[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6690-6702]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1229, PUTTING THE GULF OF MEXICO 
    BACK TO WORK ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1230, 
              RESTARTING AMERICAN OFFSHORE LEASING NOW ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.

[[Page 6691]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 245

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1229) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act to facilitate the safe and timely production of 
     American energy resources from the Gulf of Mexico. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The amendment recommended by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall 
     be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
     be in order except those printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 1230) to require the Secretary of the Interior to 
     conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to 
     the bill shall be in order except those printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  In the engrossment of H.R. 1229, the Clerk shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 1230, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 1229;
       (2) conform the title of H.R. 1229 to reflect the addition 
     of H.R. 1230, as passed by the House, to the engrossment;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (4) conform cross-references and provisions for short 
     titles within the engrossment.

                              {time}  0920

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Utah is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 245 provides for 
the consideration of two very important bills, H.R. 1229, the Putting 
the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, and H.R. 1230, the Restarting 
American Offshore Leasing Now Act, both under a structured rule. With 
many amendments, all of which are Democrat amendments having been made 
in order, this is a very fair rule.
  I commend the sponsor of the two bills, the chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, for his leadership in 
bringing both of these bills to the House.
  H.R. 1229 is a bill that goes to the heart of the bureaucratic 
delays, which are preventing the approval of drilling permits within 
the Gulf of Mexico; and it modifies the standards and procedures 
governing Federal leases and permits in order to streamline the 
process, making the development of these domestic resources a reality 
instead of the status quo of paying lip service to drilling and then 
stifling drilling through bureaucratic inaction.
  H.R. 1230 is a bill that would direct the sale of oil and gas leases 
within the Outer Continental Shelf, reversing a failed administration 
policy of canceling and delaying those processes.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years, many Republicans have come to 
this floor and have sung the same refrain of ``show us the jobs.'' It 
was, indeed, a nice song and a catchy tune--so catchy that the minority 
of today seems to have been picking up on that kind of song as well. I 
don't expect to hear that today, or at least we ought not to hear it 
today, because the two bills before us under this rule are real bills 
that create real jobs for people.
  Unlike the bills we have seen over the past couple of years which 
have led us to a situation where today there are twice as many workers 
in the government as there are in all of manufacturing in this Nation, 
which is an exact reverse of the situation this Nation was in in 1960, 
these are not going to be government jobs which attack the taxpayers 
and suck the money out of their wallets to fund them. These are going 
to be real jobs that grow the private sector, that expand the economy, 
that provide wealth, and that will provide, actually, millions of new 
government revenues coming into this country.
  The situation we find ourselves in today with regard to energy is one 
that is detrimental to everybody. Everyone who goes to the pump to fill 
their cars recognizes the cost is increasing and will continue to 
increase. They recognize that the situation we are in puts all our jobs 
in jeopardy, and it is because of the inaction of this particular 
administration. The President has continually said that he wants to do 
action, to move forward, to develop American energy, but the actions of 
his administration have, quite frankly, failed to meet the rhetoric of 
the administration.
  The problem has always been a fundamental flaw in our Nation's energy 
plan. Last May, the Deepwater Horizon accident occurred, which was a 
tragedy; and we must thank all of those who helped to solve that 
particular problem; but, unfortunately, the administration's response 
to that tragedy has turned it into a catastrophe and one which destroys 
jobs.
  Immediately, a moratorium on all sorts of development was put into 
place. Prior to that moratorium being put into place, there were 52 
approved and pending permits, and that moratorium was lifted in 
October; but of those 52, only 10 permits have been issued since that 
time. Two of them are new in deepwater and are eight of the 52 that 
were originally done. That means there are over 40 still approved and 
still stalled in what has become a de facto moratorium, caused by a 
foot-dragging of this administration that, what one columnist said, is 
moving at a glacial pace. More rigs have left our shore--12--to go to 
other places in the world where they are welcomed and

[[Page 6692]]

where they are developing energy sources, where they don't have to face 
the red tape and the foot-dragging than have actually been approved by 
this administration.
  A perfect example is Seahawk Drilling, a company that had over 500 
jobs and 20 rigs that went into chapter 11 bankruptcy. The president of 
that company stated only one reason for that bankruptcy and that loss 
of jobs, which was the de facto moratorium of inaction done by this 
administration in this area in 2008 in a response to an arbitrary 
drilling ban that was lifted by both the President and Congress. It 
created a 5-year plan. Virginia was supposed to start the exploration 
process in 2011, but the Secretary of the Interior delayed that until 
2012 and then later delayed all exploration on the Atlantic coast until 
after 2017.
  In the Gulf of Mexico, two other sales were canceled and moved out 
from this year, which was when they were supposed to begin, once again 
into next year. It became so bad that a judge in New Orleans gave the 
administration 30 days to start moving on these projects, saying that 
what was happening by this administration was increasingly inexcusable 
and that not acting at all is not a lawful action.
  The result of this has simply been catastrophic for jobs in America. 
The Obama administration has admitted in its official memorandum that, 
for those days of its official moratorium, 12,000 jobs were lost; but 
what is more significant is the de facto moratorium there. An LSU study 
simply said, if this were sustained for 18 months in the gulf area, 
there would be 24,532 jobs lost and in the Nation 36,137 jobs lost 
simply because of what we are not doing in the Gulf of Mexico.
  It is very simple to understand how this works. Each platform that is 
out there drilling has 90 to 150 employees. If you add the production 
team as well as the exploration team, you can multiply that by a factor 
of four. So you have almost per every drilling up to 1,400 jobs that 
are tied to that particular project with $1,800 a week as the average 
wage.
  That means for every one of those drills that is not put back into 
production, it is $5 million to $10 million per month per platform that 
is lost to this economy; and the ripple effect within the economy for 
our energy uses as well as jobs is, once again, staggering as this 
administration is, indeed, going at a glacial pace. In Virginia alone, 
2,000 jobs will be estimated to be lost if the de facto moratorium that 
pushes everything to 2017 is allowed to take place.
  Now, this action, or inaction, by the administration costs every 
American. It costs us at the gas pump as we see the cost of running our 
cars increasing almost daily, and this hurts the poor worse than anyone 
else. It is estimated that every American will pay $700 more this year 
for gasoline than least year. Obviously, those at the lower end of the 
economic scale are the ones who are hurt the most. For every cent that 
is increased in gas at the pump, that is $1 billion that is taken out 
of household incomes in this country; and it makes sure that Americans 
are then put at the mercy of foreign oil development and foreign energy 
sources, which may not necessarily like us, and sometimes they're just 
flat out bad guys.
  It also has other areas in which it has affected everyone--once 
again, those at the lower end of the income scale the most. For every 
dime that diesel goes up, that is $400 million that is added to the 
agricultural industry, which is what we eat, which is tacked onto our 
food prices. You have to have oil for fertilizer. As that goes up, the 
cost of fertilizer goes up; the cost of running machinery goes up; the 
cost of food goes up; the cost of pharmaceuticals, plastics. If you go 
into the emergency room, everything that is not metal has some element 
of oil that developed it, and all of those are increasing.
  Now, there are only two ways that we can handle this situation. 
First, you can go with the old concept of supply and demand and simply 
increase production, which is what these two bills are trying to do; or 
you can go to the approach that this administration seems to be asking 
us to do, which is to cut our standard of living, accept gasoline 
prices at the European level, and beg Saudi Arabia to be nice to us--to 
put our futures in the hands of OPEC and then amazingly say we can also 
solve these problems simply by taxing oil companies at a higher rate.
  Since 2010, the domestic production of energy in this country has 
decreased 16 percent. In this year, next year and the year after that, 
we estimate, unless we make changes, that a quarter of a million 
barrels of oil will be decreased in our production rate in each of 
those years. The only area in which any energy production has been 
increasing is on private property. Unfortunately for this country, 
almost all of the energy that we have, most of the energy that we can 
develop, is on public lands, which is controlled by the government, 
which is doing nothing now to help develop that.
  This is a time where pragmatism is much better than a failed ideology 
of restrictions. Now, what these two bills do is to simply reverse the 
job-killing delays that have been taking place. In H.R. 1229, it 
reforms the law to require leaseholders to receive permits to drill 
before they start drilling; and it will do it for the first time by 
law, not simply by a regulation. It demands that the Secretary of the 
Interior conduct and approve safety revenues, once again, for the first 
time in history.
  More importantly, it ends the de facto moratorium by demanding prompt 
guidelines and action. It says that the Secretary of the Interior will 
have 30 days in which to deal with these issues and then can have up to 
two 15-day extensions--a total of 60 days to do the review.
  Now, while that may seem to some as a quick path, it's not when you 
look at the history of what has been done. Before the moratorium went 
into effect, it was taking 5 to 15 days to do the drilling leases and 
permits.

                              {time}  0930

  One company was done in nine days just recently. What the problem is 
is that most of these are simply not being done simply because of 
inaction. It also says for those that were approved prior to the May 27 
moratorium, you've got 30 days to get them going again. This is plenty 
of time to do the work.
  It also does something else for the first time. It provides an 
expedited hearing process so that legal rights are not lost--they are 
protected--but you will not go back into a concept of a never-ending 
lawsuit moratorium.
  In 1230, the bill recognizes that this year will be the first time 
since 1958 that we have a possibility of no offshore lease sales. And 
it wants to reverse that action to proceed promptly with the 5-year 
plan so that things, for example, in Virginia will be in effect within 
1 year, and those that were scheduled in the gulf can be done within 1 
year of the passage of this bill.
  This bill simply will create billions in Federal Reserve revenues 
coming in, and it will create billions in our economy, and it will 
create jobs.
  I hate to say this, but under President Obama, the cost of energy has 
skyrocketed. The administration has actively blocked and delayed energy 
production. It's cost jobs. It's raised energy prices. It's made the 
United States more reliant on unstable foreign countries for our 
energy. Through the American Energy Initiative, this House is actively 
working to increase American energy production to lower gas prices, to 
create American jobs, to generate revenue to help reduce the deficit, 
and to decrease our dependence on foreign energy.
  The United States Government has had a long history of sporadic 
attempts to respond to oil and gas prices. Usually, we have missed the 
mark. But, unfortunately, oil is still the lifeblood of the world and 
will be for most of our lives. That is why 70 countries and 31 States 
in the United States are involved in the process. Prices are influenced 
by the signals that are given by worldwide circumstances and also by 
government policy.
  These two bills are the first of several signals that this House 
wants to send to the world and to the economy that says our goal should 
be to come as close to economic and energy self-sufficiency and 
independence as possible.

[[Page 6693]]

We are not an energy-poor Nation; and we need to be developing the 
resources in every way possible, including in the gulf, including in 
the Outer Continental Shelf, and including on our land sources. That is 
our future if we want to do anything to create jobs and help the 
American people. That is specifically what these two bills are aimed to 
do.
  With such, Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule and a fair rule; and the 
underlying piece of legislation is entirely worthy of our support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers the BP respill 
bills. That might not be what they are officially called, but it's a 
much more accurate title for this legislation. It's clear that the 
authors of these BP respill bills did not learn any lessons from the 
Deepwater Horizon disasters. These bills would make offshore drilling 
more dangerous for offshore workers, 11 of whom died on the Deepwater 
Horizon. These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for 
the environment, which was coated with 4.1 million barrels of oil along 
the Gulf Coast and is killing fish and wildlife in the area to this day 
as a result of BP's recklessness.
  These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for our 
national security because they reinforce the complete myth that America 
can somehow drill our way out of dependence on oil. And these bills are 
more dangerous for the economy, risking destroying fishing and tourism 
jobs in affected areas.
  But one thing these bills do not do is make filling up at the pump 
any more affordable at all for American families. According to the 
American Petroleum Institute itself, the main advocacy group for oil 
interests, even if we opened all Federal land to oil drilling, 
including offshore areas, including Alaska's wildlife refuge and all 
Federal land that is in the national parks, they can't even say that it 
would reduce gas prices or oil prices. In fact, the cheap oil analyst 
at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for 
AAA, the motorist organization, said: ``This drill, drill, drill thing 
is tired. It's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't 
exist.''
  So if this legislation isn't about reducing the price at the pump, 
what is it about? It's about exploiting our legitimate concerns about 
high gas prices to deliver another huge giveaway to Big Oil, an 
industry that made over $35 billion in profits in the last quarter 
alone. Meanwhile, the majority refuses to end Big Oil's nearly $50 
billion of special interest tax breaks.
  Yesterday in the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern brought forth a bill 
that would have ended the giveaway of tax revenue to Big Oil. 
Unfortunately, the Republican majority chose not to allow that 
amendment in this rule.
  Had that been allowed under the open rule that Mr. McGovern proposed, 
I would have brought forth an amendment on the floor to use those $50 
billion of revenue to reduce the corporate tax rate to help create jobs 
in America. Instead, the Republican majority is continuing to seek to 
keep American taxes high, to keep corporate taxes high, and this is 
another example of a job-destroying bill that keeps taxes high while 
picking winners and losers in the economy and using government 
subsidies to aid an industry that is one of our most profitable 
industries.
  We should allow American businesses of all sizes to compete. The 
America corporate tax rate of 35 percent is higher than most of the 
rest of the world, which is why many companies continue to engage in 
operations overseas. If we can reduce it from 35 percent to 30 or 28 or 
26 percent--and we could have done had Mr. McGovern's amendment passed 
in the Rules Committee yesterday, and that is one of the reasons I 
oppose this rule today--that would create an enormous engine of 
economic growth.
  While frequently the Republicans give lip service to lower taxes, 
they continue to use special interest tax breaks to keep taxes high on 
small- and middle-sized American companies that don't have the same 
lobbyists here in Washington to lobby us for special interest tax 
breaks.
  We know that Big Oil would rather do without the fuss of showing that 
they can drill safely; but that's what this bill, in fact, delivers. 
This legislation states that the Interior Secretary must act on any 
drilling permit within 60 days, or it's automatically approved. What 
should be a very serious process to ensure safe drilling, to ensure 
that there aren't further disasters, and to ensure that jobs are not 
destroyed turns into little more than a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp 
for the further degradation of our economy and of our environment.
  The second bill this rule makes in order claims to restart the 
process, or issuing, of oil and gas leases. Now, what the majority is 
doing in this is essentially validating what the administration has 
already done. The administration has already restarted offshore 
drilling in February. In fact, the administration has announced plans 
to offer all three Gulf of Mexico lease sales that are mandated in this 
bill this year or early next year. Again, this particular policy is one 
that I don't agree with fully with the administration, but I am glad to 
see that the Republican majority is validating President Obama's 
leadership on this energy issue.
  Together, these bills will not relieve pain at the pump, but they 
will increase the chances of another Deepwater Horizon disaster, 
costing lives, livelihoods, and hurting some of our precious natural 
resources. Why? Because that's what Big Oil wants. If Big Oil wants to 
keep taxes high for American companies, if Big Oil wants to destroy 
jobs, then the Republican majority is giving them that. In fact, even 
the problem the majority purports to be addressing with these bills, 
the speed of permitting in the gulf and restarting offshore oil 
drilling, doesn't even exist.
  Here are the facts: Following the temporary pause on deepwater 
drilling last year, what Secretary Salazar listed in October, the oil 
industry wasn't able to demonstrate that it possessed the capacity to 
contain a deepwater blowout until February 2011. Once oil companies 
demonstrated that they had the capability to contain a blowout, the 
first permit was issued 11 days later, February 28, 2011. There have 
now been a total of 10 deepwater drilling permits issued since that 
time. In addition, there have been 39 shallow water permits approved 
since last October, matching the number from before the spill. Let me 
repeat that: matching the number of permits from before the spill. If 
anything, the majority, by acting through this bill, is effectively 
congratulating the administration on its leadership for speedily 
approving permits.
  In addition, in the gulf region, the number of jobs that depend on 
tourism and fishing is five times the number of jobs related to the oil 
and gas industry. Gulf jobs related to oil and gas and other resource 
extraction total about 154,000. The total number of jobs for tourism 
and fishing are 777,000 jobs. So with this bill, the majority is 
putting at risk those 777,000 jobs for the benefit of 154,000. We 
should not put them at risk just to make the permitting process easier 
for Big Oil to exploit.

                              {time}  0940

  Passage of these bills is not good for the gulf coast's economy or 
its ecology, although it is best for Big Oil.
  Again, while I appreciate the Republican majority's efforts to 
validate the leadership of President Obama on energy issues, this rule 
could be a lot better. Rather than keeping corporate taxes high, we 
could help make America more competitive by reducing corporate taxes 
and helping make American businesses more competitive, including the 
critical tourism and fishing industries in the gulf coast.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of very 
quick points, if I could.
  Once again, the purpose of these two bills is to start our process 
going towards Americans having adequate energy supplies to live their 
lives. And it's one of the things that you either increase production 
or you try to cut back. Our goal is to increase the production.

[[Page 6694]]

  The idea that what we are doing is in some way making safety less 
significant is silly. There are new safety rules that have been in 
place. They are ready. They are prepared. They are ready to go forward.
  The myth of subsidies to Big Oil is one of the things also that we 
need to talk about because even my fellow Democrats have admitted that 
the President's plan to push a tax hike on energy taxes does result in 
the loss of American jobs and higher taxes on independent oil and gas 
companies.
  I love the fact that we always spin things by talking about Big Oil. 
But the nonpartisan Politifact.com noted that a majority of the U.S. 
oil production comes not from the biggest multinational oil companies 
but from independent firms. American production activities are 
dominated by these independent producers who drill 95 percent of the 
Nation's natural gas and oil wells, accounting for as much as 67 
percent of the total U.S. natural gas and oil production.
  Often we try to find some kind of straw man which to attack, and the 
idea of Big Oil is one of those easiest ones to do. But in reality, if 
those tax hikes were to go into place on production, you would not be 
hitting the Big Oil companies; you're going to be hitting small 
companies which have 100 or fewer employees, not only offshore, but on 
the shore as well. That is the attack.
  I'm sorry. I am not validating President Obama's leadership on this 
issue. To me, leadership means you do something. Inaction is not 
leadership.
  It's not the government picking winners and losers. What this 
administration is doing by the de facto moratorium, the inability to 
move forward on this issue is simply picking losers, losers in the 
field, losers for America, losers in jobs, and that is wrong.
  This tries to get us going ahead in an area and in a way in which we 
can do it, we should do it, we have the capability of doing it. All we 
simply need to do is do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule 
because my constituents in the State of Rhode Island can no longer wait 
for action to reduce the price of gas at the pump, and this bill does 
nothing at all to address this issue today.
  Just last week the price of gasoline shot up to more than $4 and, as 
we all know, this is an increasingly familiar story for States all 
across this Nation, hurting families and small businesses. And it 
really underscores what I heard from my own constituents, hundreds of 
men, women, and families all throughout Rhode Island in recent weeks. 
We have got to find immediate solutions to lower the price of gas.
  But the legislation before us this morning calling for domestic 
drilling will not provide the short-term relief that's needed right 
now. At the same time, it will make drilling more dangerous for our 
environment, for our economy, and for our national security.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have refused to take up the 
recommendations of the independent commission convened after the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and instead, continue to fight to protect 
Big Oil and continue to fight to protect subsidies while the American 
people are struggling with higher gasoline prices.
  We've got to find solutions to lower the cost of fuel now. We've got 
to find solutions and ways to end the $4 billion in tax breaks that pad 
the profits of Big Oil.
  And the way to do that, Mr. Speaker, is to bring legislation already 
drafted, already introduced to the House floor for a vote immediately 
that would address the issue of the rising cost of gas. Legislation to 
release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and legislation aimed 
at preventing Big Oil from engaging in price-gouging schemes which 
drive up the price of oil at the pump would go much further than 
anything that's in this bill and would help to ease the pain at the 
pump that American families are experiencing.
  We need to do those two things. End the subsidies, and begin to 
address this urgent problem now. And stop taking measures that continue 
to advance the interests of Big Oil rather than the American people.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. For the moment I will reserve the balance of my 
time and enjoy the spin.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
and the underlying bill. We all understand the desire to do something 
about high gas prices, and we all sympathize with families in this 
economy who are struggling with $4 a gallon gasoline.
  But these bills will do nothing to provide American families with 
relief. They could threaten coastal ecosystems and the millions of 
Americans who rely on them.
  It's been a year since we watched the horror in the gulf coast. We 
found that the agencies who oversee offshore drilling and the oil 
companies that engage in it were not prepared for the disaster. And 
Americans will be paying for that failure for years.
  The administration has taken a number of steps to prevent future 
spills. Unfortunately, these bills undermine that process, making 
drilling less safe.
  Instead of pretending as if one of these terrible environmental 
disasters never happened, Congress should implement the recommendations 
of the oil spill commission. We should be pursuing legislation that 
will reduce our dependence on oil by investing in things that give 
American commuters choices, in terms of more efficient vehicles, 
transportation alternatives, alternative fuels.
  This bill, fortunately, will never be enacted into law. But I'm 
disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order any of the 
amendments to repeal unnecessary tax subsidies to the oil industry. At 
a time of record profits, it's adding insult to injury that billions of 
dollars are going to flow to the largest oil companies and make no 
difference to the consumer, no difference in the production of oil. It 
just adds to the bottom line of these international corporations.
  I hope that at some point the House will be able to deal with these 
subsidies, which, even our Republican Speaker recently said, should be 
examined. And I've had legislation ready and ready to go for months 
now, and I hope it gets a chance to be voted on on this floor.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the subsidy issue, the simple 
fact of the matter is that the Republicans are not for free markets. 
But what they are for is Big Oil co-opting free markets. In fact, 70 
percent of all energy-related subsidies go to fossil fuels like oil and 
coal. Less than 5 percent of subsidies go to renewable energies like 
wind and solar.
  The gentleman from Utah pointed out that many of these subsidies help 
small drillers, and, in fact, that can be true. But it is easy to apply 
changes only to the Big Oil companies and not even affect independent 
producers.
  There's simply no excuse not to end this corporate welfare which 
keeps taxes for all Americans who pay their taxes artificially high. In 
fact, at the same time that BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from 
leasing the Deepwater Horizon rig, it turned out that the company was 
using the tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the 
rent for Deepwater Horizon. That tax subsidy cost American taxpayers 
$225,000 a day since the lease for Deepwater Horizon began. And that's 
just one example of many.
  I also want to address some misperceptions regarding President 
Obama's policies regarding oil resources. The Obama administration is 
allowing, on average, more drilling than the Bush administration did. 
In fact, the Obama administration approved more leases in 2010 than the 
Bush administration did in any year except one of his presidency.
  Again, in moving forward and reissuing permits, which the 
administration has already begun to do, this bill helps validate 
President Obama's leadership on this issue.

[[Page 6695]]

  The real issues at hand are the subsidies that the industry continues 
to receive. As long as we continue a policy of using taxpayer dollars 
to artificially pick winners and losers in the economy, the winner here 
being Big Oil, the loser being American taxpayers, we will continue to 
hurt energy security, destroy jobs, and continue to put our environment 
at risk.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0950

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Fleming).
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Bishop.
  I am from Louisiana, and of course these leasing issues, the issues 
of drilling and oil production are very important to my State. And 
certainly any issue with regard to oil spills affects my State the most 
in the last year or so because of the Deepwater Horizon.
  But here is the point I want to make: The President has said that oil 
production in the United States and offshore in the gulf is the highest 
it has ever been. When I asked Secretary Salazar in the Natural 
Resources Committee, he said the same thing. Then I asked Mr. Bromwich 
and he gave the same answer.
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the oil production off the Gulf of 
Mexico peaked at 1.7 million barrels a day. It is now down to 1.5 
million barrels a day, and in the next year it will decrease by another 
225,000 barrels a day. And even if we restore drilling permits at the 
level they have been previously, it will continue to decline over the 
next several years.
  So I think we can ill afford, Mr. Speaker, at a time when our gas 
prices continue to go up, to continue this activity that we have, this 
ruse, where we have a slowatorium off the Gulf of Mexico.
  I think we are up to about 12 permits in the deep water at this 
point. And I was speaking with the gentleman, an expert on this, 
yesterday. He said that we normally pace about 40 or 50 permits a year. 
So that means that we are at a fraction of what the actual permitting 
process would normally be in the best of times.
  Now, some would say, well, we haven't proven that it is safe. Well, 
if that is true, why is the administration releasing permits? Obviously 
that is proof that the administration is comfortable that we can again 
drill in the deep water off the Gulf of Mexico.
  So I say today that with America being at gas prices that will soon 
approach $5 a gallon and the USGS now saying that we now have more 
coal, natural gas, and oil than we have ever thought we would have, 
really more than any other country in the world, including Russia, and 
many more times than what Saudi Arabia has, 1.3 trillion barrels of oil 
equivalent if you add coal, natural gas, and oil, why in the world are 
we pulling back on the exploration and production of these vital 
resources that we have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman.
  I will say in summary, I am from the Fourth District of Louisiana 
where we have a veritable Saudi Arabia of natural gas in my district, 
the most natural gas in North America and the fourth largest deposit in 
the world, and we didn't even know about it 4 years ago. That just goes 
to show you how new technologies in the area of exploration and 
development are creating many more resources than we ever thought we 
had, and it will help stabilize our prices.
  So I ask that we pass this bill today and that we finally get this 
country back onto stable footing.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House 
adopts this rule, we will bring up H.R. 1689, the Big Oil Welfare 
Repeal Act of 2011.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, in its 
analysis of the administration's budget, stated that the repeal of oil 
and gas preferences are ``likely to have no effect on the world price 
of fossil fuels, and any increase in prices for domestically consumed 
fossil fuels are likely to be attenuated.''
  Again, when we talk about ending the giveaway to Big Oil and Gas, it 
will have no effect with regard to actual energy prices.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership 
on this very important issue, important in having an immediate impact 
on America's families.
  They are feeling the pain at the pump. Our families, our workers, our 
small businesses, every day it gets worse for them, the price at the 
pump. So what can we do about it? Well, we can do a number of things, 
and we will, that we have been advocating for.
  Of course we must increase domestic production, and there is a way to 
do that. But that is not all that we have to do. The American people 
understand that their tax dollars are going to subsidies for Big Oil. 
If we ended those subsidies, we could save over $30 billion for the 
American people.
  To put it into context, my colleagues, for the first quarter of this 
year, the Big Five oil companies made profits of over $30 billion. Why 
are we, the taxpayers, subsidizing their drilling of oil when they are 
making huge profits, doing it in the free market?
  President Obama has written to leaders in Congress asking to bring a 
bill to the floor to end these subsidies. I have written to Speaker 
Boehner asking him to do so. He has said the oil companies should pay 
their fair share. Mr. Ryan, the chair of the Budget Committee, has 
acknowledged that in his own district. And yet, in the budget that is 
proposed by the Republicans, Big Oil still gets a big subsidy from the 
taxpayer. It would mean a great deal to us, in a situation where we are 
saying to seniors, We are going to cut Medicare; you are going to have 
to pay $6,000 a year more, at a minimum, for fewer benefits because we 
want to cut Medicare at the same time we are giving tax cuts, big tax 
breaks to Big Oil.
  So here we are today. Just last week, ExxonMobil reported $10.7 
billion in profits during the first quarter of 2011. Over $10 billion 
in profits, a 69 percent jump from last year. In fact, this quarter 
marked some of the largest oil profits since 2008.
  Democrats are introducing comprehensive legislation. Mr. Tim Bishop 
is going to be leading us on the previous question, which we urge our 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on so that we can bring up Mr. Bishop's 
legislation.
  Much of what that does is to eliminate tax breaks for the five 
largest oil companies, saving over $31 billion over 10 years. Think of 
it. We are trying to just save $31 billion over 10 years, when the oil 
companies made $31 billion in profits in the first quarter of this 
year. That is so unfair to the taxpayer.
  Legislation to ensure that oil companies are paying the royalties 
that are due the American taxpayer. Hold Big Oil and the industry 
accountable for price gouging at the pump. Use the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve to increase the oil supply and combat price hikes. In addition 
to that, we must end the harmful speculation which Wall Street tells us 
accounts for a large percentage of the increase in the price at the 
pump.
  We also will have measures that increase American energy production. 
It is very important. We don't disagree that we have to have 
production, but we do agree that we have to do other things that have a 
more immediate effect on the price at the pump. And we can do that. And 
we must invest in our clean energy future, which will reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, which is a national security issue, which 
will

[[Page 6696]]

enable us to create new green jobs in our country, a jobs issue which 
is a moral obligation we have to the American people to create jobs.
  But what the Republicans are proposing today has blinders on it. It 
does not recognize that what it is doing does nothing to reduce the 
price at the pump in the short term; that there are many other avenues 
that we can proceed down in addition to increasing domestic production; 
and that the American people need something fresher and newer on this 
than being sabotaged every few years about the price at the pump while 
we, the taxpayers, are giving subsidies to Big Oil to drill while they 
are making profits in the first quarter of 1 year that are almost more 
than what we would save for the taxpayer.

                              {time}  1000

  They don't need a subsidy to drill. They don't need an incentive. 
They have the profit motive, and it has served them well.
  We in this Congress have to be thinking about the future. How do we 
prevent this from happening again, but also how do we have the most 
immediate effect on the price at the pump? Congressman Tim Bishop gives 
us that opportunity today, recognizing that we want to have the full 
diversity of energy possibilities available to us so that the American 
taxpayer and the American consumer are well-served.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to 
allow Mr. Tim Bishop to bring up an initiative that he will talk about 
that addresses concerns of the American people that they know about, 
that they want to end subsidies on Big Oil, especially when we are 
talking about it in the context of we must cut investments in Medicare, 
seniors must pay more, but don't ask us to cut subsidies to Big Oil.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), who lives in this area and understands 
the situation firsthand.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I couldn't disagree more with the comments that were 
made by the minority leader from California. What we are talking about 
here are high gas prices that people are paying at the pump today and 
why we are in this situation. We are in this situation because of this 
administration's policies that have shut off the American energy 
supply.
  This is supply and demand. Why do prices go up? Well, gee-whiz, if 
the President of the United States says by policy we are going to close 
off billions of barrels of known reserves in America, what do you think 
that does to prices? Do you think that actually lowers prices? Of 
course, as you are seeing prices skyrocket at the pump, it is because 
of these policies. That is why we have seen the price of gasoline more 
than double since Barack Obama has been in office.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what we are bringing today and what this rule 
addresses is the ability to start opening up some of those known areas 
here in America, because, again, our demand continues to increase for 
oil here in this country, and while the President is out tilting at 
windmills, the prices at the pump continue to skyrocket because the 
President is saying run those jobs off to foreign countries, like 
Brazil.
  He is bragging that he wants to create more energy jobs in Brazil. We 
are saying, Mr. President, we have thousands of jobs here in America 
that we can create today. We have got billions of dollars that are 
being sent to foreign countries, many of whom don't like us, by the 
way. We can bring those dollars back. And, by the way, that can also 
help us pay down the national debt that is out of control right now. 
And that is what this bill addresses.
  And what's their answer on the other side? The President is talking 
about raising taxes on American energy, and the minority leader from 
California just emphasized it. She talked about a $30 billion tax 
increase on American energy production. You want to talk about a warped 
policy? Look at what their plan is.
  We're saying let's open up supply. Let's create jobs in America. I 
have seen it in south Louisiana. We have lost over 13,000 jobs in the 
energy industry just because of the President's policies in the last 
year, where he shut down production and said you can't go back to work 
drilling safely for known oil in America. But he wants to run those 
jobs off to foreign countries. So that is what is happening.
  We saw one of the deepwater rigs go to Egypt just in the last few 
months. So an employer is saying, I want to take a thousand jobs and 
it's better to do business in Egypt because of these radical American 
policies on energy right now. So we are trying to turn that around and 
say let's actually explore for energy here in America, creating 
thousands more jobs in America and bringing in billions more dollars 
that pay down our deficit.
  Their answer is raise $30 billion in taxes and, you know, go talk 
about Big Oil. Big Oil is not going to pay that. Big Oil is leaving. 
They are going to foreign countries. It is our local energy producers 
here in America who will pay that tax. And you know what that ends up 
equating to? That means higher prices at the pump, $30 billion in 
higher prices at the pump, because of their policy.
  And they're bragging about it. They're saying, let's raise taxes on 
American energy. By the way, their bill doesn't apply to energy that is 
produced in Saudi Arabia. So what do you think is going to happen?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. SCALISE. Now more oil is going to be coming in from Saudi Arabia 
because of their policies.
  We have got to reverse this radical approach and actually create jobs 
in America, create energy in America and bring down the skyrocketing 
price of gasoline at the pump, and it can all be accomplished with this 
legislation here today that I strongly support.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much.
  The oil companies are making windfall profits right now. Look at what 
just happened in the last 3 months: ExxonMobil made $10 billion; Shell, 
$8 billion; BP, $7 billion; $6 billion for Chevron; $3 billion for 
Conoco. Yet the Republicans oppose allowing the Democrats to bring out 
here a motion that will take away tax breaks that are meant for 
companies that make toasters or aluminum foil, but not the oil 
industry.
  The oil industry does not need a subsidy from the American taxpayer 
as they are tipping consumers upside down at the pump every single day. 
We need to take back those tax breaks and use them; use them to reduce 
the deficit, use them to help grandma with Medicare, use them for 
things that are important, but not for oil companies at this time.
  So, what have the Republicans decided to do? The Republicans instead 
have decided to squeeze--to squeeze Medicare, to squeeze the program 
for grandma, so that they can find the revenues to give tax breaks for 
oil companies. I will tell you, the GOP has set up a legislative drill 
rig on top of the Medicare program to poke holes in our seniors' safety 
net. That is right, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are building a 
pipeline into the pocketbooks of our seniors so that they can pump them 
dry. No money for Medicare, but plenty of breaks for the oil companies. 
And they are going to deny the Democrats the ability to have a vote 
here on the House floor on those tax breaks for oil companies here 
today.
  There is one thing that we can do in order to ensure that the 
speculators in the marketplace are told there is a cop on the beat, and 
that is to deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right now. In 1991, 
Bush the First used it. The price went down 33 percent. In 2000, the 
President used the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, President Clinton. It 
went down 18 percent. Bush the Second

[[Page 6697]]

used it in 2005 after Katrina. The price went down 9 percent. That is 
the weapon we can use right now, and send a message to Big Oil, to 
OPEC, and to the speculators that we mean business.
  What the Republicans are saying here today is we are going to cut 
Medicare in order to have tax breaks for the wealthiest oil companies 
in the history of the world. That is not what the American people want 
to hear at this time of high energy prices in our country, with a 
dagger pointed right at the heart of the American economy, and that is 
what OPEC and the speculators and Big Oil are doing to our country.
  Vote ``yes'' today on the previous question to give the American 
taxpayers the relief they need from these gifts which we give to Big 
Oil. Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the previous question.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I 
rise to ask in particular that we have a reasoned debate on this 
question.
  I come from the gulf region and was appalled at the horror of the BP 
oil spill. My constituents are still suffering from that spill. I 
recognize that we have a dual responsibility, and that is to ensure 
that those individuals are made whole--and I might add that a better 
compensation system needs to be in place--but also that we restore 
jobs.
  A civil discussion is what is needed. As an oil and gas lawyer and 
also a member of the Homeland Security Committee which addresses the 
question of our own safety and security, we have to find a way to 
restore offshore deepwater drilling in a safe and secure manner.

                              {time}  1010

  I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not take an amendment 
that I offered that would have modified the processing procedures of 
H.R. 1229, to restart that leasing process to extend the time for the 
Department of the Interior to review safely and securely and to 
eliminate the deemed provision, though I am supporting the Holt 
amendment and, of course, the Moran amendment.
  But, frankly, I think the issue is, energy at this time is 
multitasking, from nuclear energy to solar, to wind, to biofuels and 
fossil fuels (oil and gas). If we are in agreement with Brazil to do 
offshore deepwater drilling off the coast of Brazil, we need to restart 
that deepwater drilling here in the United States, safely and securely. 
As relates to the expanded lease sales, the question has to be whether 
States are prepared for that offshore drilling and whether or not we 
have secured the kind of technology that will allow us to do it safely 
and securely. I believe new containment processes are being put in 
place to help deepwater drilling to lower costs for the America people.
  Energy companies have organized something called a containment group 
to develop that new technology. What I would say is that this 
discussion should not be captured by special interests where we try the 
``get you'' politics for the Department of the Interior or ``get you'' 
politics for President Obama. This is the time to get the best politics 
for the American people, to bring down gasoline prices, invest in 
energy which includes deepwater drilling and oil and gas, and let's get 
going on helping the American people to boost energy resource and to 
create jobs.
  I ask for a reasoned discussion on this important issue.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we heard from our friend from Massachusetts 
the allegation that we over here on this side of the aisle were 
squeezing Medicare. Good grief. Even now has the gentleman from 
Massachusetts not read the ObamaCare bill? It cuts $500 billion out of 
Medicare.
  We heard from Minority Leader Pelosi that we have a moral obligation 
to create jobs. Then what this administration has done under her 
definition is immoral, because this administration has been killing 
jobs. We hear so much from the other side about the working poor. 
Coming from an area in Texas where we have lots of hardworking poor 
folks, that's who is being hurt by this administration's policies. When 
you shut off the jobs in the Gulf of Mexico, when you come out and say 
we're going to tax these American companies even more, we're going to 
take away their subsidies, they're called business deductions, the cost 
of drilling, the cost of doing business.
  And who will be taxed? American companies. We will be putting further 
tariffs on, not foreign products but American companies. We drive 
ourselves more and more to foreign oil, and that's a mistake. Price 
controls is what President Carter did. He was going to show the energy 
companies, and as a result we had no gas, we ran out of gas, it was a 
disaster. Salazar has shut down leases that were let after a 7-year 
process that could have produced as many as a trillion barrels of oil.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. GOHMERT. You could have an immediate effect if you would 
encourage your party's President to change course and start creating 
jobs. The energy industry would create a million jobs across the 
country if we opened up the OCS. We've heard the testimony a million 
jobs if ANWR is opened. A million jobs if the North Slope is opened.
  What is more, we've also heard from people that know that a dollar 
out of four is most likely attributable to speculation. The speculators 
look at what we do. And we make it harder and harder to produce our own 
energy, the speculation keeps going up. You could turn around a dollar 
out of four overnight if we showed the world, we're going to use our 
own energy.
  This country has been blessed with more natural resources when you 
put them all together, and this administration and the former majority 
has done more to put them off-limits. It's time to get back to what the 
former Speaker said was our moral obligation. You lower energy prices 
by using more of our own energy, you create jobs, and you bring down 
the price that is killing the working poor. And that's a moral 
obligation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague from Colorado.
  I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. In 
the State of Florida, we are still recovering from last year's BP oil 
blowout disaster. We're recovering economically and environmentally 
from the policies of the past that elevated oil company profits over 
safety.
  To add insult to injury, every summer the price of gas goes up, and 
we see it in Florida because our economy is largely tied to tourism, 
and we see it and it pains us and consumers know that they are messing 
around with the American consumer. They understand that the Wall Street 
speculators are making a profit, maybe 20 percent in the price of gas, 
and that is not fair.
  Why don't we start with a meaningful energy policy that addresses 
those speculators? Instead of continuing oil company giveaways, why 
don't we start with ending the taxpayer subsidies to the big oil 
companies? Just in the first quarter of this year, BP has made over $5 
billion in profit. Exxon has made over $10 billion in profit. With the 
skyrocketing debt and deficit, why is it fair for the American taxpayer 
to be subsidizing the most profitable companies in the world? That is 
where we should begin this debate today, ending those oil company 
subsidies to bring down the price of gas and tackling the outrageous 
profits that go to the oil companies while the consumer is paying 
through the nose at the pump.
  My Republican friends are on the wrong track when it comes to energy 
policy. We've got to prohibit Wall Street speculators from artificially 
inflating prices. We've got to adopt the oil spill commission's 
recommendations to make drilling safe before we

[[Page 6698]]

charge ahead and open up new areas to drill. There are millions of 
acres to drill. Millions of acres. All we're asking is fairness and 
safety as they proceed in doing so so the American taxpayer will not 
have to pay any more.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Landry). He is a member of the Resources Committee 
that provides a great deal of insight from his personal background.
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, what amazes me is that the gentlelady from 
Florida must have missed the AP report a couple of weeks ago when it 
said that Florida was getting ready to experience another oil crisis 
and it was in the fact that the price at the pump is going to impact 
tourism.
  Tourism. That's what I hear here all the time. Our tourism jobs. Jobs 
that normally pay minimum wage. When in my State, oil and gas jobs pay 
much better than that.
  If we want to get this economy rolling, we have to provide that 
economy with affordable energy, not make-believe energy, not energy 
that comes in possibly 40 or 50 years from now. We need to apply 
affordable energy to this economy now. It will not get any better in 
this country until we give middle class Americans affordable energy, so 
that they can get to and from their job.
  Repealing section 199 will endanger 600,000 barrels per day, 10 
percent of our domestic production by 2017. Boy, that's really going to 
lower the price at the pump.
  They're concerned about Medicare and Medicaid. Well, where do you 
think those profits to shareholders go? Do you know who those 
shareholders are? They're the American people. Do you know how many 
pension plans hold those shares of Exxon and Chevron in their 
portfolio?
  Why are we picking those winners and losers? As a freshman, it's hard 
for me to understand how we continue in this town to reward failure and 
punish winners. It just amazes me.

                              {time}  1020

  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, one thing we do know is that our constituents 
are paying about $4 a gallon for gas. What they have to ask is: Where's 
all this money that they're paying going? Well, as you have seen, it's 
going in profits to the biggest oil companies. In fact, almost $30 
billion went just in the last 3 months to the top three oil companies--
about $11 billion to Exxon, about $9 billion to Shell, and over $7 
billion to BP. Remember BP? And that's after they've taken $5 billion 
in subsidies from the taxpayer and as in the case of ExxonMobil paid 
zero corporate taxes.
  Well, what are they doing with that profit? What they're doing is 
spending 90 percent of it on stock buy-backs so that, of course, the 
remaining stock outstanding becomes even more valuable, thus enabling 
their executives to become even wealthier, and to stock dividends for 
their shareholders. And the remaining 10 percent goes to oil and gas 
exploration and to TV advertising so they can convince the American 
public otherwise.
  What this bill will do is to enable those who own oil company stock 
and run oil companies to grab up our last remaining oil reserves at a 
cost of $30 to $40 a barrel so that they can then sell it at $100 a 
barrel to make more profit. The motivation for this bill is more about 
scoring political points and currying favor with the oil and gas 
industry that the current House majority can't seem to coddle enough. 
And they're betting that the next oil spill disaster that this 
legislation could enable through a return to weaker regulation--weaker 
regulation than we had before the gulf oil spill disaster, will not 
occur on their watch. That oil spill disaster that spilled 200 million 
gallons into the Gulf Coast waters occurred at a time of even tougher 
regulation than this bill will create.
  They are counting on the oil companies remembering and the consumers 
and taxpayers forgetting.
  This bill should be defeated.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Subcommittee.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this rule brings forward two bills that are 
the first of the majority party's ``amnesia acts,'' which ignore the 
safety and environmental concerns that were laid bare last spring and 
summer by the largest oil spill in United States waters. For the 
sponsors of this bill, it's as if the worst and most costly oil spill 
in history never happened. Last week, the Big Five oil companies 
reported $32 billion in profits. That's just for the first 3 months of 
this year. Yet the majority's solution is to protect the billions of 
dollars of tax breaks each year for these companies.
  Just to give you an idea, Exxon pays an effective tax rate of 0.4 
percent. I imagine every person in America would like to have a tax 
rate of essentially zero. Yet the majority's solution is to protect 
these tax breaks. Furthermore, they deem the environmental and safety 
regulations that existed before this accident in the gulf as 
satisfactory. And let's be clear: How much will these bills reduce gas 
prices for the American people? Zero dollars and zero cents.
  Scientists, engineers, and our best energy analysts say we cannot 
drill our way to lower gas prices. This won't do it. Let's address the 
financial speculation that we've heard about--the real cause of high 
gasoline prices. Exxon, with those huge prices, what do they do? They 
buy back their stock.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. HOLT. These actions needlessly endanger the lives of offshore 
workers, imperil the resources and livelihoods of fishermen. This 
legislation is designed to give Big Oil more handouts. These companies 
are not being responsible citizens.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``yes'' on my amendment, vote ``no'' on 
the bills.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Keating).
  Mr. KEATING. I rise to oppose this rule.
  Americans are feeling pain at the pump. Rising gasoline prices--and 
they're rising, folks--it's going to cost the average person another 
$800 per year at the rate of these increases. That wipes out the tax 
breaks that most Americans have just received, and it's going to hurt 
our economy, and it's hurting our national security. These oil 
companies are making increased profits as the money in our wallets 
flies right into the gas tanks.
  Now is the time to consider a sensible energy policy and to strip 
subsidies from oil companies. It shocks every American taxpayer to know 
that they're required to fork over an additional $40 billion-plus over 
the next decade to give tax subsidies and giveaways to these enormously 
profitable companies. What are they doing with that money? They're 
taking up to 90 percent of that and buying their stocks back, 
increasing their own personal wealth.
  So let's be clear. Oil companies don't need it. If you don't believe 
me, ask them. The former CEO of Shell oil says, ``With higher oil 
prices, the subsidies aren't necessary.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle say they're for the all-of-
the-above strategy when it comes to oil. Let's be clear. They support 
oil above all--above Medicare, above putting police on the streets, 
above increasing reading teachers, and above protecting our coastal 
communities.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan), another great new member of the Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. This isn't about oil company profits. 
This is about supply and demand. We don't

[[Page 6699]]

have the supply necessary to meet the energy needs in this country. But 
the American people know that we've got the resources here in this 
country, whether it's offshore, on the Outer Continental Shelf, or on 
Federal lands that have currently under this administration been taken 
off the table for energy production. Supply and demand drives the 
price. We are reliant on foreign sources of oil, and a foreign group 
known as OPEC determines the price of that oil they sell to us. We've 
got the resource in this country. This legislation will put the gulf 
back to work, meeting the energy needs for the American people.
  I'm a small business owner. I doubt many people that serve in this 
body have ever run a business, met a payroll, and tried to meet their 
overhead. I can tell you what $4.85 a gallon in August of 2008 meant to 
my small business only running two trucks on the road. I can only 
imagine what the loggers, what the truckers, what the farmers, and the 
other industries in the Third Congressional District of South Carolina 
are feeling today with the experience of rising oil prices.
  The gentlelady from Florida said that in the summer, prices go up. 
We're not in summer yet. Prices are going up because of supply and 
demand. We have the opportunity to meet our demand right here by 
harvesting American resources for our American energy needs.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  With regard to the last comment, it is the oil cartels that drive 
prices, not the normal functions of the market and supply and demand.
  With regard to the oil subsidies, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity 
here today to see where the Republicans and the Democrats in the House 
stand on deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous 
question, we can and we will reduce the deficit by over $12.8 billion. 
We have the chance to have the discussion around the continuing 
resolution, around the budget, around deficit reduction. And here we 
have an opportunity, without impacting the price of oil, without 
impacting what consumers pay at the pump, to reduce the deficit by 
$12.8 billion by defeating the previous question. I think that's what 
the American people want to see.
  The American people spoke out in the last election. Let's reduce the 
deficit. Let's work across the aisle to see what we can do to cut 
unnecessary government expenditures, to make those decisions to help 
make sure that we can leave something other than a legacy of debt to 
the next generation.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, this is an easy one. Let's defeat the previous 
question and reduce the deficit by $12.8 billion.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a document from 
the Treasury Department which states that the manufacturing deduction 
for oil and gas effectively provides a lower rate of tax with respect 
to a favored source of income. In fact, it distorts the market by 
encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would 
occur under a neutral system.
  Again, by returning to the free market, we are able to reduce the 
deficit by over $12.8 billion instead of having Big Government trying 
to pick winners and losers in the economy with regard to tax policy.

 General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 Revenue 
          Proposals--Department of the Treasury, February 2011

    Repeal Domestic Manufacturing Deduction for Oil and Natural Gas 
                               Companies


                              Current Law

       A deduction is allowed with respect to income attributable 
     to domestic production activities (the manufacturing 
     deduction). For taxable years beginning after 2009, the 
     manufacturing deduction is generally equal to 9 percent of 
     the lesser of qualified production activities income for the 
     taxable year or taxable income for the taxable year, limited 
     to 50 percent of the W-2 wages of the taxpayer for the 
     taxable year. The deduction for income from oil and gas 
     production activities is computed at a 6 percent rate.
       Qualified production activities income is generally 
     calculated as a taxpayer's domestic production gross receipts 
     (i.e., the gross receipts derived from any lease, rental, 
     license, sale, exchange, or other disposition of qualifying 
     production property manufactured, produced, grown, or 
     extracted by the taxpayer in whole or significant part within 
     the United States; any qualified film produced by the 
     taxpayer; or electricity, natural gas, or potable water 
     produced by the taxpayer in the United States) minus the cost 
     of goods sold and other expenses, losses, or deductions 
     attributable to such receipts.
       The manufacturing deduction generally is available to all 
     taxpayers that generate qualified production activities 
     income, which under current law includes income from the 
     sale, exchange or disposition of oil, natural gas or primary 
     products thereof produced in the United States.


                           Reasons for Change

       The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to 
     phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so that the United 
     States can transition to a 21st-century energy economy. The 
     manufacturing deduction for oil and gas effectively provides 
     a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of 
     income. The lower rate of tax, like other oil and gas 
     preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts 
     markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas 
     industry than would occur under a neutral system. This market 
     distortion is detrimental to long-term energy security and is 
     also inconsistent with the Administration's policy of 
     supporting a clean energy economy, reducing our reliance on 
     oil, and cutting carbon pollution. Moreover, the tax subsidy 
     for oil and gas must ultimately be financed with taxes that 
     result in underinvestment in other, potentially more 
     productive, areas of the economy.


                                Proposal

       The proposal would retain the overall manufacturing 
     deduction, but exclude from the definition of domestic 
     production gross receipts all gross receipts derived from the 
     sale, exchange or other disposition of oil, natural gas or a 
     primary product thereof for taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2011. There is a parallel proposal to repeal the 
     domestic manufacturing deduction for coal and other hard 
     mineral fossil fuels.

  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a July 3, 
2010, New York Times article regarding oil subsidies.
  Again, this talks of the oil subsidies that continue to benefit this 
industry to the detriment of the American taxpayer and to the detriment 
of future generations of Americans who will continue to suffer under an 
increasing mountain of debt unless we defeat the previous question here 
today.

                     [From NY Times, July 3, 2010]

                              On Subsidies

       But an examination of the American tax code indicates that 
     oil production is among the most heavily subsidized 
     businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every 
     stage of the exploration and extraction process.
       According to the most recent study by the Congressional 
     Budget Office, capital investments like oil field leases and 
     drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 
     percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 
     percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually 
     any other industry.
       And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on 
     capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated 
     by various credits. These companies' returns on those 
     investments are often higher after taxes than before.
       Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce 
     opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has 
     spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the 
     nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors 
     political spending.
       Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when 
     they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of 
     rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently 
     produced only dry holes. Because of one lingering provision 
     from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil 
     companies based in the United States can claim deductions for 
     the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the 
     companies actually paid for the oil rights.
       Other tax breaks were born of international politics. In an 
     attempt to deter Soviet influence in the Middle East in the 
     1950s, the State Department backed a Saudi Arabian accounting 
     maneuver that reclassified the royalties charged by foreign 
     governments to American oil drillers. Saudi Arabia and others 
     began to treat some of the royalties as taxes, which entitled 
     the companies to subtract those payments from their American 
     tax bills. Despite repeated attempts to forbid this 
     accounting practice, companies continue to deduct the 
     payments. The Treasury Department estimates that it will cost 
     $8.2 billion over the next decade.

  Mr. Speaker, 1 year after the national tragedy of Deepwater Horizon,

[[Page 6700]]

the majority party has decided not to address a single problem that led 
to this economic and environmental tragedy. Instead, the majority is 
pushing through these bills, simply rubber-stamping offshore drilling 
and maintaining taxpayer subsidies and giveaways to Big Oil, which 
increase the deficit.
  During a Special Order speech just the other night, a Member on the 
other side of the aisle said all you need is an eighth grade 
understanding of supply and demand to understand why gas prices are 
high and how we can lower them by drilling more. Fortunately, for those 
of us who have more than an eighth grade education, like economists and 
other experts, we know that America cannot drill its way out of high 
gas prices. Even the American Petroleum Institute, the mouthpiece for 
Big Oil, is saying that we cannot drill our way out. ``Drill, Baby, 
Drill'' may look good as a bumper sticker, but it's not a serious 
energy policy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and to defeat the 
previous question so we can reduce the deficit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the minority is asking us to walk down a tangent issue 
by using negative cue words like ``subsidy,'' so let me walk down that 
for 30 seconds.
  Please realize the U.S. oil and natural gas industry does not receive 
subsidized payments from the government. The word ``subsidy'' is 
inaccurate. Tax deductions should in no way be confused with the 
concept of subsidies. There are, though, tax deductions that go to all 
industries. Section 199, which has been talked about by the Democrats, 
is the domestic manufacturers' deduction. Every industry--
manufacturing, producing, growing, extracting--gets a 9 percent of 
earned income deduction, not a credit, except for oil and gas; but they 
are limited to just 6 percent. There is similarity.
  They've also asked us to try and walk down a tangent in talking about 
safety, but the ideas of safety are codified in the legislation before 
us. They then say let's increase our production by raising taxes. What 
a non sequitur. Even if you raise taxes against somebody else and try 
to create some kind of straw man to attack, that is simply a non 
sequitur, because we do not have a tax problem in this country. We have 
a production problem; we have a jobs problem. These two bills go 
directly to that problem. They increase production and increase jobs.
  We are not trying to pick winners and losers. We want the Americans 
to be winners, and that's what our choice is to be. These are two good 
bills in a time of $4 and $5 gasoline prices that are devastating jobs 
and our economy. These bills surely should be something that every 
Member should support.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1229 and H.R. 
1230.
  We like to stand on this floor and talk about the things we can't 
agree on.
  On this issue, there's more common ground than you might think.
  We all seek to end our dependence on foreign oil because it endangers 
our environment, hurts our economy and weakens our national security.
  Our disagreement lies in potential solutions.
  In order to lower gas prices we can and must crack down on oil 
speculators, end big oil handouts, invest in public transit and 
electric vehicles and increase corporate average fuel economy 
standards.
  The other side of the argument, the one that is presented today and 
that we will be voting on, would have you believe that all we need to 
do is increase our domestic oil resources and remove regulations.
  Regulations that have purportedly forced us to look outside our 
nation's borders for oil.
  Our answers do not lie in more oil--our answers lie in conservation 
and smart investments.
  They do not lie in increasing our oil supply, because, let's face it, 
oil prices are based on a global market, and one nod from OPEC would 
make any increase in U.S. domestic supplies irrelevant.
  Our answers cannot be found by damaging the ecosystems the industries 
along our coast rely on.
  And, our answers will not be solutions that defy our military experts 
who are saying oil ain't the answer.
  Earlier this week, I offered an amendment that was not made in order 
by the Rules Committee--an amendment that said we must look at the 
damage we could incur before we extract oil and gas.
  This same common sense must be applied to our energy plan.
  We can proactively move our nation toward reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil so that we take control of our energy future, protect our 
nation, our economy and our environment--and we must.
  But, these are not our solutions.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and 
the underlying bills, H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills aren't serious solutions to bring down high 
gas prices.
  Instead, these are nothing more than a political exercise meant to 
keep the big oil companies happy.
  Big oil companies have every reason to be happy these days.
  Last week, ExxonMobil announced first-quarter profits of nearly $10.7 
billion.
  Let me repeat that--$10.7 billion. That's a 69% increase over the 
same three month period last year.
  American taxpayers are paying nearly $4 dollars a gallon for gasoline 
and we're still giving $4 billion in subsidies to Big Oil?
  Give me a break.
  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment--as a 
standalone bill--that would eliminate subsidies for big oil. My 
amendment would have done nothing to prevent these drilling bills from 
moving forward.
  Ending subsidies for corporations that are making money hand over 
fist while gouging Americans shouldn't be controversial.
  Apparently, my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee didn't 
see it the same way. My amendment wasn't made in order.
  Instead, here we are today debating legislation that would boost Big 
Oil's profits even more without doing anything to lower gas prices for 
American families.
  More drilling won't lower gas prices. It's that simple.
  Even with an expedited permitting approval process--that ignores any 
environmental impact assessment--we wouldn't see any of this additional 
supply in the market for years.
  And the notion that we've run out of areas to drill because we've 
exhausted all current offshore drilling sites is ludicrous.
  Oil companies currently have access to nearly 80 million acres to 
drill for oil, including 38 million acres offshore. But they produce 
oil on only 4 percent of those acres.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are so fond of saying these 
days that people should be able to pull themselves up by their 
bootstraps.
  I wish they would apply that same ``tough love'' to the record 
profit-making oil companies at a time when American families are being 
gouged at the pump.
  I oppose this Rule and the underlying bills and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 245 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1689) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow 
     the deduction for income attributable to domestic production 
     activities with respect to oil and gas activities of major 
     integrated oil companies. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 4 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

[[Page 6701]]



        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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adopting the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 171, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 293]

                               YEAS--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--171

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Ackerman
     Bilbray
     Cantor
     Clyburn
     Crowley
     Emerson
     Engel
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Meeks
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Van Hollen
     Weiner

                              {time}  1059

  Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. SPEIER, and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. HAYWORTH and Mr. GRAVES of Missouri changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page 6702]]

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 293, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 167, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 294]

                               AYES--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--167

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Ackerman
     Bilbray
     Cantor
     Clyburn
     Crowley
     Emerson
     Engel
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Meeks
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Van Hollen
     Weiner

                              {time}  1106

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 294, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________