[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[House]
[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.

                          ____________________