[Pages H3171-H3180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1231, REVERSING PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
OFFSHORE MORATORIUM ACT

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 257 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 257

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. 1231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas
leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most
prospective oil and gas resources, to establish a domestic
oil and natural gas production goal, 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 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 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
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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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. REED. 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 New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. REED. House Resolution 257 provides for a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 1231. The rule makes in order eight amendments,
all of which comply with the rules of the House. Of the eight, seven
are Democratic amendments.
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating H.R. 1231, the Reversing President
Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act. This legislation, which will have
profound impacts on our domestic energy supply, our national security,
and our economy, is ripe for consideration by this body. It is no
secret that Americans are feeling the pain at the pump. In my
congressional district in western New York, my constituents, my family,
my wife and I are routinely forced to pay in excess of $4 per gallon
for gasoline for automobiles. We need to develop policies that will
lessen our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, create stability in the
financial markets, and provide relief to our constituents. In addition,
this piece of legislation will create American jobs.
We must get our financial and energy priorities in order. We can no
longer be held victim to instability in the Middle East and across the
world. The United States must develop our own energy solutions which
will reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
Most importantly, this will create American jobs. H.R. 1231 is one
more example of our conference's commitment to developing domestic
natural oil and gas resources. It adopts a philosophy that we need to
drill smart, drill where the resources are, and produce our own energy.
Drilling for oil and natural gas can be done safely and responsibly.
There have been millions of wells drilled in the United States. There
is a strong record of sound environmental practices. Total petroleum
industry spillage has decreased consistently over the last 40 years.
H.R. 1231 does two things. First, the legislation requires that in
developing a 5-year offshore leasing plan for drilling the Outer
Continental Shelf, that each 5-year plan must include leases for sale
in the areas containing the greatest known oil and natural gas
reserves. For the 2012-2017 plan being written by the Obama
administration, this would mean targeted lease sales only in those
areas estimated to contain 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas. At least 50 percent of those areas must be
made available for leasing in the 2012-2017 plan.
Second, this legislation requires the implementation of production
goals during the 5-year plan being written by the Obama administration.
For this period, the goal would be 3 million barrels of oil per day and
10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from American domestic
sources of energy. This increase in oil production equates to a
tripling of current American offshore production and will reduce
significantly foreign imports by nearly one-third. Most importantly,
this will create American jobs and protect our national security
interests.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and very
strong opposition to the underlying legislation.
Here we go again. Another week. Another day. Another bill that helps
record profit-making Big Oil but does absolutely nothing to help
American families paying $4 at the pump for gasoline. Although
Republicans continue to frame these efforts as a cure for rising gas
prices and a way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, the truth
is that oil prices are set on a world market. It's simply not possible
for us to drill our way out of these problems.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee I offered an amendment as a stand-
alone bill, again, that would eliminate subsidies for Big Oil. While I
do not agree with H.R. 1231, my amendment would have done nothing to
prevent this bill from moving forward. Instead, my amendment would have
allowed for a separate bill to come up under this rule that would end
subsidies for big oil corporations that are making money hand over fist
while gouging Americans at the pump.
Let me remind my Republican colleagues of the facts. Two weeks ago,
ExxonMobil announced that in the first 3 months of this year it had
made nearly $10.7 billion in profits. That's $10.7 billion. Billion
with a B. There's nothing wrong with corporations making

[[Page H3172]]

profits. That's what they're in business to do. What is wrong is for
American taxpayers to be subsidizing wildly profitable companies at a
time when too many Americans are still unemployed and struggling to pay
their bills. With their tax dollars funding corporate welfare for Big
Oil and then still paying astronomical prices at the pump, it's a
double whammy for American families. With all the talk of cutting
spending and reducing subsidies here in Washington, I would have
thought that the Rules Committee would have made my amendment in order.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that energy companies are
sitting on thousands of drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico, and
they're not producing anything. And despite the misleading title of
this legislation, no drilling moratorium currently exists. Since
October 2010, when the drilling moratorium was lifted, 39 shallow water
and 10 deepwater permits have been granted, roughly the same average
rate even before the BP oil spill.
Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1231 may make for a good sound bite, this is
not a serious solution to bringing down high gas prices. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose H.R. 1231.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1230

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my friend, the
newest member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Corning, New
York, for a superb job in the way he has comported himself in the
management of this rule and for his great service on the Rules
Committee. He has literally hit the ground running, and this is the
third bill that he's managed, the second rule, on the House floor, and
I congratulate him for that.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my friend from Worcester,
and I will say that this measure that's before us is about several
things. Number one, job creation and economic growth is something that
Democrats and Republicans alike say that they are concerned about; and
that happens to be, continues to be, our priority.
Creating jobs for the American people who are hurting right now is
what this bill is all about and, at the same time, the notion of trying
to free ourselves or at least diminish the kind of dependence that we
have on foreign oil. I don't personally believe that we ever in this
global economy should be completely free of the flow of energy and
other sources, but I do believe that we can take steps that will
diminish the level of dependence that we have on sources of energy
outside of our country. And that's what this measure is designed to do.
I also want to touch on the very important question that was raised
by my friend about the issue of subsidization by the American taxpayer
of the energy industry. And I know that my friend likes to say, well,
the Rules Committee can just take care of this in one fell swoop and
make this amendment in order. And it was very interesting that our
colleague from Boulder said that if it were to be considered under an
open rule, he'd like to allow for consideration of a measure that would
reduce the top corporate rate as we look at the issue of ending this
kind of subsidization.
Well, that is a global approach that I believe needs to be looked at
by the House Ways and Means Committee, by the Energy and Commerce
Committee; and I'm supportive, I'm very supportive, of our doing that.
But the idea of saying that we would do what my friend has proposed,
actually under the provision that my friend from Boulder said that he'd
support up in the Rules Committee, it's a violation of House rules.
So the idea here is we need to do what we can to diminish the level
of subsidization. I personally have opposed agriculture subsidization.
I'm not a proponent of subsidization of private industry. I do think
that in the context of having the highest corporate tax rate of any
nation in the world now that Japan has actually reduced their corporate
rate, we need to look at ways in which we can bring that rate down and
deal with closing loopholes. And that's something that President Obama
talked about here in his State of the Union message.
So I think that if my friend would recognize that we've had
opportunities to do this when they were in the majority, and we've been
in session for a matter of a few months, and the idea of saying that we
haven't addressed it yet on the House floor, I think, doesn't really
pass the laugh test because we are right now in the process of looking
at overall reform, and it will include dealing with the issue of
subsidies. So I agree wholeheartedly with the need for us to step up to
the plate and take this issue on.
I want to express my appreciation to the distinguished chair of the
Natural Resources Committee, our friend Mr. Hastings. Unfortunately,
due to an illness, he's not able to be here this week, but I spoke with
him yesterday and he's doing a lot better. And he has every degree of
confidence, a high level of confidence, that we're going to be able to
effectively address this issue of working to drive energy prices down;
to diminish the kind of dependence we have on foreign sources of
energy; and the very, very important issue of creating jobs here in the
United States of America, which continues to be our priority.
So I thank my friend for yielding. I encourage my colleagues to
support this rule and support the underlying legislation.
And I'm happy to say that we've been able to make almost all of the
amendments in order that were submitted to us as long as they comply
with the rules of the House. The CutGo provision is germane. We've
tried to make most of those in order, and it's a new day. We've had
more amendments considered here in the first few months of this
Congress than we did in the entire last Congress. So I think that this
work product that we're going to have before us today is further
evidence of that.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points that a New York
Times editorial, entitled ``The Return of `Drill Baby Drill' '' made,
and that was that drilling alone cannot possibly ensure energy
independence in a country that uses one-quarter of the world's oil
while owning only 2 percent of its reserves.
The other point it makes is the Energy Information Agency recently
projected what would happen if the Nation tripled production on the
Outer Continental Shelf. There would be no price impact at all until
2020 and only 3 cents to 5 cents a gallon in 2030.
The bottom line is that we need an energy policy that does not rely
solely on drilling for oil; and we've tried to pass a bill that would
do that, only to have strong objection from my Republican colleagues.
I would also say I just want to make sure we're clear on one thing
because the chairman of the Rules Committee seemed to intimate that
bringing up my legislation that would allow for there to be a vote to
cut taxpayer subsidies to oil companies would somehow be against the
rules. It's not against the rules. It would be totally within the
rules, and the Rules Committee could have made it in order.
One of the things that I hear, when I go back home, from my
constituents is, Why are you cutting programs that help elderly people
be able to heat their homes in the winter? Why are you cutting programs
that would invest in alternative energy and at the same time you have
Congress protecting taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are
making record profits? People are outraged by that.

[From the New York Times, May 6, 2011]

The Return of ``Drill, Baby, Drill''

As President Obama observed in a March 30 address on energy
issues, drilling alone cannot possibly ensure energy
independence in a country that uses one-quarter of the
world's oil while owning only 2 percent of its reserves. Nor
can it lower prices, except at the margins. Only coordinated
measures--greater auto efficiency, alternative fuels,
improved mass transit--can address these issues.
Still the oil industry and its political allies persist in
their fantasies. On Thursday, the House passed the first of
three bills that will require the Interior Department to
accelerate drilling permits without proper environmental or
engineering reviews, reinstate lease sales off the Virginia
coast that

[[Page H3173]]

were canceled after the BP blowout, and open up protected
coastal waters--East, West and in Alaska--to drilling.
The bills would make regulation of offshore drilling even
weaker than it was before the spill. They would also do
almost nothing to solve the problems of $4-a-gallon gas.
Here's the hard truth: Prices are set on the world market
by the major producers, OPEC in particular. Even countries
that produce more oil than they need, like Canada, have
little leverage. Canada's prices track ours.
The Energy Information Agency recently projected what would
happen if the nation tripled production on the outer
continental shelf. There would be no price impact at all
until 2020 and only 3 cents to 5 cents a gallon in 2030.
By contrast, the agency found, raising the fuel efficiency
of America's cars would do real good. Increasing the
fleetwide average from roughly 30 m.p.g. today to 60 m.p.g.
in the next 15 years, an ambitious but not implausible goal,
could bring prices down by 20 percent.
Some politicians get it. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana
Democrat, is drafting a bill that seeks to repeal $4 billion
in annual taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry and use the
proceeds to develop more efficient cars and alternative fuel
sources. Mr. Obama has tried twice, without success, to get
rid of those subsidies, and the House voted in March to
preserve them in the current budget.
The tax breaks--fast write-offs for drilling expenses,
generous depletion allowances, and the like--may have been
useful years ago but are wholly unnecessary when oil prices
and industry profits are reaching new highs.
Even John Boehner, the Republican leader, conceded in a
recent ABC News interview that oil companies ``ought to be
paying their fair share.'' When horrified aides reminded him
that ending the subsidies would amount to a tax increase--
anathema among Republicans--he backed off.
Repealing these breaks would reduce the deficit and yield
revenues to be invested in cleaner fuels, while having no
real impact on prices. Mr. Obama may not be able to persuade
the House of these simple truths. But he can and must seize
whatever opportunities are offered in the Senate, involving
himself, not just rhetorically, in the hard but necessary
struggle for a sane energy policy.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans act as if they're trying to
help the consumer with this legislation. But all they're really doing
is helping Big Oil--bigger profits, bigger tax breaks. I mean, the
first quarter earnings for the oil companies were bigger than ever,
billions of dollars in profits. Even BP, even after the disaster a year
ago, was still making huge profits; and, of course, we've got about $4
billion in tax breaks that the Republicans continue to give to the oil
companies.
No more oil is going to be brought to market because of this
legislation. As my colleague from Massachusetts said, we're talking
years before any oil could be brought to market. And at the same time,
we have the huge environmental risks.
The fact of the matter is that the BP oil spill a year ago showed us
the environment risks that are involved with deepwater drilling. And
there was a bipartisan commission that was put forward; Democrat and
Republican testified before the Natural Resources Committee that I
serve on. But no Republican effort is being made to implement those
recommendations and say, okay, we need to do certain things before we
can do offshore drilling in these deepwater areas. Nothing at all. So
when you open up these areas under this legislation to new drilling,
you're just inviting another BP-type spill because nothing is being
done by the Republicans to prevent it.
Now, I would point out there are all kinds of leases out there now,
on land, offshore, that the oil companies can drill and they're not
doing it. They're just stockpiling them. There's more oil production
that's been put forward in the last year or so under President Obama
than ever before. So we're producing oil. No one is saying that you
can't drill in the areas that are already leased. And there's more
production. All we're saying is, why in the world are you risking these
areas that now we know, after the BP spill, shouldn't be put into
production when you've got all kinds of other opportunities out there?
Now, I offered an amendment. The chairman of the Rules Committee said
that we were going to allow a lot of amendments. Well, they didn't
allow my amendment; and my amendment simply said that the Atlantic
coast for the next 5 years under the President's plan is off-limits
because of what happened with BP and that we should keep that in place.
But my amendment was not allowed in order.

{time} 1240

What the President has done and what all of us are saying here is, in
the aftermath of the BP spill, there are certain areas that shouldn't
be allowed offshore production and in which the leases shouldn't go
out. We learned from the BP spill that these areas should be off-limits
because we are concerned about the environmental risks.
In my case in the State of New Jersey, we're talking about billions
and billions of dollars in tourism related to the shore that would be
put at risk if we had another oil spill. That's where the jobs are.
Tourism is the number one industry in the State of New Jersey. Up and
down the Atlantic coast, tourism is a huge business. It creates all
kinds of jobs. What minimal jobs will be created by allowing these
areas to be put out to lease and by allowing the drilling compared to
the risk of the jobs that would be destroyed?
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from the
Wall Street Journal by former Democratic Member Harold Ford.

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2011]

Washington vs. Energy Security

(By Harold Ford, Jr.)

Even former President Clinton calls the Obama
administration's deep water drilling policy `ridiculous.'
When President Obama introduced his energy plan in March,
he pointed out that the U.S. keeps going ``from shock to
trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose
action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button
when they fall again.''
It's true that since the Nixon administration U.S. leaders
have all made the same commitment to cutting our reliance on
foreign oil, finding reliable sources of clean energy, and
keeping energy prices low. Yet Americans keep hearing only
short-term solutions and narrowly focused rules and
regulations. The U.S. still imports more than half its oil,
gasoline prices are at historic highs, and consumers are
paying the price.
One bipartisan policy tradition is to deny Americans the
use of our own resources. President George H.W. Bush took
aggressive steps to keep off-limits vast supplies of oil and
gas along the coasts of California and Florida. Since then,
the build-up of restrictions, limitations and bans on
drilling (onshore and off) have cost the U.S. economy
billions of dollars while increasing our dependence on
foreign sources of energy.
In the year since the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Obama
administration has put in place what is effectively a
permanent moratorium on deep water drilling. It stretched out
the approval process for some Gulf-region drilling permits to
more than nine months, lengths that former President Bill
Clinton has called ``ridiculous.''
Then there's tax policy. Why, when gas prices are climbing,
would any elected official call for new taxes on energy? And
characterizing legitimate tax credits as ``subsidies'' or
``loopholes'' only distracts from substantive treatment of
these issues. Lawmakers misrepresent the facts when they call
the manufacturing deduction known as Section 199--passed by
Congress in 2004 to spur domestic job growth--a ``subsidy''
for oil and gas firms. The truth is that all U.S.
manufacturers, from software producers to filmmakers and
coffee roasters, are eligible for this deduction.
We won't achieve energy security by restricting our own
companies from drilling or singling them out for punitive
taxes. We're talking about an industry that provides millions
of jobs and, for the foreseeable future, the power for our
economic growth.
So our focus right now has to be to find ways to encourage
domestic energy supplies, even while we encourage new sources
of energy. President Obama is right that this isn't a long-
term solution. But we can't lose sight of what the country
needs today.
Here are a few steps to take:
First, let's conduct a comprehensive review of existing
policies, rules and restrictions and root out any that
needlessly hamper energy production at home. Do the existing
environmental rules, for example, accurately reflect the
industry's technological advancements in the ability to
safely recover oil and gas supplies?
Second, let's develop the skills we need to find new and
better ways to recover domestic supplies of energy--and to
develop next-generation fuels to secure the future. That
means encouraging more students to study math, science and
other disciplines this industry needs.
And third, let's stop demonizing Big Oil to score political
points. It does nothing to encourage the new talent, new
ideas, and new entrepreneurs who are most likely to make
breakthroughs in new sources of energy.
The kickoff of the presidential campaign season and the
spike in fuel prices offer an opportunity to constructively
debate a comprehensive national energy strategy. Effective
policies will ensure sufficient domestic production and the
healthy operation of U.S. companies abroad, which together
will provide the secure, affordable energy supply that
Americans need.

[[Page H3174]]

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from
Texas (Mr. Flores).
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
and of H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium
Act.
When gas prices hit $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008, Congress and
President Bush lifted a decades-old ban on drilling, allowing for
exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. However, these
plans were postponed or cancelled by the Obama administration, and we
are now back in the same situation of high gas prices, of squeezing the
budgets of American families and small businesses. The facts are clear:
The current administration is blocking American energy production and
is hurting middle class America. On the other hand, they are also using
American tax dollars to help offshore drilling in Brazil.
Since President Obama took office, the national average price of
gasoline has nearly doubled to $4 a gallon in most States, and the
energy policies of the Obama administration have resulted in the loss
of hundreds of thousands of barrels of domestic daily oil production.
To make matters worse, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, offshore energy production is expected to drop 13
percent in 2011.
It is not too late to change our country's course of action and to
begin to undo the damage done by these policies. The energy reserves
off our coasts and under our public lands belong to the American
taxpayers, and should be utilized in an efficient and environmentally
safe manner to create jobs, to grow our economy, to lower energy
prices, and to enhance our national security by reducing our dependence
on foreign oil.
The Federal Government also has the ability to realize substantial
revenues through the leasing of these areas, which will help pay down
our $14 trillion national debt. According to the CBO, enacting H.R.
1231 would increase receipts to the Federal Treasury by about $800
million over the next 10 years. This important legislation will require
the Obama administration to expand access to areas offshore that
contain the most oil and natural gas reserves. When we do so, we will
improve our energy security and grow American jobs.
I want to thank Chairman Hastings for his efforts in bringing H.R.
1231, along with two other American Energy Initiative bills, to the
floor. I also would like to offer my special appreciation to Chairman
Hastings for his support in allowing me to offer an amendment to H.R.
1229, which includes language from a bill I recently introduced, which
extends certain leases affected by the administration's moratorium for
1 year.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am amazed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
continue to be apologists for Big Oil. The fact of the matter is that
Big Oil in this country is about making profits for Big Oil. They don't
seem to care very much about the consumer.
I hold this chart up, Mr. Speaker, just to kind of prove a point
that, notwithstanding the fact that they're raising prices on
consumers, in the first quarter of this year as compared to last year,
all of these oil companies--Exxon, Oxy, Conoco, Chevron, BP--all made
record profits. Exxon is up 69 percent. They made $10.7 billion in
profits in the first quarter.
What is particularly outrageous is they're making all this money, and
my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to protect the
subsidies and the tax breaks that they get. It's outrageous. They cut
money for poor families who are trying to heat their homes in the
winter; and on the other hand, they go out of their way to protect Big
Oil from any amendments that we could bring to the floor here to be
able to go after these subsidies and tax breaks.
My colleague from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee,
says, oh, he's sympathetic. Well, we don't want your sympathy. We want
your vote. I brought this amendment to go after the subsidies that the
oil companies currently enjoy, taxpayer-funded subsidies, three times
in the Rules Committee. All three times, it was voted down. So enough
is enough.
In terms of this rule, I want to point out something. There was an
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). It was
germane, and it complied with the Republicans' new cut-go rules. It
simply required that anyone who gets a lease under this bill would have
to give preference to hiring veterans--the men and women who we have
sent over to Afghanistan and Iraq. When they come back, we ought to go
out of our way to make sure they have jobs. This amendment was voted
down in the Rules Committee, an amendment to help our veterans.
I mean, it is unbelievable to me that the Republicans voted this
amendment down. Maybe there's a reason someone could give me on the
other side of the aisle as to why this was ruled out of order. It was
germane, and it complied with the cut-go rules; but the idea that we're
not going out of our way to help our veterans, I think, is
unconscionable.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of
the Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act, which will
lift the President's ban on new offshore drilling by requiring the
administration to do what my constituents in southeastern and eastern
Ohio have been calling for Congress to do: open up for production the
areas that contain the most oil and natural gas resources right here in
America.
The hardworking people of my district have made it abundantly clear
that their number one concern is the rising price of gas at the pumps.
Over the past week, this side of the aisle has begun to show the
American people that we are serious about addressing our energy crisis
and that we will not succumb to bringing up bogus proposals that may
poll well in the court of public opinion but that will only result in
higher gas prices.
In 2008, our country was also experiencing record high prices at the
pump, and in a logical and commonsense response to those record-high
prices, that Congress and that President took action to end a decades-
long drilling ban offshore by opening up new areas in the Atlantic and
the Pacific Oceans for exploration and production. Unfortunately, this
administration has reversed the will of the people, and has taken steps
to reinstate this moratorium from new lease sales in these offshore
areas.
Not only has the administration abandoned the plan to go forward with
opening up new areas for production, but they have also cancelled
previously scheduled lease sales. We are now again faced with rising
prices at the pump, and instead of being able to focus on new ways to
make America's energy secure, we are forced to bring up legislation
that will do again what Congress did 3 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, recently, the Secretary of the Interior testified before
the Natural Resources Committee. Between his testimony and answers to
questions, he made it painfully obvious that this administration does
not have a real national energy strategy. Today, with this legislation,
we're going to help the Secretary and the administration take a big
step toward developing a real energy plan for America. This legislation
requires the administration and the Secretary of the Interior to set
specific goals on the amount of oil and natural gas production that is
estimated from each of the 5-year lease plans contained in this
legislation.
During my 26-plus-year career in the United States Air Force, we set
goals and objectives, and then we set out about working hard to not
only meet them but to exceed them. This legislation sets the production
goals at a level that is triple the level of America's current
production, and it therefore reduces foreign imports by one-third.
Once this legislation is adopted, we will send a signal to the world
oil markets that America means business when it comes to our energy
future. I am fully confident that if we set the bar high, as this
legislation does, American drive and ingenuity will rise to the
occasion and will exceed this goal.

[[Page H3175]]

{time} 1250

If we're going to become energy secure, Mr. Speaker, we must increase
our energy production, not limit it, and we need to commit ourselves to
developing our own resources. That is why I strongly support the
Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
It appears, based on what I'm hearing here, that what the Republicans
are dedicated to is helping the oil companies make more profits but
doing nothing to help the consumer.
With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the ranking member on the Resources Committee, Mr.
Markey.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
So here's where we are. The Republicans--this is unbelievable--are
blocking any legislation from passing that is going to have new safety
rules for drilling off of the beaches of the United States 1 year after
the BP spill. They're blocking any new safety legislation to make sure
that the United States, which has four times the fatality rate of
countries in Europe in drilling off our shores, has rules that are put
on the books to make sure that those worst of all safety violators,
these companies that drill off of our shores, have those new safety
rules.
Number two, the Republicans are fighting any attempts to take away
the $4 billion in tax breaks which the American consumer gives to the
oil companies each year, even as the oil companies report ExxonMobil,
$10 billion; Shell, $8 billion; BP, $7 billion; Chevron, $6 billion, et
cetera, for the last 3 months. That's how much money they made. The
Republicans think that's not enough money, even as people get tipped
upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets at the gas pump.
No, not enough money. They also need to give the oil companies tax
breaks. That's the Republican perspective.
What else do they do? They also slash the renewable energy budget,
the clean energy budget, by 70 percent. So you're a kid out there in
America; you're in the sixth grade; you're looking to America for the
21st century.
Here's what the Republicans are doing:
They're slashing the solar and wind budget by 70 percent;
They are saying to the oil companies, you don't need any more safety
off of the beaches to drill;
They're saying that your profits are not windfall profits, which, of
course, they are in the oil industry.
But instead, here's what we're going to let you do:
We are going to let you drill off of the beaches of California for
oil, off of the beaches of Florida for oil. We're going to let you
drill off the beaches--3 miles off of the coast, by the way--off the
beaches of Cape Cod, of Georges Bank. We're going to turn Georges Bank
into ExxonMobil's Bank. We're going to turn, not shellfish into a
product that we sell, but Shell Oil will be out there. That's the
agenda for the Republican Party.
This is almost surreal that they want to take the tax breaks that the
oil industry has, fight like the devil to protect them, even as they
want to cut Medicare for Grandma and cut wind and solar as the energy
sources for the future. It's almost like they think it's 1958 and
gasoline is 28 cents a gallon and we're all cruising around pretending
that we're not part of the rest of the world.
This debate today is kind of a microcosm of what's wrong with
Republican policies. That before, I think; people want themselves to
see oil rigs off of their beaches in California and North Carolina, in
Massachusetts and Maine, the least I think that you owe these people is
that you have new safety rules that reflect what happened. You have
that BP commission report implemented. But you guys are just running
ahead as though nothing has happened.
By the way, do you want to know what else is really wrong here? We
know because of Goldman Sachs that this $20 to $30 a barrel of oil of
increase in price over the last 11 weeks comes from speculators. What
you're doing is you guys are trying to kneecap the speculator cops on
the beat so that they're not even out there policing these speculators,
and you're trying to reduce the budget for the speculator cops, the
people who will be chasing down these speculators.
So it's all so ExxonMobil, it's all so Shell and BP and Chevron and
ConocoPhillips--and, by the way, at least you're true to your colors.
At least this is really what you believe in. You don't believe in wind
and solar, so you're cutting that budget by 70 percent, and you want to
open up the beaches as well for drilling in the States that don't want
oil rigs off their beaches. I mean, my goodness, this is something that
at least you should be able to respect.
You also disapprove the using of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a
weapon to tell speculators, you could go bankrupt because we're going
to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 700 million barrels of oil
that the U.S. has stored.
This is a very important debate to have. I'm glad we're having it
today because this ``Drill, baby, drill'' just says, yeah, your policy
is not all of the above; it's oil above all. Everything else gets
defunded.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are demanding relief at the pump and for
Congress to create an environment that creates jobs. Republicans are
answering that demand with practical solutions that will have an
immediate impact on the price of gasoline, energy security, and jobs.
Liberal Democrats are still adhering to the sort of demagoguery that
may score political points with their base, but that doesn't create a
single job nor does it reduce the cost of energy by 1 cent.
Republicans strongly believe that energy security depends on strong
domestic energy production. The liberal Democrats and President Obama
have actively blocked and delayed American energy production,
destroying jobs, raising energy prices, and making the U.S. more
reliant on unstable foreign countries for energy. This is hurting
American families and small businesses who are vital to creating the
new private sector jobs we desperately need during this time of high
unemployment. The liberal proposals fail to create jobs in America but
help create jobs overseas for the citizens of foreign nations.
President Obama's reckless moratorium on domestic energy production
has cost the gulf coast region 12,000 jobs since it was enacted last
year. His moratorium now threatens an additional loss of over 24,000
jobs in the gulf and 36,000 jobs nationwide if we do not reverse this
dangerous liberal endeavor.
The Republicans believe that energy security will not only create
jobs but will also help reduce the deficit. According to the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 1231 will generate $800
million in revenue over 10 years while reducing foreign oil imports by
nearly one-third.
The solution provided by the Democrat elites? More taxes, resulting
in higher costs that will get passed on to American families. The
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says Democrat tax increases
``would make oil and natural gas more expensive for U.S. customers,''
and even some liberals admit ``it would cost thousands of jobs.''
Renowned economist Dr. Joseph Mason has stated that Republican
proposals for domestic energy production will create 1.2 million
American jobs.
If the liberal Democrats care about our energy security, prices at
the pump, job creation, and strengthening our domestic energy
capability, they would join Republicans in supporting this rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, American families cannot wait any longer for relief at
the pump. American families cannot wait any longer for jobs. If you
stand with American families, if you stand with American energy
security, and if you stand for job creation in America, I urge my
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Rules Committee talked about all the
people she stands with. I want to know

[[Page H3176]]

why she didn't stand with the veterans last night when we had a vote
that would help make sure our veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan would have preference in terms of these so-called new jobs
that were going to be created. I find it unconscionable that the Rules
Committee did not make that amendment in order, the Boswell amendment.
At this time, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
Ms. HIRONO. Yes, indeed, the taxpayers are waiting for relief at the
pump, but this bill is not it. I rise in opposition to this rule and to
H.R. 1231.

{time} 1300

Once again the House will vote on Republican legislation that takes a
``let's put all our eggs in one basket'' approach to our national
energy policy. And what's their answer to high gas prices? Drill for
more oil offshore, and preserve taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil. Big Oil
gets $4 billion in subsidies from us taxpayers. This helped them rake
in $35 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2011 alone.
Meanwhile, my taxpayers in Hana, Maui, have to pay over $6 per gallon
to fill up their cars to go to work. Do these taxpayers get a subsidy?
No. People in Hawaii pay the highest gas prices in the country. When I
was in Hawaii recently, my constituents were astonished to hear about
the record profits and continuing subsidies that are provided to Big
Oil.
At the same time that the Republican majority is defending subsidies
for oil companies which don't lower the price at the pump, they're also
working to cut Federal funding for clean, alternative energy, public
transit, and energy efficient programs. They also, adding insult to
injury, want to disarm the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which
is the main cop on the beat when it comes to oil speculation.
Republicans also want to pretend that there are no consequences to the
near indiscriminate drilling authorized by these bills. Less than a
year after the catastrophic BP oil spill, which was caused by lax
regulation of a dangerous industry, they want us to undo the reforms
that have been made. And for what?
The Energy Department's Energy Information Administration estimates
that drilling authorized by these bills may lead to a measly 1.6
percent increase in domestic energy production from 2012 to 2030. That
is not a prescription for relieving pain at the pump in the short term,
and it's a poor strategy for long-term energy security. Instead, we
need to invest in fuel-efficient technologies and expand our
transportation options. We need to focus on harnessing clean
alternative energy sources, and that way, we can leave our children a
cleaner, healthier planet and wean ourselves from foreign oil. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this rule and against this drill-only
bill.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, can I respectfully ask how much time remains
on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 13 minutes.
The gentleman from Massachusetts has 12\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from
California (Mr. Denham).
Mr. DENHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
The rule we have before us today allows for an open process and
provides this body the opportunity to debate an issue of increasing
importance to our constituents back home. The future of our energy
policy in this country is at stake here today, which is why I'm proud
to cosponsor this bill reversing the President's offshore drilling
moratorium.
This past weekend, I visited with a number of constituents at gas
stations throughout my district. Some are asking, Will we get to $5 gas
prices? If you come to my district, we're already there. I visited
Wawona, California, last week. Everybody likes to talk about tourism.
In California, we've got a great deal of tourism. But everybody that I
talked to at that pump said, We planned this trip quite a while ago. We
can't afford to do it today. We wouldn't have done it had we known gas
prices would have been this high. Well, gas prices are still going up.
We're afraid that in Wawona, we'll see $6 gas prices. You want to
affect tourism, try hitting America's pocketbook at $6 a gallon.
But it's not just tourism. If you go to one of the farms in my
district, diesel gas has gone up. If you are frustrated about paying
higher gas prices, wait until you pay higher grocery prices, because in
California's great ag economy, the prices are going up. In fact, some
crops are going to stay in the field this year just because we can't
afford the gas to bring them to market.
Parents are feeling the same thing. You know, as I'm going to swim
practice over the weekend, talking to parents, they are frustrated
about just being able to get their kids to school every day. You think
this bill won't do something for gas prices? It's common sense to know
if we've got a greater supply here in our great Nation, gas prices are
going to go down. We want American jobs. We want to be self-reliant.
We talk about veterans here on this floor. I am a veteran. I served
my country. I don't want to be reliant on foreign oil anymore.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. DENHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
A lot is always talked about us utilizing 25 percent of the world's
gas. And where we disagree is the number of 2 percent of the world's
oil. It's not a disagreement. The fact is, we've got 65 percent of the
world's reserves between our oil shale. You just have to be willing to
go get it. Natural gas, we want to use natural gas. Let's utilize our
own natural gas. We have some of the largest oil reserves in the world.
We just have to be willing to have American jobs and reduce our
reliance on foreign oil.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does absolutely nothing to lower gas prices,
and it does everything to increase profits for the big oil companies.
Again, I repeat the question that I have been asking over and over
again: why was the amendment that would help our veterans get jobs on
their return from Iraq and Afghanistan defeated in the Rules Committee?
I have no idea why.
At this point, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me
time, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
The bills proposed by the Republican leadership today, H.R. 1229 and
H.R. 1231, do nothing to lower the high gas prices burdening America's
families today. That's why I will be offering legislation that will
produce real fuel savings for consumers, reduce our dependence on
imported oil, and stimulate American manufacturing.
The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act proposes real solutions to high
gas prices by helping America develop the next generation of high-tech
fuel-efficient vehicles. I hope my colleagues will see that this is a
better alternative to the bills that are being voted on today.
First, this bill has broad support, unlike the Republican measures
before us. My bill passed last Congress with a bipartisan majority. A
majority of the Members in the House today have already voted in favor
of this legislation. Unlike the Republican bills, this legislation is
supported by both business groups, like the Chamber of Commerce and the
National Association of Manufacturers, as well as the League of
Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, proving that you can support
the economy while also protecting the environment.
Second, this bill will quickly result in real cost savings to
consumers. Technologies have already been developed to achieve
remarkable fuel savings, and putting more money into R&D increases the
speed in which new technologies can be adapted and used. Unlike the
Republican drilling plan, which will take nearly a decade to produce
results, technologies being developed today can be commercialized and
put into cars in the very near future. I have visited auto companies
and suppliers in my district and have seen firsthand the level of
technological advancement. For example, they have

[[Page H3177]]

technologies that are ready to be commercialized that can improve
efficiency by 30 percent and sometimes more. That means you can drive
your car 30 percent further on the same tank of gas. That represents
real savings to consumers.
A large focus of this bill is on commercializing those technologies
so that they can be brought to consumers and start reducing gas bills
today, not 10 years from now. This bill also targets fuel savings in
medium- and heavy-duty trucks. It's widely known that there are huge
efficiency gains to be made in these vehicles. By placing a greater
focus on research and development in this area, we can achieve the
greatest bang for the buck. More efficient trucks also yield consumer
savings because it will reduce transportation costs of food and other
goods that we buy at the store. The fuel savings we receive from these
technological advancements in cars and trucks will have a national
security benefit as well. Simply put, the bill reduces the amount of
oil we import from unfriendly nations. Sixty percent of our petroleum
needs today are met by imported supplies. Reducing the demand for
imported oil is one of the best ways to meet our energy independence
goals and end the immense transfer of American dollars to undemocratic
and unfriendly nations.
Finally, the legislation supports American manufacturing and high-
paying jobs. Rising gas prices are going to drive up demand for
advanced vehicles around the world, and it is in our national interest
to ensure that the research, development, and manufacturing happens
right here in the United States. That's why this bill was included in
the Make It in America agenda, a plan to rebuild American manufacturing
and create well-paying jobs, unveiled by House Democrats and Democratic
Whip Hoyer last week.

{time} 1310

The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act epitomizes the goals of Make It
in America by ensuring that our country remains a leader in producing
the cars and trucks of the future and supporting high-tech research and
engineering jobs right here at home.
Fuel-efficient vehicle research is a win/win for our economy. It
creates jobs and makes transportation more affordable for American
families.
There is no doubt in the years ahead that more Americans will be
driving hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery electric vehicles, and cars
and trucks powered by hydrogen fuel or natural gas. The only question
is whether these new technologies will be researched, developed and
manufactured here in the United States or overseas.
At the same time, domestic automotive and commercial vehicle
manufacturers and suppliers have increasingly limited resources for
research and development of advanced technologies. That's why the
Advanced Vehicle Technology Act will create partnerships between the
Department of Energy and private companies, and ensure that the
American automobile industry and manufacturing base will continue to be
globally competitive and that, as a Nation, we will not trade our
dependence for foreign oil for a dependence on foreign batteries and
other emerging technologies.
This bill does what the American people expect from us. It bridges
the partisan and ideological divide.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. PETERS. It's legislation that has support from the business
community, the environmental community and the labor movement. We must
stop voting on bills like the ones the majority is offering that pit
priorities against each other, and, instead, we need to move
legislation like my bill that brings our priorities together.
This legislation will lower costs for consumers, reduce the amount of
oil we import from countries that don't like us, and create and sustain
manufacturing and R&D jobs here in the United States.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can support
this legislation to Make It in America.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).
(Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American
families, the farmers and the fishermen, especially those across north
Florida and northwest Florida who are being crushed today by these
incredibly high rising fuel costs.
I represent and I am privileged to represent the largest land mass
district in Florida, and I'll tell you, those that make their living in
farming, those that make their living in one of our eight coastal
counties in the fishing industry, they are being hammered day in, day
out, day in, day out by rising fuel costs, especially the cost of
diesel fuel.
We have the responsibility to American people today to alleviate our
energy crisis through tough economic times. We can do this and must
achieve this important goal while protecting the sensitive coastal
regions.
And, yes, I took my baby steps on the beaches of Panama City, so I
understand how important our environmental concerns are. My family's
been there since Florida became a State, so I understand how critically
important our environment is.
But at the same time, we must also preserve our military mission
capabilities. We are the home of Tyndall Air Force Base and the home of
the F-22, and so I understand how critical they are to our communities
and our environment and our economies down in Florida as well.
We must do all these things while at the same time making sure that
what we do in this House protects the American family budget and,
especially in regards to rising fuel costs. Most family budgets today
are spending over 10 percent, right at, near and over 10 percent of
their family budget on rising fuel costs.
Unfortunately, some of our colleagues today believe the best thing to
do, rather than to get out of this hole, is to dig this hole even
deeper. As my grandfather would have said, Son, that would violate
walking around sense? Okay? Instead of getting out of the hole, you
just drive and dig a deeper hole.
This chart that I'm looking at right here beside me that I want you
to see talks about the declining crude production in the Gulf of
Mexico. In mid 2009, the United States was producing 1.73 million
barrels of oil per day in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Energy
Information Administration, that number will fall to 1.18 million
barrels per day next year.
Earlier we heard one of my colleagues talk about the sixth graders
around the country. Well, sixth graders, I will tell you, they
understand and they will soon learn in economics that, in order to
reduce the price, you have to have more of something. That's simple.
They're going to learn that much in basic economics. You have to have
more of it.
What does this drastic reduction in the gulf exploration mean for
people in Florida's Second Congressional District? They mean that if
they go to the marina to try to go catch their two fish this year per
day out in the Gulf of Mexico, that they're going to spend almost $6
per gallon of gas to fill that boat up--$6 per gallon of gas. I'm
telling you, that is unbearable.
The second chart that I have right here is the exodus of American
jobs, rigs leaving the gulf for foreign waters under the Obama
administration's de facto moratorium.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. REED. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. You will see on here that jobs are leaving the Gulf
of Mexico, and they're going to the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt,
Australia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone and, as we know, our favorite pick
of late is Brazil.
I'm saying that what we have to do in this body today is we have to
make sure that we put our lives in the lives of the American family,
and we have to make sure that it is time today to do what this body
should have done many, many years ago, and we have to make sure that we
take care of them and make sure that we tap into our natural resources
that we have in this country.
I stand today and rise in support of this rule as well as the
underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 5 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. This bill does nothing, nothing at all
to lower

[[Page H3178]]

fuel costs, and everything to increase the profits by big oil
companies. I think it shows where the priority of the Republican Party
is at this moment.
At this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1367,
the Advanced Vehicle and Technology Act and ask my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question.
This legislation rewards American workers and American innovation.
It's a true investment in American ingenuity and will help us Make It
in America. By reauthorizing the Department of Energy's vehicle
technologies research program, the Freedom car and the 21st century
truck partnerships, the next generation of advanced vehicles will be
built in America.
The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act is one important part of the
Democratic jobs plan, a jobs plan that focuses on making it in America
because there is no way that we can maintain our position as a great
economic power without making things in America.
Making things in America is a key part of rebuilding our Nation's
economy. It's about reversing the manufacturing job loss trend,
recommitting ourselves to the things that created America's middle
class, good-paying jobs, world-class education, top-notch research and
sound infrastructure.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1367, because when we
invest in American ingenuity and innovation, when we Make It in
America, our middle class will be strengthened and our Nation will be
prosperous.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
Mr. LANDRY. Hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy. Reuters', April 27, reported
that the President urged other countries to lift crude oil output, to
lift crude oil output. How come, if other countries increase their
output, it affects the price; but yet, if we increase our output, it
does not?
So if other countries promote their drill, baby, drill, it affects
the price; but yet, when we in America try to drill, we don't affect
the price, according to my colleagues on the other side.
Electric cars. So let's get this straight. They want Americans to
charge their car up on a system, on a grid system that's already
failing and broken. We've had rolling brownouts and blackouts in this
country, and that's what we want to plug our cars into? I'm sorry. No.

{time} 1320

Then they say there are the hybrid cars. I can't pull my boat with a
Prius. I can't do it. I enjoy going fishing. I enjoy the time that I
get to take my little boy out and teach him what my father and my
grandfather taught me, and I have to do that pulling a boat with my
Chevrolet pickup truck. I sure wish that, when I fill it up, that it
was affordable.
And we can make it in America. Let's make American energy. That's
what this bill, our bill, does. That's why I rise in support of this
rule and this bill. If we want to make things in America, let's start
with making our energy. When we can make our energy in America, we can
make our products here.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Clarke).
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that the
gentleman from Louisiana had it partially right. You know, the way we
create jobs, we do it the old-fashioned way. We import great cars from
Detroit.
So I urge you to defeat the previous question, support the bill that
we have been talking about that will create great fuel-efficient cars,
that will create jobs, and also save our motorists a lot of money
because they won't have to fill up their cars with this expensive
gasoline. They will be able to power their vehicles through other
alternative sources of energy.
It's good for our environment, it's great for our country, it will
save the motorists money, but, most importantly, it will create jobs.
Let's import these good-paying jobs by importing fuel-efficient
vehicles from the city of Detroit. That's how you make it in America.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of gas is quickly
becoming the hottest topic in any meeting, and especially in my
hometown and in my neck of the woods in southwest Washington State.
I hosted a job creators forum about 1\1/2\ weeks ago, and one of the
biggest issues I heard about was the rising cost of gas prices.
One gentleman owns a pizza delivery operation. They make pizzas and
deliver them. You can all imagine what rising gas prices do to a small
business like this. They've had to let people go in the past, and
they're certain to hire people again. One of his requests was: make
this affordable. One of the ways we can do that is by supporting this
bill, because we open up the opportunity to get more domestic energy.
And that's the reality.
I can't wait for the day when our country no longer is dependent on
fossil fuels, when we don't need gasoline or we don't need to get it
from countries that don't like us. I can't wait for that day. And I
support those explorations of alternative energies. But the problem is
we're not there yet. We are not there today. The reality is, every time
gas goes up, we lose jobs, and in my neck of the woods, where we have
double-digit unemployment, 13 percent, 14 percent going on 3 years, it
is unacceptable that this Congress would sit on its hands and do
nothing while the price of gas goes up.
If we explore for energy here domestically and we do it now, we're
going to bring relief today to those small business owners in our
region. They're going to be able to hire more people.
As we all go back to our districts next week, we know we're going to
hear from moms and dads, we're going to hear from business owners about
the high cost of gas. I invite my Democratic colleagues to join with
us. Let's look our constituents in the eye and say: we supported
legislation that will lower energy prices today to meet their needs.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I just want to remind the gentlewoman that the Department of Energy
says that if we go ahead with this plan, prices will go down by 3 cents
to 5 cents in the year 2030.
If you're serious about alternative forms of energy, then my question
is, Why have you defunded all the programs that would fund those new
clean, green jobs?
While my Republican friends cut Medicare; while they cut fuel
assistance for elderly people who can't afford the cost of fuel during
the cold months; while they cut Pell Grants; while they go out of their
way to protect the tax cuts of Donald Trump and millionaires while
putting all the burden to reduce the deficit on middle class families;
while they protect the subsidies for big oil companies, it is shameful.
It is shameful that with the record profits that Big Oil is making,
that taxpayers continue to subsidize them by billions of dollars. It is
unconscionable.
Do you want to reduce the deficit? My friends on the other side go
after programs that benefit the poor. They protect programs like
corporate welfare that goes to big oil companies.
We should be investing in alternative forms of energy. We should be
investing in cleaner and greener technologies. That's what we have been
trying to do, but my friends on the other side have been obstructing
everything that we have proposed.
They say they want to not be so reliant on fossil fuels in the
future, and yet they cut the very programs that will allow us to become
more energy independent. This bill here will do nothing, absolutely
nothing, zero, to impact the price of gasoline. It does nothing.
Everybody knows how Big Oil operates, and they do whatever they want
to do. At a time when they're raising their prices, they're going to
make more money this year than they did last year. It's outrageous what
they're doing to the American people, how they're gouging the American
people.
This bill is not an answer to anything. It is just a sound bite for
them to go home and say, hey, we did something, knowing it will never
pass the Senate, but also knowing that even if it did pass the Senate
and if the President signed it, it would mean nothing.

[[Page H3179]]

So rather than focusing on things to help create jobs, to help make
it in America, to help create more products in this country, we are
going through these ridiculous exercises every week on different
subjects; and today it happens to be a bill that is a big wet kiss to
Big Oil.
To me, this is the wrong thing we should be taking our time up doing.
We should be talking about how should we create jobs in this country,
how do we put people back to work. And, yes, we should be talking about
ways that we could truly reduce the cost of energy for consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I am urging that we defeat the previous question. I will
offer an amendment, if we defeat the previous question to the rule, to
provide that, immediately after the House adopts the rule, it will
bring up H.R. 1367, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2011,
introduced by Representative Peters.
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. One final thing, Mr. Speaker. Again, we had an
amendment in the Rules Committee offered by Mr. Boswell that would help
give hiring preferences to our veterans who are risking their lives in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and it was defeated. That is an outrage.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that American
companies develop the next generation of high-tech fuel-efficient
vehicles. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REED. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on this rule and on this bill, I think this side of the
aisle is demonstrating to all of America that we are listening.
Right now, with gas prices going through the roof, right now, with
people suffering high unemployment across the Nation, we have before us
a rule and a bill that will undoubtedly create jobs, 1.2 million jobs,
according to economist Dr. Joseph Mason.
We have a bill and a plan that is going to bring us closer to less
dependency on foreign energy supplies. It will reduce foreign oil
imports by nearly one-third.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the aisle are going to deal with the
American people in an honest fashion. We are not going to scare the
American people. We are going to have an open and honest conversation
with the American people. We will lead. And what we are doing here is
answering a call that the American people have reached out to us to do,
and that is to commit to our domestic supplies of energy so that we
have energy supplies that will allow manufacturers in the private
sector to create the new opportunities for generations of Americans
that are yet to come.
This is not a bill that is about protecting Big Oil. This is not
about tax subsidies. I take great disagreement with my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle when they say we are fighting for tax
subsidies for Big Oil. What they are talking about is intangible
drilling costs. They are talking about basic tax policy where there are
income and expenses that are being calculated and deducted off income
taxes. It goes back to my life in the private sector when I read income
and expense sheets. All we are talking about are expenses, not tax
subsidies.
If we want to engage in rhetoric, that's fine. But we are focused on
the substance of the issue, and that substance is getting Americans
back to work, 1.2 million jobs under this proposal. We will generate
$800 million in revenue over 10 years, and we are going to lead.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying
legislation by voting in favor of both.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 257 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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.
1367) to provide for a program of research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application in vehicle
technologies at the Department of Energy. 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 Science, Space, and
Technology. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 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 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. REED. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H3180]]

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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________