more valuable, thus enabling
their executives to become even wealthier, and to stock dividends for
their shareholders. And the remaining 10 percent goes to oil and gas
exploration and to TV advertising so they can convince the American
public otherwise.
What this bill will do is to enable those who own oil company stock
and run oil companies to grab up our last remaining oil reserves at a
cost of $30 to $40 a barrel so that they can then sell it at $100 a
barrel to make more profit. The motivation for this bill is more about
scoring political points and currying favor with the oil and gas
industry that the current House majority can't seem to coddle enough.
And they're betting that the next oil spill disaster that this
legislation could enable through a return to weaker regulation--weaker
regulation than we had before the gulf oil spill disaster, will not
occur on their watch. That oil spill disaster that spilled 200 million
gallons into the Gulf Coast waters occurred at a time of even tougher
regulation than this bill will create.
They are counting on the oil companies remembering and the consumers
and taxpayers forgetting.
This bill should be defeated.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member of the Energy and Natural
Resources Subcommittee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this rule brings forward two bills that are
the first of the majority party's ``amnesia acts,'' which ignore the
safety and environmental concerns that were laid bare last spring and
summer by the largest oil spill in United States waters. For the
sponsors of this bill, it's as if the worst and most costly oil spill
in history never happened. Last week, the Big Five oil companies
reported $32 billion in profits. That's just for the first 3 months of
this year. Yet the majority's solution is to protect the billions of
dollars of tax breaks each year for these companies.
Just to give you an idea, Exxon pays an effective tax rate of 0.4
percent. I imagine every person in America would like to have a tax
rate of essentially zero. Yet the majority's solution is to protect
these tax breaks. Furthermore, they deem the environmental and safety
regulations that existed before this accident in the gulf as
satisfactory. And let's be clear: How much will these bills reduce gas
prices for the American people? Zero dollars and zero cents.
Scientists, engineers, and our best energy analysts say we cannot
drill our way to lower gas prices. This won't do it. Let's address the
financial speculation that we've heard about--the real cause of high
gasoline prices. Exxon, with those huge prices, what do they do? They
buy back their stock.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. HOLT. These actions needlessly endanger the lives of offshore
workers, imperil the resources and livelihoods of fishermen. This
legislation is designed to give Big Oil more handouts. These companies
are not being responsible citizens.
Vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``yes'' on my amendment, vote ``no'' on
the bills.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Keating).
Mr. KEATING. I rise to oppose this rule.
Americans are feeling pain at the pump. Rising gasoline prices--and
they're rising, folks--it's going to cost the average person another
$800 per year at the rate of these increases. That wipes out the tax
breaks that most Americans have just received, and it's going to hurt
our economy, and it's hurting our national security. These oil
companies are making increased profits as the money in our wallets
flies right into the gas tanks.
Now is the time to consider a sensible energy policy and to strip
subsidies from oil companies. It shocks every American taxpayer to know
that they're required to fork over an additional $40 billion-plus over
the next decade to give tax subsidies and giveaways to these enormously
profitable companies. What are they doing with that money? They're
taking up to 90 percent of that and buying their stocks back,
increasing their own personal wealth.
So let's be clear. Oil companies don't need it. If you don't believe
me, ask them. The former CEO of Shell oil says, ``With higher oil
prices, the subsidies aren't necessary.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman.
My friends on the other side of the aisle say they're for the all-of-
the-above strategy when it comes to oil. Let's be clear. They support
oil above all--above Medicare, above putting police on the streets,
above increasing reading teachers, and above protecting our coastal
communities.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Duncan), another great new member of the Resources
Committee.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. This isn't about oil company profits.
This is about supply and demand. We don't have the supply necessary to
meet the energy needs in this country. But the American people know
that we've got the resources here in this country, whether it's
offshore, on the Outer Continental Shelf, or on Federal lands that have
currently under this administration been taken off the table for energy
production. Supply and demand drives the price. We are reliant on
foreign sources of oil, and a foreign group known as OPEC determines
the price of that oil they sell to us. We've got the resource in this
country. This legislation will put the gulf back to work, meeting the
energy needs for the American people.
I'm a small business owner. I doubt many people that serve in this
body have ever run a business, met a payroll, and tried to meet their
overhead. I can tell you what $4.85 a gallon in August of 2008 meant to
my small business only running two trucks on the road. I can only
imagine what the loggers, what the truckers, what the farmers, and the
other industries in the Third Congressional District of South Carolina
are feeling today with the experience of rising oil prices.
The gentlelady from Florida said that in the summer, prices go up.
We're not in summer yet. Prices are going up because of supply and
demand. We have the opportunity to meet our demand right here by
harvesting American resources for our American energy needs.
[[Page H3075]]
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
With regard to the last comment, it is the oil cartels that drive
prices, not the normal functions of the market and supply and demand.
With regard to the oil subsidies, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity
here today to see where the Republicans and the Democrats in the House
stand on deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous
question, we can and we will reduce the deficit by over $12.8 billion.
We have the chance to have the discussion around the continuing
resolution, around the budget, around deficit reduction. And here we
have an opportunity, without impacting the price of oil, without
impacting what consumers pay at the pump, to reduce the deficit by
$12.8 billion by defeating the previous question. I think that's what
the American people want to see.
The American people spoke out in the last election. Let's reduce the
deficit. Let's work across the aisle to see what we can do to cut
unnecessary government expenditures, to make those decisions to help
make sure that we can leave something other than a legacy of debt to
the next generation.
I think, Mr. Speaker, this is an easy one. Let's defeat the previous
question and reduce the deficit by $12.8 billion.
{time} 1030
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a document from
the Treasury Department which states that the manufacturing deduction
for oil and gas effectively provides a lower rate of tax with respect
to a favored source of income. In fact, it distorts the market by
encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would
occur under a neutral system.
Again, by returning to the free market, we are able to reduce the
deficit by over $12.8 billion instead of having Big Government trying
to pick winners and losers in the economy with regard to tax policy.
General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 Revenue
Proposals--Department of the Treasury, February 2011
Repeal Domestic Manufacturing Deduction for Oil and Natural Gas
Companies
Current Law
A deduction is allowed with respect to income attributable
to domestic production activities (the manufacturing
deduction). For taxable years beginning after 2009, the
manufacturing deduction is generally equal to 9 percent of
the lesser of qualified production activities income for the
taxable year or taxable income for the taxable year, limited
to 50 percent of the W-2 wages of the taxpayer for the
taxable year. The deduction for income from oil and gas
production activities is computed at a 6 percent rate.
Qualified production activities income is generally
calculated as a taxpayer's domestic production gross receipts
(i.e., the gross receipts derived from any lease, rental,
license, sale, exchange, or other disposition of qualifying
production property manufactured, produced, grown, or
extracted by the taxpayer in whole or significant part within
the United States; any qualified film produced by the
taxpayer; or electricity, natural gas, or potable water
produced by the taxpayer in the United States) minus the cost
of goods sold and other expenses, losses, or deductions
attributable to such receipts.
The manufacturing deduction generally is available to all
taxpayers that generate qualified production activities
income, which under current law includes income from the
sale, exchange or disposition of oil, natural gas or primary
products thereof produced in the United States.
Reasons for Change
The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to
phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so that the United
States can transition to a 21st-century energy economy. The
manufacturing deduction for oil and gas effectively provides
a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of
income. The lower rate of tax, like other oil and gas
preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts
markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas
industry than would occur under a neutral system. This market
distortion is detrimental to long-term energy security and is
also inconsistent with the Administration's policy of
supporting a clean energy economy, reducing our reliance on
oil, and cutting carbon pollution. Moreover, the tax subsidy
for oil and gas must ultimately be financed with taxes that
result in underinvestment in other, potentially more
productive, areas of the economy.
Proposal
The proposal would retain the overall manufacturing
deduction, but exclude from the definition of domestic
production gross receipts all gross receipts derived from the
sale, exchange or other disposition of oil, natural gas or a
primary product thereof for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2011. There is a parallel proposal to repeal the
domestic manufacturing deduction for coal and other hard
mineral fossil fuels.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a July 3,
2010, New York Times article regarding oil subsidies.
Again, this talks of the oil subsidies that continue to benefit this
industry to the detriment of the American taxpayer and to the detriment
of future generations of Americans who will continue to suffer under an
increasing mountain of debt unless we defeat the previous question here
today.
[From NY Times, July 3, 2010]
On Subsidies
But an examination of the American tax code indicates that
oil production is among the most heavily subsidized
businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every
stage of the exploration and extraction process.
According to the most recent study by the Congressional
Budget Office, capital investments like oil field leases and
drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9
percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25
percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually
any other industry.
And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on
capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated
by various credits. These companies' returns on those
investments are often higher after taxes than before.
Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce
opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has
spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the
nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors
political spending.
Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when
they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of
rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently
produced only dry holes. Because of one lingering provision
from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil
companies based in the United States can claim deductions for
the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the
companies actually paid for the oil rights.
Other tax breaks were born of international politics. In an
attempt to deter Soviet influence in the Middle East in the
1950s, the State Department backed a Saudi Arabian accounting
maneuver that reclassified the royalties charged by foreign
governments to American oil drillers. Saudi Arabia and others
began to treat some of the royalties as taxes, which entitled
the companies to subtract those payments from their American
tax bills. Despite repeated attempts to forbid this
accounting practice, companies continue to deduct the
payments. The Treasury Department estimates that it will cost
$8.2 billion over the next decade.
Mr. Speaker, 1 year after the national tragedy of Deepwater Horizon,
the majority party has decided not to address a single problem that led
to this economic and environmental tragedy. Instead, the majority is
pushing through these bills, simply rubber-stamping offshore drilling
and maintaining taxpayer subsidies and giveaways to Big Oil, which
increase the deficit.
During a Special Order speech just the other night, a Member on the
other side of the aisle said all you need is an eighth grade
understanding of supply and demand to understand why gas prices are
high and how we can lower them by drilling more. Fortunately, for those
of us who have more than an eighth grade education, like economists and
other experts, we know that America cannot drill its way out of high
gas prices. Even the American Petroleum Institute, the mouthpiece for
Big Oil, is saying that we cannot drill our way out. ``Drill, Baby,
Drill'' may look good as a bumper sticker, but it's not a serious
energy policy.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and to defeat the
previous question so we can reduce the deficit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the minority is asking us to walk down a tangent issue
by using negative cue words like ``subsidy,'' so let me walk down that
for 30 seconds.
Please realize the U.S. oil and natural gas industry does not receive
subsidized payments from the government. The word ``subsidy'' is
inaccurate. Tax deductions should in no way be confused with the
concept of subsidies. There are, though, tax deductions that go to all
industries. Section 199, which has been talked about by the Democrats,
is the domestic manufacturers'
[[Page H3076]]
deduction. Every industry--manufacturing, producing, growing,
extracting--gets a 9 percent of earned income deduction, not a credit,
except for oil and gas; but they are limited to just 6 percent. There
is similarity.
They've also asked us to try and walk down a tangent in talking about
safety, but the ideas of safety are codified in the legislation before
us. They then say let's increase our production by raising taxes. What
a non sequitur. Even if you raise taxes against somebody else and try
to create some kind of straw man to attack, that is simply a non
sequitur, because we do not have a tax problem in this country. We have
a production problem; we have a jobs problem. These two bills go
directly to that problem. They increase production and increase jobs.
We are not trying to pick winners and losers. We want the Americans
to be winners, and that's what our choice is to be. These are two good
bills in a time of $4 and $5 gasoline prices that are devastating jobs
and our economy. These bills surely should be something that every
Member should support.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1229 and H.R.
1230.
We like to stand on this floor and talk about the things we can't
agree on.
On this issue, there's more common ground than you might think.
We all seek to end our dependence on foreign oil because it endangers
our environment, hurts our economy and weakens our national security.
Our disagreement lies in potential solutions.
In order to lower gas prices we can and must crack down on oil
speculators, end big oil handouts, invest in public transit and
electric vehicles and increase corporate average fuel economy
standards.
The other side of the argument, the one that is presented today and
that we will be voting on, would have you believe that all we need to
do is increase our domestic oil resources and remove regulations.
Regulations that have purportedly forced us to look outside our
nation's borders for oil.
Our answers do not lie in more oil--our answers lie in conservation
and smart investments.
They do not lie in increasing our oil supply, because, let's face it,
oil prices are based on a global market, and one nod from OPEC would
make any increase in U.S. domestic supplies irrelevant.
Our answers cannot be found by damaging the ecosystems the industries
along our coast rely on.
And, our answers will not be solutions that defy our military experts
who are saying oil ain't the answer.
Earlier this week, I offered an amendment that was not made in order
by the Rules Committee--an amendment that said we must look at the
damage we could incur before we extract oil and gas.
This same common sense must be applied to our energy plan.
We can proactively move our nation toward reducing our dependence on
foreign oil so that we take control of our energy future, protect our
nation, our economy and our environment--and we must.
But, these are not our solutions.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and
the underlying bills, H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230.
Mr. Speaker, these bills aren't serious solutions to bring down high
gas prices.
Instead, these are nothing more than a political exercise meant to
keep the big oil companies happy.
Big oil companies have every reason to be happy these days.
Last week, ExxonMobil announced first-quarter profits of nearly $10.7
billion.
Let me repeat that--$10.7 billion. That's a 69% increase over the
same three month period last year.
American taxpayers are paying nearly $4 dollars a gallon for gasoline
and we're still giving $4 billion in subsidies to Big Oil?
Give me a break.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment--as a
standalone bill--that would eliminate subsidies for big oil. My
amendment would have done nothing to prevent these drilling bills from
moving forward.
Ending subsidies for corporations that are making money hand over
fist while gouging Americans shouldn't be controversial.
Apparently, my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee didn't
see it the same way. My amendment wasn't made in order.
Instead, here we are today debating legislation that would boost Big
Oil's profits even more without doing anything to lower gas prices for
American families.
More drilling won't lower gas prices. It's that simple.
Even with an expedited permitting approval process--that ignores any
environmental impact assessment--we wouldn't see any of this additional
supply in the market for years.
And the notion that we've run out of areas to drill because we've
exhausted all current offshore drilling sites is ludicrous.
Oil companies currently have access to nearly 80 million acres to
drill for oil, including 38 million acres offshore. But they produce
oil on only 4 percent of those acres.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are so fond of saying these
days that people should be able to pull themselves up by their
bootstraps.
I wish they would apply that same ``tough love'' to the record
profit-making oil companies at a time when American families are being
gouged at the pump.
I oppose this Rule and the underlying bills and I urge my colleagues
to do the same.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 245 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1689) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow
the deduction for income attributable to domestic production
activities with respect to oil and gas activities of major
integrated oil companies. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 4 of this
resolution.
____
The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he
[[Page H3077]]
then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule,
or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adopting the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 171, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 293]
YEAS--241
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--171
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Ackerman
Bilbray
Cantor
Clyburn
Crowley
Emerson
Engel
Giffords
Gonzalez
Johnson, Sam
King (NY)
Meeks
Nadler
Olver
Pascrell
Rangel
Reichert
Rothman (NJ)
Van Hollen
Weiner
{time} 1059
Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. SPEIER, and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. HAYWORTH and Mr. GRAVES of Missouri changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 293, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245,
noes 167, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 294]
AYES--245
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
[[Page H3078]]
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--167
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Ackerman
Bilbray
Cantor
Clyburn
Crowley
Emerson
Engel
Giffords
Gonzalez
Johnson, Sam
King (NY)
Meeks
Nadler
Olver
Pascrell
Rangel
Reichert
Rothman (NJ)
Van Hollen
Weiner
{time} 1106
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 294, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________