my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having been yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. markey: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-74. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. keating: mr. chairman, amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-74 offered by mr. keating of

massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 257, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: thank you, mr. chairman. and, mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. keating: i rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to h.r. 1231. as our constituents saw high gas prices, oil companies are are reporting profits. these firms are eating up more and more of our constituents' paychecks, and where is it going? only a small portion of the profits are reinvested back in the company to pave the way for efficiencies and research into alternatives to oil. rather, oil companies are providing bumps to stockholders and high bonuses to their

company glecktiffs, a pat on the back for high prices at the pump. my amendment would provide transparency for the u.s. taxpayer. the amendment requires the secretary to disclose the executive bonuses for any company that is given a drilling lease. the time is now to hold the largest oil companies accountable. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to provide transparency back to the american taxpayer. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i thank you, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: does the gentleman claim the time in opposition? mr. young: i claim time in opposition. i apologize. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: when i first saw this amendment i was wondering if we were debating financial services legislation here on the floor. clearly this amendment raises issues outside the realm of today's debating on increasing

jobs. the department of the interior should protuct our -- retect our resources -- protect our resources. the department doesn't have dozens of employees sitting around reading company securities and exchange commission's filings and a similar list of which executives got to do and what bonus. this amendment would burden the interior department for yet another publishing which is publicly disclosed. it should be made public and that's why it is. this amendment is mott about openness and transparency. that's already law. the real effect of this amendment is duplicative requirement and government waste. let's get away from the political games. let's let the department of the interior do their job. i oppose this amendment and

urge my colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: thank you, mr. chairman. i would thank the rules committee for allowing this amendment and i agree with them this is relevant to this debate. i would like to comment one more thick. my friend from alaska brought up the point of a burden. the burden that exists right now is the burden that's borne right on the gas pumps in my district, his district and the people in the united states of america. that is the burden that working families are undergoing. the suffering that they are undertaking. as they pay over $4 a gallon for gasoline in my district. transparency and accountability are necessary. the people who are beholden to the price spikes know where their money is going.

thank you. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. keating: i'll reserve. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i have the right to close and i reserve at this time. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is correct, he does have the right to close. mr. keating: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back his time. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: the question is how much would this cost the department of interior? would this take away from safety inspections? and my good friend from massachusetts, the burden's going to get worse. you're going to be paying about $5 a gallon by the first of june, if not a little bit -- maybe a little bit later but not later than the fourth of july. and the burden is something that bothers me a great deal, but in massachusetts alone, not one time has any one of your members in the congress ever voted to produce energy other than wind power and solar power. and that doesn't drive your constituents' automobiles. that doesn't drive your trucks to deliver your products to the

restaurants and the hospitals. that doesn't drive that train that people ride to try to get out of -- off the road. it doesn't drive the ships to bring your products to the shore. fossil fuels is the key to our commerce and we should recognize this in this congress, and we should develop an energy plan that includes everything. you can't do it with just wind power. you can't do it with solar power. but you can do it with all powers. and that's what's wrong with this congress and previous administrations. they don't grasp the necessity of having more power available to increase the economy of this country. and we're on the cusp right now. if we don't do something right, and i believe this bill will help us, if it does not help us then shoot me another solution. i have not seen that on the other side of the aisle. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. keating: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-74. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. tsongas: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-74 offered by ms. tsongas of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 257, the lady from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the lady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the lady is recognized. ms. tsongas: last summer we all saw the painfully disorganized and ineffective response to the oil spill in the gulf of mexico. the frustration was pal pappable across our -- palpable across our country. it was clear that b.p. and the federal government had no plan to contain the oil spill and that b.p. lacked the capacity to respond to a spill of that magnitude. the amendment that i am offering today is very straightforward and simple. one that seeks to implement the lessons learned from the events of last summer. my amendment would require that all applicants for a drilling permit under a lease sold under h.r. 1231 submit a plan for containment and cleanup of a

worst-case scenario oil or gas spill. this amendment does not limit drilling. it says simply and sensiblely that when we drill we should have a plan in place before an accident occurs. we shouldn't wait until a disaster like last year's three-month-long spill has already begun. there wasn't a person i spoke to who wasn't horrified by the devastating oil spill in the gulf. i believe that the american people want us to learn from that environmental and economic tragedy. and this amendment helps us accomplish that. when we drill we should have a plan for dealing with possible disaster. some have argued that we don't need a law because initial steps are being taken at the agency level or by oil and gas companies. some have said that requiring a worst-case scenario plan is anti-drilling or anti-jobs. we shouldn't get distracted from the simple truth of this amendment. when we drill we should have a plan.

we have seen the consequences of not having a plan and it was lost jobs. this amendment is pro-jobs, requiring oil and gas companies to have a plan in place will not prevent the creation of a single oil and gas job, but it will protect fishing jobs and tourism jobs instead of asking us to put those jobs at risk should a spill occur. our constituents deserve to know that we have required oil and gas companies to plan for the worst. opposing this amendment irresponsibly denies a tragic event -- the tragic events of last summer. for the sake of our economy, our environment and our coastal jobs, i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, simple amendment requiring oil and gas companies to have a plan. join me in demonstrating to our constituents that we have learned from the events of last summer and we are taking steps to prevent such a disaster in the future. i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the lady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. yuck young mr. chairman, unfortunately i oppose this amendment -- mr. young: mr. chairman, unfortunately i oppose this amendment. it's redundant. let's call it what it is, it's an obstruction. the department of interior requires that applicants have worst-case discharges before approving a permit. on june 8, 2007, the department of interior had two leasees outlining requirements and standard to be met before parliament could be approved. in the notices required that a leasee describe the assumption and calculation to determine the volume of the worst-case scenario. it's already required on permit applications and it's further radiated by the language in h.r. 1229 which passed the house earlier today. the minority continues to try to divert attention away from

the real issue of increasing energy production, creating jobs, lowering energy costs and improving national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil. it seems that the democrats do not want to face the fact that this bill says we can move forward with aggressive program and responsible oil and gas development while at the same time ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. these are not mutually exclusive goals. the republicans want to make u.s. offshore drilling the safest in the world, and it is the safest in the world. so we can produce more american energy, increase jobs and strengthen our national security. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the lady from massachusetts. sopping seung i thank my colleague for bringing this -- ms. tsongas: i thank my colleague for bringing this issue up. this is a great first step to having worst-case scenario containment and cleanup plans, but a notice to lessees is not the same as legislation. it is not intended to set up

policy and it is not intended to have the force of law which is why i am offering this amendment today. we need federal laws, not notices, that require companies to submit worst-case scenario oil spill containment and cleanup plans to ensure that another spill, like the b.p. spill, never happens again. our constituents deserve to know that we have required oil and gas companies to plan for the worst or given an honest reason why we think no such plan is necessary given the events last summer. if the majority agrees we should have a plan, they should support this amendment. it simply requires that oil and gas companies have a plan, nothing more. it is about drilling safely. it protects jobs, oil and gas jobs, tourism and fishing jobs. again, as i said, if the majority agrees we should have a plan, they should support this amendment. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the lady reserves the balance of her time. mr. young: i have the right to

close. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is correct, he has the right to close. he reserves his time. the lady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: i yield to my esteemed colleague. the chair: does the lady yield back her time? ms. tsongas: i yield back my time. the chair: the lady from massachusetts yields back her time. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, i can only say to my knowledge there's chance of little oil drilling off the coast of massachusetts, but there is a great possibility off the coast of florida, virginia, alaska, california, and this bill really sets out which areas should be drilled. not in large mass areas but specifically. and i personally will tell you if i could drill in alaska offshore as we should be able to do but this administration has delayed a permit for five years. five years. $5 billion put into investment to develop that field. can't be done because it's the

administration. this bill tries to do this for the good of the nation, not for the good of the oil companies, because we need that oil, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the lady from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- ms. tsongas: mr. chairman, i request the yeas and nays. . the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-74. for what purpose does the lady from florida seek recognition?

ms. brown: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-74 offered by ms. brown of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 257, the lady from florida, ms. brown, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the lady from florida. ms. brown: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i rise today to offer h.r. 1231, an amendment that would make the current ban on drilling in the east gulf of mexico permanent. this amendment would not have any effect on the budget as scored by the congressional budget office. however, it would have a significant impact on the economy of florida given that the state tourist industry will be protected from future oil spills, which could destroy our beautiful beaches and coastal

areas. certainly, florida coastline is a treasure not just for floridians but for all americans and people throughout the world. for years the florida delegation have worked together to protect our coastline and natural resources. and as long as those rigs in this area with the potential of devastation to florida beaches persists, if an accident was to occur causing oil to wash ashore to florida beaches, both the economy would be devastating to the state and following the disaster off the louisiana gulf coast last year, we saw a quick glimpse of what could happen to the florida economy in the event of an oil spill. i toured the region by helicopter last year and witnessed the devastation firsthand. that said, before any new areas are open and florida's beaches are put at risk, i would like to see drilling in the areas that

are already opened and increased funding for research for new technology. i strongly believe that any drilling off the florida gulf coast would be a deterrent to the state economy and ecosystem. as we saw in the bp oil spill last year in the gulf of mexico, within 11 workers died and an estimated five million barrels of crude oil poured into the gulf of mexico. the risks of drilling off of florida shores bring extreme risk to our state in an already depressed economy and with unemployment in the state of florida still at 11%, the last thing we need is to endanger nearly one million tourist-related jobs and 60 billion tourist jobs in the sunshine state. drilling off the coast of florida is a misguided calculation. the risk to the environment and

economy outweighs any potential benefit. i would like to see increased drilling in areas already open and increased funding in research and technology. i reserve. the chair: the lady from florida reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i oppose this amendment. the underlying bill is focused on opening the outer continental shelf. this bill aims to fulfill the promise of democrats and republicans in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore energy production. since taking office, president obama and his administration has effectively re-imposed the moratorium. this bill would reverse his actions. the december, 2006, majority of the house and florida delegation voted in favor of the gulf of

mexico energy securities act a bipartisan compromise that opened the central gulf by maintaining the moratorium until 2022. this amendment seeks to go backwards and undue that agreement to close off where the possible energy production in a portion of the gulf of mexico. this is the wrong direction for america to be heading. congress should not foreclose the future of energy production. this is especially true in the eastern planning area of the gulf, which the department of interior believes contains technically resources and 21 trillion cubic feet of gas. the area in the eastern giffle covered by this amendment is under moratorium until 2022, over a decade from now. this bill does not propose to change the 2022 date. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the lady from florida.

ms. brown: mr. chairman, how much time do i have? the chair: the lady has two minutes. ms. brown: more than two years exxon valdez oil spill we have yet to clean up prince william sound in alaska and cleaning up sand from the bp oil spill. the frequent occurrence of extreme weather that the gulf coast experiences including hurricanes and severe storms could easily produce an oil spill including with the improvement in oil and natural gas. storms along the gulf coast caused 124 oil spills in the gulf of mexico. hurricane katrina, 233 gallons of oil spill and hurricane rita worsened the damage. if these rigs were in the gulf coast, there would be complete destruction. as we have seen, cleanup for

these spills are incapable of removing a small fraction of the oil. in addition, from the bp oil spill, florida has over 284,000 claims with only 117,000 paid with a total of $1 billion for the gulf coast region, 10,000 fishing claims, 122,000 food and lodging claims, retail and sales claims and $1.6 billion paid on even more lost earnings and wages. we cannot afford another disaster in the magnitude with more drilling. we are still living on borrowed time. support the brown amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from alaska.

mr. young: i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the lady from florida, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. brown: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the lady requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the lady from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-74. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. thompson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-74

offered by mr. thompson of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 257, the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. chairman. according to this bill's drafters, the legislation would not require leasing permits in the northern california planning area, which is the coastline of my district. my amendment merely makes that clear. drilling on the north coast of california is a disastrous idea and the legislation must be clear, that it's not acceptable to drill off california's north coast. because this amendment is a clarification of the legislation's intent, there's no costs associated with it. just about three weeks ago, we marked the one-year anniversary of the nation's worst oil spill. i will not let what happened to the gulf of mexico happen to the north coast of california.

i have introduced separate stand-alone legislation which would permanently ban drilling off the coast of my district. it's important to me and to my constituents that h.r. 1231 clearly know tates that drilling will not occur in the northern california planning area along the three coasts. the coastal area of my district is one of only four major upwelling. it is where coal, nutrient rich waters are brought to the ocean's depths and promotes seaweed and growth and supply energy for some of the most productive ecosystems in our world, including many of our world fisheries. north coast ecosystems also sustain some of the largest salmon populations in the lower 49 states and provide habitat

for crab, rockfish, sole. in 2006 and 2008, commercial fishery disasters that virtually eliminated salmon fishing in california were economically disastrous to my district, to our states and our nation. if an oil spill were to occur off the coast of my district rkt the environmental and economic costs would be staggering, drilling for oil and gas off of california's north coast could cause serious harm to the unique ecosystem and abundant marine life found in this area. my district is dependent upon the rich natural resources we are blessed to have, but it's also subject to significant earthquakes which exacerbate the issues of threats and the problems related to oil spills. haven't one of my counties -- one of my counties just wrote to me and they said the modest

amount of oil available in term of our nation's daily demand does not mean jeopardizing our fisheries and our economic livelihoods. this amendment will merely protect the north coast of california and will simply clarify what the drafters of this bill says that the bill does, and that is that they claim that it does not require drilling off the coast of three counties in my district. i urge a yes vote and i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i claim opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. mr. chairman, this is the second amendment of three today designed to close off a portion of an outer continental shelf to oil and gas exploration and

production. the underlying bill is focused on opening the outer continental shelf to safe and responsible energy production. h.r. 1231 aims to fulfill the promise both democrats and republicans made to the american people when we voted in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore energy production. since taking office, president obama and his administration have effectively re-imposed the moratorium and this bill would reverse his actions. this amendment proposed to take america in exactly the wrong direction in which we hub heading. congress should not foreclose future energy production. with price of gas going to $4 we should keep focus on the offshore areas which contain substantial oil and natural resources where increased american energy production will increase new jobs and increase

our economic and national security and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. thompson: mr. chairman, how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. thompson: i want to point out the majority party has told me and my staff that the bill that they have offered today, the bill we will be voting on does not affect the north coast of california. now my effort with this amendment is merely to trust, but verify. and to oppose this amendment really calls into question what is the underlying motivation of this bill. does it not -- does it do what they claim and not affect this region of our ocean? again, one of only four major upwellings in the world's oceans.

this is an area that teeds and promotes the fisheries and marine life not only in my area but in all the ocean. and the idea we would put it at any kind of risk and those of you who know the area, know how rough the water is and rocky the shores are. if there is an oil spill there, it would never be cleaned up. and the area is seismic ally active with the threat of earthquakes. you are looking at the situation that the gulf of mexico disaster would pale in comparison. it's not too much to ask that we merelyly verify what it is the majority party says that they are not doing with this bill. and the idea that this amendment would be opposed is quite startling to me. i believe that this is something that everyone can get behind and

to say that the bill doesn't do this and then refuse to take the amendment calls into question the motive of the bill. . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes left. mr. young: the gentleman brings some legitimate points. today under existing law the northern california planning area is available for leasing. this bill does not change that current situation. it's been available since 2008 when gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon. and the president and congress lifted the offshore drilling moratorium. i remind the house that in 2008 the cost of -- the coast of california was open for potential leasing and drilling. that the democrats were in the majority in the house and nancy pelosi of san francisco was speaker of the house. for months they resisted republican efforts to end the offshore ban but eventually the american people won out and the

bans were lifted. i'd also like to point out this bill provides direction that when the federal government is writing five-year leasing plans that the focus be on areas with the greatest estimated oil and natural gas resources. this particular planning area does not have -- has not registered high in this regard, this bill does not direct that leasing occur in this planning area. with gasoline back in 2008 as high as $4 per gallon, let's keep the focus where it should be, increasing alaskan offshore energy prodks. that's what we're trying to do. i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. burton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i don't know there is a great deal to add what he said about permits and the issue that's been discussed just recently. the thing that really bothers me is just a few years ago, 25 years ago we were importing about 28% of our oil.

today, we're importing 62% of our oil. more than double what we were doing just a few years ago. and the american people are paying the price instead of $1.50 or $2 a gallon, they're spending $4 a gallon for gasoline. in the gulf of mexico there's an estimated $86 billion barrels -- nationwide there's 86 billion barrels of oil, 51% of that is in the guffleguffle which means there's -- in the gulf of mexico which means there's 240 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. for us to continue to be dependent on foreign energy sources is crazy. we ought to start drilling and doing what needs to be done here in america and we can do it in an environmentally safe way. we can do it in alaska offshore and we can do it in a number of places. to continue to send our money to saudi arabia and other countries around the world that

is not our friends doesn't make sense. the american people understand it and i think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to talk to their constituents who are paying the price at the gas pump. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from alaska has 30 seconds remaining. mr. young: he's out of time? the chair: yes. the gentleman from california -- mr. young: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- mr. thompson: i request a roll call vote. the chair: the gentleman from california requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, put proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-74. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. inslee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-74 offered by mr. inslee of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 257, the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. inslee: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. inslee: the beaches and shoreline and the economy of the state of washington. this amendment is quite simple. it would simply say we will not allow the federal government to run over the state of washington on issues of drilling off of our coastline, that we won't be shackled to thisant kuwaited policy of drilling without -- this antiquated policy of drilling without reasonable protection,

without first addressing the issue of rampant speculation which is exposing my constituents to $4 a gallon in the state of washington. and we should be developing new clean energy sources. i want to i address each one of those. basically our position is we don't think in the state of washington and any state -- particularly the state of washington, the evergreen state, we should not have this policy foisted upon us that is not an evergreen energy policy for three reasons. reason number one, despite the fact that we have this enormous passage of time since this horrendous spill in the gulf, this chamber has not passed into law one single safety provision to bring additional safety anywhere on our coastline. and my amendment would simply say the people of the state of washington and their elected officials ought to be able to make a decision that we got adequate, reasonable safeguards

for drilling before it happens off the state of washington. that has not happened and it's inexcusable. second, before this happens, the people of the state of washington ought to have reasonable protection against the rampant speculation that's going on, that's driving up these prices. even goldman sachs recognize we have four times the speculative positions taken at about $20 amount, driven up based on this unchecked speculation. yet, my friends across the aisle in this chamber have not done one thing to address this speculation. until we do that, we shouldn't have my neighbors and my constituents foisted down their throats this policy of mandatory drilling without them first making a decision. and third, the people of the state of washington want to help in our energy crisis and they are capable of helping in this energy crisis if this

chamber will just free them to do it. now, here's how they want to help. they want to produce lithium ion batteries that can help run cars. this chamber hasn't done a single thing, a single thing this year to help clean energy sources that washington state business people want to produce. i look at the energy two company that's making ultracompass tores. this chamber in helping make electric batteries to electric car. i look at another thing in moses lake, washington, which is producing photo-voltaic cells. this chamber has not helped that company to advance. i look at the boeing company that is developing biofuels so we can have a competitor to gasoline, so we can drive those prices down. this chamber has not done a single thing to help those companies to develop washington state jobs for a new energy

future. now, we got a lot of energy off of our coastline. you know, i know it's an offshore wind. but we're not doing a single thing to help the offshore wind industry. all we're doing is trying to shackle an antiquated energy policy on the people of the state of washington. now, i would like to have this amendment to help all of my colleagues in the pacific coast, but because some of the financial rules that we have, we have only been able to bring this for the evergreen state. i hope all of my colleagues would join me in saying before this gets forced on the citizens of the washington state we adopt some regional measures and i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the acting --

acting for the natural resources committee, doc hastings of washington state, i oppose this amendment. as explained in the debate on the prior two amendments, this bill is focused on increasing american-made energy, creating new jobs and decreasing our dependence and energy from foreign nations. congress needs to focus on increasing energy production, and this amendment -- and this amendment goes to the opposite direction. in fact, this amendment attempts to impose unprecedented and impossible obstacles to fostering american energy in federal waters. the purpose of this amendment is to give the state of washington a say on leasing and federal energy off the state coast. however, multiple federal laws already provide washington state and every state the opportunity to participate in these such decisions. what this amendment would do is grant double veto power for washington state. the interior department provides repeated opportunities for public comment, participation without planning -- about planning and leasing

process. furthermore, the coastal zone management act has state review with the state coastal zone management plan before the federal government takes action in federal waters off any fick state. on top of that, the mr. oxley: lands act provides -- on top of that, the outer continental shelf lands act provides care and protection that's provided to each and every state with extra consideration guaranteed to coastal states. this is as it should be. what is particularly revealing about this amendment that that it only gives washington state double veto power over certain types of offshore energy leasing. it singles out oil and natural gas and provides no such veto power over wave, energy, wind, solar and other renewable forms. this double standard exposes the real intent of this amendment. it's not truly aimed at ensuring a voice for washington state much it's intended to score political points. but the political points of the

amendment is entirely hollow. why? because there is no recoverable oil and farrell gas in federal waters off of washington state. again, this bill only goes into areas that have really large potential. again, mobile federal laws already guarantee all americans have an opportunity to participate in offshore playing process, including -- planning process, especially those living in coastal states that will be impacted by leases if it should take place. i urge members to oppose this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from washington has 45 seconds remaining and is recognized. mr. inslee: thank you. first, i wish my friend, doc hastings from washington, is with us today. he's not feeling well, but mr. young is doing an admirable job with the weak argument. i report they're getting represented. i want to point out, we have not seen horrendous damage to any ecosystem from a wind spill yet.

if you spill little wind you don't end up covering large gulf areas with hydrocarbons or destroying oyster or shrimping grounds like in the gulf. we are simply saying that before we move forward with additional offshore drilling we ought to have reasonable safety protocols, we ought to address speculation and we ought to have an energy policy that looks at all of the above. you know, my friends across the aisle told us you were going to give us an all-of-the-above policy. you have given us an all-of-the-below policy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: my friend from washington, you may not have a wind spill but there's opposition to wind power, and wind is extremely expensively and only can be successful as long as it's subsidized by the taxpayer. as long as this administration keeps on insisting on wind and

solar power, they're doublely taxing our taxpayers of this nation and hurting our economy. that's reality. that's reality. so they're doubley taxed because they're paying taxes because of the high cost of oil, the high cost of gasoline. $1,100 a year they have been taxed this year versus last year. and yet we talk about wind power. they're taxed because that comes out of the general fund that we're borrowing money from the chinese. that's reality. wind and solar are fine as long as they're subsidized. as long as you pay for them, mr. and mrs. taxpayer, they're fine. but that's an additional tax on you. if it was so economical, so well to be done, then we would have done it a long time ago. and i say it will work.

it's like ethanol. it works. it's not economical. we have to go back to fossil fuels. we can have all forms of energy. i do not want them subsidized. we can have all those other forms of energy but we have to have the ability to move product. i look at the port of seattle, port of tacoma, every one of those ships are burning a fossil fuel to deliver those goods. every truck that leaves that port goes out to deliver those to the people around this nation is burning fossil fuels. every crane that leaves is burning fossil fuels. every airplane that lands built by boeing is emitting fossil fuels. this is a chance for us to speak up and say we are going to develop our natural fuels in this country so we can compete legitimately. you cannot compete by borrowing money to buy foreign oil. .

that's what that side wants to do. i will join hands with you if you vote for other forms of energy, too. let's get it together, guys. all we are trying to do is undo what the obama administration did. that's put a moratorium in. and i urge defeat of this amendment and yield back. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. inslee: i would request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from washington requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rue 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on

those amendments printed in house report 112-74 on which

for what purpose does the -- >> i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question son the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on

the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 1231, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration h.r. 1231 and has come to no resolution thereon. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor.

the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, they are america's angels abroad. they are ambassadors for america an they are good folks that represent everything that is right about our country. they are the peace corps volunteers and this is the 50th year of the peace corps. these are the most wonderful people i think i've ever met. but there's a problem in the peace corps because many times these volunteers go overseas, they help out other countries, but they become victims of crime. and victims of sexual assault. in fact in 2009, there were 122 of them that were victims of sexual assault by predators in foreign countries and the problem is, there's not much

compassion, not much concern, and not much care with the peace corps about the plight of these victims according to the victims who testified today. but those things are changing. director williams is committed to making the peace corps a safe place for our volunteers overseas. we're going to work with him and these victims to promote legislation so that we will have a protocol that is the law, so that they are treated better. you know, we are the greatest human rights nation in the world. we promote human rights but human rights need to also apply to victims in the peace corps who are sexually assaulted overseas and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute an revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to pay tribute to our nation's law enforcement

officers, the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to protecting our men and women. thousands of officers from across the country will gather here in washington to pay tribute to those who have fallen in the line of duty. mr. paulsen: sadly in the past year, 162 officers have died in the line of duty, including two from minnesota. sergeant joseph bergeron of maplewood and a county sheriff's deputy chris dewey. i want to call attention to legislation i have introduced that would help protect those who protect us. h.r. 1789, the state and local law enforcement discipline, accountability and due process act would guarantee law enforcement officers have basic rights during disciplinary actions. i ask and urge my colleagues to sign on to this legislation so we can also help and protect our law enforcement officers. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: can you imagine in your household if for over $1 you spent, 40 cent was borrowed. that's the situation we're in with every dollar we spend in the u.s. congress today. yet there are those who do not want to reforl or change. but if i brought in my family and said, listen, guys for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed, we would say, what can we cut out? can we do with less travel? do with less clothes? cut back on the kitchen table a little bit? we would come up with ideas. they might be tough choices but it's the right thing to do. it is time for congress to get our house in order. and to think about the next generation not just the next election. as a member of the appropriations committee, i can tell you each and every day, people come to see me to ask nor money to be spent. we've got to change our culture

of spending here and get the house under control. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise tonight to welcome our men and women in uniform and join our community in celebrating national military appreciation month they feel month of maye encome bass -- encompasses a number of celebratory days linked to our armed force, their families an our nation's proud history. from military spouse appreciation day to victory in europe day and from loyalty day to armed forces day and memorial day, the month of maye is a time for our nation to come together and give praise to our most heroic citizens. our nation traditionally reck these ours troops' sacrifice in a somber manner on memorial

day. but national military appreciation month allows us to not only appreciate those who have given their lives for our freedom, but also to celebrate the resolve of our nation through its most difficult time. i welcome our nation to join in recognizing the contribution of our service men and women, past and present, for all that they have done to preserve our freedom and our way of life. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute and rhett re-my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: i noted with interest the president announced this week he would give a major address on immigration. as one who was involved in this debate for decades, i was interesting -- interested to

find out what direction he would take. talking about motes and alligators and talking about intransigence on the other side of the aisle is not the way to attract bipartisan support to deal with one of the most difficult and important questions of our nation. i wouldn't say i'm outraged, i would say i'm disappointed at the tone those remarks of the president yesterday. if we're going to work together on issues as important as that, it would seem to me to be important for us to in some way at least accept the fact that there may be legitimate reason for differences and try to bridge those differences rather than expand them. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minutes? hearing none, the chair lays

before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for ms. jackson lee of texas for tuesday, maye 10. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker. the western caucus has several members here tonight. we would like to talk about what is going on right now in the country, the administration seems to be waging a war on the western jobs and that is carried out through a whole range of activities. a couple of weeks ago, the administration, the president said that the administration is not doing enough to address the high gas prices. the president said in his speech at georgetown that he

would like to cut foreign oil by 1/3 by drilling at home. we have been in the process of offering him the solution to what he said he would like to do. keep in mind that while the president is saying one thing, he's doing another. while he says we would like to drill for more oil here, understand that he has increased the moratorium on the offshore drilling. they've made it more difficult to drill in onland areas through the rocky mountains. know that they rejecked shell oil company's $4 billion nepa study because a paragraph was omitted. so while we're hearing bold language from this administration, about increasing the am of oil we're drilling here at home and that would create american jobs, but it was -- it would also create lower energy prices, understand that it appears that the president is not following through on what he said.

so in the past couple of days, this congress this house has passed up h.r. 1229 which says that we're going to put the people back to work in the gulf of mexico. i think everyone understands that b.p. is accountable and should be accountable for the problems that they caused. but we should not have killed the 100,000 jobs offshore. our nation is stuck at 9% unemployment. we are stuck with a deficit that is having to be financed by our own federal reserve. we're putting the nation's economy at risk. because of our -- the way we're treating jobs and because of our deficits. so we're saying, put the american workers back to work in the gulf, produce american oil, produce american jobs, and bring lower prices of gasoline to the consumer. the same bill improves the safety by reforming current law.

it sets timelines for the secretary to act on permits to drill. right now, one of the things the secretary is doing ois holding off approval for applications for permits to drill. know that the administration has within its power to improve the situation with jobs immediately but instead they're doing the things that harm our work. h.r. 1229 also establishes expedited judicial review processes. we have also passed h.r. 1230 which says we're going to restart offshore american oil leasing now act. it passed last week. it requires that the for leas sales in the gulf take place. those were previously scheduled but instead of going ahead with them, the administration put them on hold. let's simply produce the energy which has been verified to be there, which would create american jobs, and which would aid american consumers by lower prices of gasoline.

h.r. 1231 has also been passed which reverses president obama's offshore moratorium. the president made a big deal just after he was sworn in two years ago about reversing the moratorium. but after one analyzed the moratorium he reversed, we saw he increased the moratorium that more areas were put off limits to drilling, rather than the message he gave the american people. so h.r. 231 says to the president that we would like for you to join us in creating american jobs. jobs that the west would be proud of, jobs that would produce energy. jobs that would produce high-paying careers, not just jobs. we believe that these are the things that the american people are looking for. this is the leadership that they're asking for out of washington. h.r. 1231 requires each five-year offshore leasing plan

to include lease sales in areas containing the greatest nonoil and natural gas reserves. our offshore areas are tremendous reserves of energy. all we have to do is tap into them and use them. it threers secretary establish a production goal when writing the five-year plan. i'm joined tonight by several members of the western caucus, each one has got their own particular interest area where the administration appears to be conducting a war on western jobs, so tonight, to lead off, i would like to yield time to my good friend, cynthia lummis, from wyoming, and i would yield her as much time as she would consume. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman from new mexico for yielding. i appreciate his leadership of the western caucus and look forward to this robust discussion tonight. the west is rich in natural resources. and natural resources, their

good stewardship, and using them for the benefit of our country is what the west does best. this administration is turning its back on the stewardship that is available in the west as we produce our natural resources and instead is taking away the jobs, the environmental progress, and replacing it with further dependence on foreign energy from places like saudi arabia and venezuela. we can produce our own energy in this country. with -- between the resources of canada and the united states, we can produce enough energy for us to meet our foreseeable needs. but that requires us to use the technologies and the jobs associated with those

technologies that will create tens of thousands of jobs, in fact, hundreds of thousands of jobs. instead, we're actually going in exactly the opposite direction. . fracking technology is advancing dramatically the ability of america to recover its rich natural gas resources and allows us to do so by casing a well with perforations. there is an explosion that cracks the rock, then fluids are forced into these gaps in the rock, keeping the seams open allowing the gas or oil to come up to the surface, allowing americans to use american-grown

energy. but the attack on fracking technology is based not on science, but on the idea that fracking could damage drinking water. none of us want to see our precious drinking water polluted by contaminants that some people are being used in fracking fluids. so the states, knowing their own geology better than anyone in washington could and the very diverse geology that is different from state to state -- you will be hearing later this evening, representative thompson, a member from pennsylvania where the marcellus shale formation is being produced. i'm going to talk about the use of fracking technology in my state, where the geology is very

different from the marcellus shale but where it can be used to produce american jobs. the wyoming oil and gas conservation commission, recognizing the concern that our drinking water could be imperiled, set about and created a set of rules and regulations to disclose the contents of fracking fluids and the processes that are being used by companies that are fracking wells in the state of wyoming. those rules are being used to provide people with the information that's needed to assure them that fracking fluids are not contaminating our water. furthermore, there have been repeated stories, using an example from wyoming in pavillion, wyoming, of an area that some argue was fracked to

the detriment of local water wells. we are learning more and more about those water wells. and what we're finding is that out of 100 water wells in the area, only about a fifth of them are permitted and some of them are not even cased. well, this allows for the natural peccolation into water that has nothing to do with fracking. if we look at the science and apply it correctly using good stewardship principles, we can produce oil and gas and have good drinking water. i even have a photograph from someone in my home state, mr. chairman, that has a flame coming out of a pond. the flame is a consequence of

natural methane seep coming out of the water that has been on fire as long as this gentleman can remember. these are natural fen no, ma'amons. we need to make sure that we are assuring people in this country that drinking water will be safe at the same time we recover these resources. those very assurances require scientists and environmental companies, they require fracking experts, more jobs, more oil and gas, more diverse energy for the american economy. and of course clean-burning natural gas provides us an extension of the air quality that we value so well. these are american jobs that can be saved, nurtured and grown and used successfully all over the united states on and offshore.

and mr. chairman, you just acknowledged a project in the beaufort, which is off the coast of barrow, alaska, 87 miles. shell has put $4 billion as you pointed out, into preparing to produce that resource and still does not have a permit to produce it and at some point, those investments begin to devalue their sunken costs in a way that may make companies like shell look elsewhere. that takes jobs away from america and into countries where we're competing for jobs. and in places that sometime are not our best friends wen it

comes to foreign -- when it comes to foreign policy. let's produce oil and gas with american jobs, with good pay, and good benefits and with the goal of having an all of the above energy policy that benefits the west and the country as a whole. i yield back. mr. pearce: i thank the gentlelady for her comments. and we are joined tonight by my good friend, mr. thompson, from pennsylvania. before i yield time to him. i would like to walk through a brief list of some of the other ways that the government conducts war on western jobs. consider the listing of endangered species. no one of us wants to see a species go extinct but what we have even is an extortion of the rules. there are ways we can keep jobs

and preserve species, yet we are not doing that right now. the coho salmon was listed as endangered as a result, the farmers in the klammoth basin have been forced into bankruptcy by the lifting of the salmon. the salmon, water rights farmers and property owners face restrictions on their properties because of the imposition of extreme buffers to protect the salmon. the listing of the salmon in general, the court case over whether hydroelectric dam operators have done their best. billions of dollars have been spent to accommodate, according to the "bloomberg business week." the northern spotted owl, it has killed the timber industry in

much of the west and especially in northern california and oregon. northern spotted owl, that killed the timber industry in arizona and new mexico. the smelt, the small two-inch fish that lives in the san joaquin valley killed 27,000 jobs. the san joaquin valley was the source of 80% of our nation's vegetables. now those vegetables farms are gone. bankruptcy. we are now importing food from countries that can spray pesticides that are outlawed in this country. fewer jobs, bigger government, bigger -- greater cost of vegetables and less safe food

supply. the grey wolf was listed by the fish and wildlife service as endangered and has killed agriculture and mining jobs throughout the west. still, the list goes on and on. so it's not that these are just hypothetical ideas that the war on western jobs is occurring by a government, these are ongoing processes. one group, they have declared they are going to list over 1,000 species this year that they are going to petition for the listing for over 1,000 species this year, understand their lawyers get reimbursed at the rate of $350 to $500 for every lawsuit. every lawsuit provides employment for the lawyers in those groups. know that the taxpayers footing the bill and yet losing jobs in the meantime. i would like to recognize mr.

thompson for as much time as he might consume. thank you for being here tonight. mr. thompson: i thank my good friend from new mexico for yielding and it is representing the part of pennsylvania, an honor to be part of the western caucus. i represent western pennsylvania and central pennsylvania and part of eastern pennsylvania. my district has many of the same issues, mr. speaker, that -- very well within the western caulk caucus. . it is a huge barrier and to kill jobs, same things that we certainly experience in western pennsylvania. i'm proud. i chair the largest committee -- subcommittee in agriculture. and i want to go down another road in which -- how government kills jobs, western jobs,

whether it's the west or western pennsylvania or frankly throughout the united states. we recently had a hearing, we are doing a proposed united states forest service plan. and our national forests, very clear to differentiate there. they are not national parks. timber is not the only thing. our forests were created to provide us energy, access to oil, to natural gas, to coal, to minerals. that's why they are put in existence. and as we look around the nation, certainly in my congressional district, we have -- my national forest is relatively small compared to some in the west, 513,000 acres but it is profitable and home to the best hardwood cherry. there is a management plan, to

keep the forest healthy, they are supposed to harvest over 90 million board feet a year and for over a decade they have been doing 20. as one of the members in my subcommittee talked about his national forest they harvest zero board feet. there are a lot of problems with that. if you don't harvest timber, you don't manage that forest in a healthy way and subject yourself to wildfires, to invasive species. it creates an unhealthy forest, but it also kills jobs. and that's what we have seen. we have seen that across the nation in the west, all parts of the country with our national forests where the forest service has failed to do its jobs to manage the forests in a productive way. that came out very clearly in the first of what will be a number of hearings that we are going to do in this issue. timber production is down.

i'm proud to say it is up to 40 million board feet in the algainy national forest but that is persistence with the forest service on a constant basis but a long ways from 90. and the production of timber is down and that means timber jobs. that means our saw mills, our timber industry, those jobs have gone away. they are extinct today. and the frofert products jobs that come as a result of having that timber supply are going away. and the economies, you know, our rural communities were taken in order to create these national forests by the federal government. and the economies of our rural communities that make up those forests dependent on the promise that was made when the forests were formed, timber industry, oil, gas, coal, all the

sustainable resources would be provided -- would be produced and that would maintain the economies in those rural communities. that's been a lie by the federal government. they haven't done that and haven't met their responsibilities and killed our jobs in rural communities. in terms of energy in my district, i was sworn in for the first time in congress in january of 2009. within a week of when i was sworn in, the forest service chose to place a moratorium on any new drilling permits in my national forest. you have to understand my national forest, 93% of the rights are privately owned. these are owned by private individuals even and they came in and imposed this moratorium because of some lawsuit that as my good friend talked about that the taxpayers paid the organizations to file, basically and we went over a year with people losing their jobs,

families suffering for just that reason. thankfully, a federal judge overturned that decision. . the forest service appealed, the judge threw it out, they've appealed again, in a philadelphia court, we'll see what happens. but that's just another example of just bad government. my good friend, mrs. lummis of wyoming, talked about the marleau se ulous natural gas. the government is not involved in it. natural gas is almost entirely private lands. i have counties for the first time in history their unemployment rates are below both state and natural averages. everybody benefits. not just the people getting the royalties or lees -- or leases but the churches, the boy scout the girl scouts, the little

leagues, because rural folks are generous and support good causes. so the communities are growing ching the annual average tax -- the annual earnings are going up. frankly, government is benefiting because local, state an even the federal government is get manager tax revenue with all that economic activity. and our unemployment is down and energy security is there and it's lower energy costs for everyone and you know what, it's private sector. if the government owned that land, we'd never be experiencing those benefits. so you know, despite that fact, despite these being private lands, i'll end my comments with this because i know we have other members who want to speak tonight this administration is going after that natural gas production. they are. there are some in this body that are proposing federal government overreach. we're accessing that energy in a very -- as a good steward. we've got regulations, the

department of environmental protection in pennsylvania is -- pennsylvania is a tough agency but they do a fair job. they're always looking at regulations. but we've got this administration who wants the federal government to employ the e.p.a. and send them into pennsylvania and other parts of our country where we're producing domestic nrning which will shut down our energy production and will shut down this prosperity. shut down these jobs that are being create. shut down the movement we're making toward energy security. so we've -- i want to thank my good friend from new mexico for hosting this hour tonight, proud to be part of the western caucus, proud to be with you this evening. thank you. mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for his comments and so far the quote of the night is, prosperity is a good thing. yes our government seems to have a war on prosperity. why is our government trying to undermine the economy when we're struggling with high deficits and unemployment. it defies the imagination that

that's going on. i'd like to recognize my good friend from georgia, mr. broun, for such time as he may consume. i appreciate you being here. georgia and pennsylvania in the western caucus, that's the way it should be. we're west of somewhere. mr. broun: i appreciate you yielding me some time. let me go forward with what mr. thompson was just saying and what you were just commenting on about posterity. -- prosperity. just today i had a businessman in my office relaying to me a conversation he had with one of the democrat senators, liberal democrat senators. he was talking about the issues that concerned him in his business. she was arguing over and over again if -- again ant how government needs to do all the regulatory constraints on business and how businesses need to be taxed higher, it's

not fair for businesses to be making money at the levels that they are. just today we saw some democratic colleagues talk about the oil companies and the kind of money they've been making with increased prices of gasoline. finally, in frustration, this democrat senator said to -- this businessman said, all you're concerned -- this democrat congressman said to this businessman, all you're concerned about is profit. you just want to make a profit. that's what business does. it makes a profit toward shareholders if it's a corporation, or for small businesses. the policies of this administration, the policies that we've seen from our democrat colleagues when nancy pelosi was running the house, now with harry reid running the senate and certainry the -- certainly the obama administration, they're trying to destroy progress. they're trying to destroy the economy in my opinion.

the president himself has said he doesn't mind seeing gasoline prices go up as long as they go up incrementally. he doesn't want to see the massive increases but as long as they keep going up. his own energy secretary, dr. chu, fairly recently said, somehow we have to find a way to make gasoline in the united states the same price it is in europe, which is roughly $8 a gallon today. the policies of this administration are doing just exactly that. today in the science technology committee, we were talking about fracking and the e.p.a. scientist studying fracking admitted there's not been one single instance, not one, where fracking has been implicated in contaminating drinking water. not one. i believe this administration is doing everything to destroy

this country and trying to destroy the free enterprise system. in fact the president himself said that if his policies go into effect, to use his own words, energy prices will, quote, necessarily skyrocket. who is going to be hurt? who is going to be hurt when fuel prices go up and food prices go up and not only gasoline and diesel fuel, i was talking to a restaurant -- actually a manager in a restaurant just last week in athens, georgia, and asking him about his food prices in his restaurant and what's going on because of the high cost of gasoline and he said his suppliers are adding a fuel surcharge onto the cost of the foods that he's buying and selling in his restaurant. it's the policies of this

administration doing that. just yesterday, i had a constituent of mine who is an expert in georgia, come in and talk about some of the issues he faces. i am from georgia. i'm a good southerner. i love my grits and corn bread. for folks not southern, grits are made from corn. corn bread, obviously, that's self-explanatory where that comes from. i think even yankees know that corn bread comes from corn too. so the thing that i -- as a good southerner irk cannot see driving down the road and burning up my grits and corn bread in the fuel tank of my g.m.c. uconn that i used as my office when i was making house calls as a medical doctor. i hear our democrat colleagues talk about, we need to remove the subsidies for the oil companies. the american people need to

know that those subsidies are actually tax credits. they're not true subsidies. as such. in fact, harry reid was recreptly wanting a subsidy for gold mining in his home state of nevada. he also wanted us to continue funding the cowboy poetry festival in his home state. we've got to stop spending this outrageous funds that the federal government has been spending. we need to start creating jobs and a strong economy and the best way to do that is get rid of these policies of this administration that are destroying jobs, destroying our economy, increasing the cost of gas and diesel fuel, farmers and everybody in this country. but back to my producer friend, i've got a chart here we made up in our office, a dozen eggs

in georgia. we have some subsidies for -- which are really not subsidies for the oil companies. they're just tax credits. but we have subsidies for ethanol production. which are true subsidies. and our administration is trying to pick winners and losers and one of the winners that they picked is the ethanol production and that's been a total failure. what that's done is increase the cost of gasoline. it's increased the cost of food. across this country. in fact, the major ingredient in feed for chickens is corn. corn, when i was farming back a number of years ago was $2.50 a bushel. now it's approaching $8 a bushel.

2005, before this ethanol subsidy, total feed cost per dozen eggs, so when a consumer goes out an buys a dozen eggs, the food cost in that dozen eggs was 21 cents per dozen. of eggs. now, 2011, it's approximately 52 cents per dozen. so who pays for that? does the egg produce her no. the consumer. when you go to the grosery store and buy a dozen eggs, you're buying more money for the failed policies of this administration, particularly as it has to do with energy. if we start drilling for oil, tapping into our natural gas supply, start producing coal, particularly doing the clean coal technology that we have, having an all of the above energy policy, what's going to be the outcome, long-term

outcome for the american consumer. every single american can lower the cost of eggs and milk and bread because it's going to lower the cost of the production of all the foods. every single good and service in this country is affected by these high fuel costs of gasoline and fuel oil, diesel fuel, etc. people who are going to be hurt most are the poor people. those on limited incomes. our senior citizens. i hear over an over again our democratic colleagues talk about republicans are in the back pockets of big oil. wrong. i'd like to see us end all subsidies. all of them. but particularly ethanol subsidy which has not made any sense whatsoever. and let's start developing our own energy resources, which

will create jobs here in america. yesterday and today we're debating three bills that came out of our natural resources committee. those three bills will start us being able to tap into the energy, god-given energy resources we have in this country. help us to be less dependent upon foreign sources of energy. if the president will ever sign those three bills into law, the short-term effect is going to be 220,000 -- no, i think it's been estimated 200,000 new jobs will be created. 200,000 new jobs will be created just for those three bills, just to be able to open up, developing our own energy sources here in america. that the president is blocking. long-term. those three bills, it's estimated, will create 1.2 million new jobs here in the

united states. american jobs. help create a stronger economy. policies of this administration, the failed energy policies of this administration are hurting job creation, they're hurting our economy, they're raising the cost of gasoline, they're raising the cost of diesel fuel, they're raising the cost of fuel oil, they're going to hurt egg producers and egg consumers. consumers of all goods and services, your food costs are going to go up, cost of every good and service in this country will go up, all because of the failed policies of this administration because we cannot develop our own energy resources, our god-given resources that we have in this country. i submit if a nation is not energy independent, it's not a secure nation. that's the way we are today. we've got to become energy independent. how is that going to happen?

a former u.s. senator one time said when he feels the heat, he sees the light. the most powerful political force in america is embodied in the first three words of the u.s. constitution. we the people. when we the people start contacting members of congress, particularly the democrat members of the house, and members of the u.s. senate, and demanding that we develop our own energy resources here in america, that we have an all of the above energy policy, that looks at everything, nuclear energy, clean coal, oil, gas, everything, which we must do, and that's what republicans are fighting for. if enough people all over this country will contact their senators and their members of congress an say, let's develop our own energy resources, let's develop american jobs, let's develop a strong economy here in america, then we can do so, but it's up to we the people to

be able to demand that from your elected representatives. thank you for yielding me some time and i appreciate the great job you're doing as chairman of the western caucus, i'm honored to be a part that have caucus and i appreciate your yielding me some time tonight. i encourage before i yield back, i encourage the people to go on my website, broun.house.gov, and they can actually look at all the things on this chart and so they can look at it and find -- in fine detail and understand how high energy costs are creating high prices for eggs in their grocery store. thank you. mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman for his comments and his perceptions. as he mentioned, it seems that washington has a war on profits. i think that maybe our friends on the other side of the aisle don't understand that profits pay high salaries. if you work in an industry with no profits you work at low salaries.

profits pay to reinvest in new buildings, creating construction in neighborhoods. profits are put into youth training, baseball leagues, soccer leagues, profits are reinvested into new equipment causing manufacturing firms to thrive. profits are invested in dividends and they cause increased values of stocks. helping retirees. and finally profits are the only thing that corporations pay tax on. they do not pay taxes on losses. and so when we begin it talk about with taking away the profits of companies, understand that we're talking about undermining the american way of life. this attack on profits is an attack on the american way of life. i'm pleased to be joined tonight by a good friend from utah, mr. bishop, and would like to yield him as much time as he would

consume. mr. bishop: i thank chairman pierce from new mexico for use the western caucus -- pearce from new mexico for using the western caucus to illustrate some of these ideas and situations that are here. i'm also grateful to mr. broun from georgia who was just here and tried to show how whenever you have a policy that prohibits or discriminates or lessens the amount of energy that we have in this country, it has a dreakt impact on individuals and people -- direct impact on individuals and people. it has a direct impact on the cost of food. for every dime that diesel fuel increases, that's $400 million the agricultural industry has to put on to the cost of food. not just in transporting the food, but for the fertilizer to grow it, for the boxing, the shipping, the manufacturing of it, all those things are added to it. for every penny that the cost of gasoline increases at the pump that is $1 billion that's taken out of the household income of americans. and who is that going toimpact

the worst? obviously the people at the lower end of the economic scale who have the most difficult time to making their budget stretch to pay for higher transportation costs, for higher food costs because fuel goes up, for higher heating costs because fuel goes up, they are the ones who are hurt. and they're the ones who are taking place. now, i also appreciate mr. pearce for illustrating that this actually -- that we have a situation in which the west, without trying to be specific to a region, but the west has been treated with the heaviest hand over the past few years and has suffered the greatest consequences of that heavy hand. last year according to the bureau of labor statistics they simply said that the region that had the highest unemployment, for last year and the year before with, happened to be the west. six of the top 12 states that had the largest decline in employment to population ratio

since the recession that began in 2007 are found in the west. three of the top five states showing the most stress last year in the summer were found in the west. and unfortunately washington's misguided policies over the last several years are simply making these situations worse. let me, if i could, talk about a couple of specific situations that i have found in my state that have added to this problem of what we call the war on the west because they have had the dual whammy of not only increasing the price of energy which is the price of living and the price of doing business, but at the same time decreasing jobs in our particular area. part of that becomes because the west simply has, as a region, over half of its land owned by the federal government. this government was not planned this way, it just kind of happened. owns one out of every three acres in the united states.

the west -- west ofden it owns one out of every two achers in the united states and we get to have the fun of working with the heavy hand of the federal government on all sorts of efforts. especially when a department of interior has unlimited arbitrary and capricious powers given to them. for example, the bureau with of land management in the state of utah went through what are called regional management plans. i have 16 areas, half of them went through a regional management plan. the people on the ground who were working there, who lived there and know that area, spent seven years in developing a regional management plan which means simply how will the land owned by the federal government, and remember it's still half of it, how will the land be used for development purposes? seven years, they held the public hearings, went through all the processes, they came up with their plan. the secretary of interior came into office and on the first day -- in the first few days he

simply said, those plans don't fit the needs of this country because it authorizes 77 oil and gas leases, places where the professionals on the ground determined that the best use of government land was used to develop oil and gas in the state of utah. secretary simply said, now he believes the last administration had made a rush to judgment and therefore it was in his best decision to suspend not only those oil leases but also the land management plans at the same time. he then simply by the stroke of his signature, there was no work with it, there was no counterbalance, there was no checks and balance system, he simply said, i think it was wrong, it was a rush to judgment, i'm going to stop it. now, like everything else this situation went to court and the judge ruled that actually the secretary was wrong, there was not a rush to judgment by anyone other than the secretary when he

suspended those leases. however, because there was a timing element, one of those technicalities, and those who were suing waited too long to send the lawsuit, the decision of the secretary would stand. and what the secretary said is, i'll be magnanimous and of the 77, i'll let 17 go forward, the other 60, they stay off the table, i don't care what the regional management plan did. the end result that have was simply that you don't have a whole lot of leases that will be put out for development. unfortunately it has a ripple effect through the community. because not all leases are found on federal land, there is also state land and a few, very few pieces of private land. but oftentimes they'll abut one another and if you block the -- abut one another and if you block the leasing opportunity on this piece of land, it sterilizes the development opportunity on the neighbor land staple. plus if all of a sudden the department of sweeryor is

sending a message they're going to be tough on this kind of development, the industry gets the message and they're not going to fight that kind of issue and they will leave at the same time. the net result of this one with action by the department of interior was unemployment in one rural county in utah was a loss of 3,000 jobs in a county that only has 30,000 residents. the unemployment tripled over a course of months and only and solely because of this one decision. that not only did we not have the ability of drilling on both federal lands, but you also lost the opportunity for the private sector to go into state lands and on certain private lands and then the ripple effect went. the private sector said, i'm not going to put up with this. they took the investment capital that they were willing to put into the region of rural utah and took it somewhere elsewhere they didn't have to deal with the department of interior. we have the same situation in

the west in another particular area, specifically with oil shale. the u.s. geological survey, which oddly enough is part of the department of interior, has estimated that in a 16,000 square mile area of colorado, utah and wyoming there are roughly two trillion barrels of oil that can be extracted from oil shale. that is more energy than we get from canada. this is not a new and unusual process. estonia and the baltic states have been using this same process of extraction from oil shale for 80 years and they have done it successfully and in an environmentally friendly manner. we could copy that same proposal but no, no, once again this administration has decided to slow walk any development, slow walk any allowance of projects to go forward to demonstrate what we can and cannot do. and the net result of losing this opportunity for oil shale is at least $1.9 trillion added

to the economy of this country and projected to be up to $100 -- 100,000 new jobs that would be lost simply by this one decision as well. this is a small area but you compound that fact of what is happening not just in my state of utah but what's happening in colorado and wyoming and new mexico and nevada and the rest of the west and you see the compounded problem we have that truly can understand why in the recession, why was the west the hardest hit? well, because we were dealing with the federal government. in a way that was certainly not -- that was certainly unfair. i'd like to say one last thing before i yield back to the gentleman from new mexico. the last days, as the gentleman says, we have been talking about with the ability of trying to jump start our energy portfolio, our energy self-dependence, our energy ability in three bills specifically dealing with offshore development. we have that same potential for

energy development onshore as well that we need to talk about at the same time. but sometimes we also need to talk here simply about understanding how words have meaning and we have been throwing around words in the debate the last couple of weeks in a way that i think has been somewhat unfair and somewhat dilatory and not quite -- has clouded the actual issue of what's going on. for example, there are those that are saying, we don't need to actually develop any new oil or gas resources, there are plenty of leases out there that aren't being produced. i want you to know when you deal with words that a lease is not the same thing as a permit to drill. and a permit to drill doesn't mean you're going to find anything for production. just because there is a lease does not mean there is production. i had a company that was in my office today who has a lease in one with of the western states, they received the lease six

years ago, only this year did they finally check off all the boxes, run through all the bureaucratic hoops, do the environmental impact statements to get the permit, six years later, to finally start preparing to drill to see if it is actually productive. that six years cost a lot of money to that company which could have gone to providing work, providing jobs, as well as resources to help grow the economy of this country. that's a real cost. and that's real and legitimate. we've heard comments before about how this country doesn't have enough oil because we don't have enough reserves to make it wort while. according to the c.r.s. -- worth while. according to the c.r.s., congressional research study, we have $1.2 trillion wort of -- worth of gas available for production here in the united states. that puts us in the top five countries in the world for oil. we are not an oil-poor country.

however, when we talk about reserves, reserves are not the same thing as the amount of money that's available. our reserves are a definition that is established by the s.e.c. and by the definition we use we will always have fewer reserves than other countries by definition. in addition to that, a reserve can't count as a reserve until you can actually get to it. when we put parts of this country off, we have moratorium, by definition that takes us out of the reserve. so when someone says, we don't have as many reserves as other countries, it's probably true. that doesn't mean we don't have enough oil that can be used and produced, it simply means it doesn't fit the definition. reserve is not the same thing as amount of producible oil. just like as the gentleman from georgia said, a subsidy, and we talk about all the subsidies the industries are getting, a subsidy is when the government actually pays cash to somebody.

the oil companies are not getting cash from the government , a subsidy should not be confused with a tax credit or a tax deduction. if it was, when i fill out my long form and i write down my charitable contributions and get to write them off, that means the federal government is subsidizing me or subsidizing the charity to which i am giving. that doesn't make any sense. what we need to do is talk about the words as the words really are meant to be. and make sure the words are used the proper way an not for some rhetorical effort to inflame the situation and reach some other result. the last word we need to talk about is simply jobs. right now, there are twice as many government jobs as in all of manufacturing combined. in 1960, those ratios were reversed. we have gone a lot of effort

over the last few years to pass job bills, all of which produced government jobs. what we need to do is look at jobs in the private sector. in the private sector, which creates a reliable, long-term job, a job that also equates wealth that goes back into the system and helps to grow our economy and grow our country. those are the jobs we should be after and those are the jobs we need to do and unfortunately, we will never develop those jobs until we have a governmental energy policy that is reliable, that is not dependent on the whims of some foreign country, and that helps us develop the resources we have in this country. we can do it. and we need to do it. and i appreciate mr. pearce from new mexico bringing up this issue because that's what we need to do as a policy. with that, i think the gentleman and i yield become -- yield back the time to him. mr. pearce: i thank the wrelt for his comments.

he pointed out this nation is rich in shale oil. we have two trillion barrels of shale oil outlawed from use back in 2007 in a bill passed by nancy pelosi off the floor of the house. to put that in perspective what does two trillion barrels of shale oil mean? we have only used one trillion barrels of oil completely in our history. we have double -- in just shale oil, that's not natural gas or normal repe troll yum, we have double in shale oil what we've consumed to this point. another comment that was made earlier is that we subsidize and consumers end up paying for things they don't know they're paying. just talked to a constituent last week, he said that he was given that tax credit for 40% of a solar facility he put on his own home. that was from the federal government. from the state government

another 10%, so about 50% of the cost of the program was completely reimbursed by the government. but the big deal is they're paying him 22 cents per kilowatt hour he is able to sell back into the system. now that 22 cents needs to be compared to the seven cents that electricity normally costs, so the consumer is tagged with three times the cost of electricity provided by solar power that is bought from individual producers. the consumer will pay more for the power. it is not an easy process to understand but consumers will ultimately pay all the higher energy costs. we hear much today in washington about the subsidies for big oil. beaware that there are no subsidies for big oil. there are simply writeoffs that every company is allowed to take, legally. writeoffs to encourage them to invest in machinery, writeoffs

that sound like depreciation, amortization, writeoffs that are allowed by accounting techniques across the board in this cupry. understand that when we begin to penalize these oil companies, we're going to cost america jobs. let's talk just a bit about the different supposed subsidies that in fact rejit mat writeoffs that companies are given. the suggestion is made that we would look to repeal the expense of the intangible drilling cost. the intangible drilling cost represents 60% to 80% of the cost of a well. historic u.s. policy allows a writeoff for development. today we're talking about reversing it, when we're starving for jobs and 9%

unemployment and we're talking about making it harder to employ people. other exens are able to expense their research and development projects. pharmaceutical companies. this will discourage innovation in the sector at a time when we need more innovation, notless, disallowing the expense of intangible drilling costs will put the american consume for the a worse position and endanger american jobs. the second idea that's talked about in raising taxes for oil companies is to do away with the writeoff, the dual capacity rule. the dual capacity rule is to ensure that income that is taxed by another nation is not also tack taxed by the u.s. -- is not also taxed by the u.s. it's something the u.s. has been alone in taxing double.

we tax not only the amount that is made here, but the amount that is made in other countries, the profits made in other countries. that's a tax inversion that has cost us many jobs. now we have the allowance, the dual capacity rule is in place to stop that, yet our friends on the other side of the aisle are saying we must stop this practice. all it's going to do is make the u.s. more inhospitable for investments in energy resources at a time when we're seeing $4 gasoline, at a time when our economy is struggling, when we need jobs, we're talking about making american businesses less competitive and making american jobs more scarce. the final section is maybe the most egregious of all. that is the repeal of section 199, manufacturing exemptions for oil and gas companies.

in 2004, the congress enacted the section 199 for manufacturing companies to encourage them to bring jobs back to this country. from 2004 to 2007, the oil and gas industry was responsible for two million new jobs created. the oil and gas companies currently support 9.2 million jobs. almost all manufacturers receive a 9% credit, that's again in order to encourage them to come back to this country. the oil and gas companies have only been receiving a 6% credit because they've already been picked on by the people in this town. but now they're suggesting we want to completely do away with the manufacturing credit. keep in mind, that's the refining of gasoline, that's the definition of oil and gas. at a time when we're starving for jobs, we're going to make u.s. refine iries less

competitive -- refineries less competitive. we're going to encourage venezuela and hue ga chavez to send more jobs there, to take more jobs and send more gasoline here. it doesn't make sense. tonight i'd like to wrap up with this one picture about the status our country is in. our country right now has a tremendous problem with its economy. the problem is this. in washington, we spend $3.5 trillion, our revenues to the government are $2.2 trillion. that's a $1.3 trillion deficit. the accumulated deficits over the lifetime of this country are almost $15 trillion. i show those deficits running out the end of the pipeline into our debt barrel to show the accumulated debt through the nation. i also show a green sludge pouring over the edge of the barrel because we have got $202 trillion of accumulated cost for social security, medicare an medicaid. these are the things that are

wrecking our economy. this chart given by o.m.b. and c.b.o., the congress and the white house, both show that our economy is going to fail in 2038 because of these practices. at a time when we're starving for jobs this administration has a war on western jobs, it has a war on our energy, it has a war on our jobs in the timber industry, it has a war on our way of life. this is not the time to be conducting partisan politics in this town. it's a time for us to create jobs. each person pays an increment more taxes but they're no longer receiving welfare, unemployment and food stamps, so the $3 ppt 5 is greater. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the yom from ohio, ms. kaptur, is

recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. jobs need to be america's number one priority. when people go back to work, it seems fairly obvious that we'll not only balance family budgets but we'll be able to balance america's budget. they're tied together. but for some reason, too many officials here in washington, both elected officials and those who lobby, simply haven't gotten that message. at the end of last month, the "washington post" ran an excellent piece asking, what is it about the word jobs that our nation's leaders fail to understand. how has the most painful economic crisis in modern history somehow escaped their

notice? an why did they ignore issues that americans care most desperately about? very good questions. i tried to answer them myself as i've fought the resistance to try to help reemploy those who seek work across our country. i'd have to say that in some ways, some here in this city are privileged. they've really led very privileged lives. they've been insulated. insulated from living in a family that gets a pink slip. insulated from being in a family that knows what it's like to live on an unemployment check and wonder if you will ever be able to get regular checks again. insulated from families that desperately worry when their unemployment checks expire. and there is no job. a lot of people here inherited

their wealth. and they truly are insulated but for the rare few. others had their educations paid for. they tnt work for them. it's unbelievable. there's a lot of people here just like that. some of them always had enough to eat. they really never had to scrimp and choose. whether they'd have milk or water, whether they'd split a cab damage -- cabbage in order to get their family through the weekend. so there really is a lot of distinction between what people have had to endure in their own lives and frankly, there are a lot of people in this capitol city who make a whole lot of money. i'll talk about some of them in a second. but recent polls tell us what the majority of americans are thinking about. according to two recent polls, four out of 10 americans believe our country is heading in the wrong direction.

i agree with them. as gas prices rise and as -- and climb to record levels, 71% of our citizens are experiencing financial hardships. more cars are along the roads in ohio where people just simply run out of gas or you see them at the pump and they only put in $20 and they hope that maybe a week from now the pice won't be as bad. i want to dedicate my time this evening to talking about jobs, about america being held hostage to what the gentleman ahead of me was talking about, big oil, an policy changes, we -- policy change -- changes we need to make to get our economy running strongly here at home. i want to just point out a couple of more thans of our predicament so that people are thinking ability different aspects of what we face, we can really fix it. now this first chart up here shows for the last quarter century or more, america has

not had balanced trade accounts. what does that have to do with the budget deficit? when you're in the red an you're importing more than you're experting, you're having to actually borrow money to pay the difference. somebody else is making the money off of us. we have not had balanced trade accounts since the 1970's. every single year, more and more of america's wealth has been outsourced to someplace else. every american knows that. you see the jobs that disappeared from your own community. i use the maytag washer company in newton, iowa, and i'm not from iowa, i'm from ohio, but i still have my old maytags, great products, those jobs ended up in mexico. after they were actually outsourced because of a big buyout that happened in that company and that's happened in company after company after company. that's what's happened to all our manufacturing jobs. but this chart here shows u.s. trade deficits, every single

year, in 2010, last year, we had a half a trillion dollars more imports into our country than exports going out. this is a serious part of the problem. now, those trade deficits result from agreements america has signed that were supposed to result in exactly the sop sit. job creation in our country. probably the best known is nafta. 1993 this congress passed an agreement called nafta and people who voted for it said, oh, it's going to create all these jobs in the united states. and we won't have to worry, relations with mexico will be terrific. well, guess what? ever since nafta passed there hasn't been a single year when we have had even a trade balance with mexico. no, every year our deficit with mexico, more imports coming in

here from mexico than exports going out, hat gotten worse. and what about -- has gotten worse. and what about in mexico? in mexico, over 35,000 citizens that have country were shot last year related to the illegal drug trade. and we are receiving thery sip rocol of that --ry -- the resip are a col of that -- the resip rycal. the farmers were thrown off their land as a result of nafta. two million people. desperate to earn a living. we said that would happen. people didn't care. they simply didn't care. and so we lost that vote on the margin of about 12 votes but we said what would happen in 1993 has happened and we have had over $1 trillion of trade deficit with mexico. now, balance of trade with south korea. knowing the terrible trade

record that this country has had with every country we've signed one of these trade agreements with, what is the administration proposing and the majority here proposing? they want to bring up more. more nafta-like agreements. they want to bring us korea, they want to bring us clomia. i don't know what else they're going to throw in but we already have a trade deficit with korea. we take hundreds of thousands of their cars, they take a few, a few thousand from us and the agreement that the last administration and this administration has reached with korea, won't bring us trade balance with korea. there is no requirement that is a tit for at that time or a agreement so we're going to lose more jobs if that agreement moves through here. this is a pattern americans need to understand. and if you look at that overall trade deficit that's been going on, getting worse and worse every year, what is the top category of that deficit? the top category is imported

oil. i agree with some of my colleagues who pinpointed the problem, but we can't continue to hold ourselves hostage inside our own nation on the spear of petroleum. we have to support additional exploration and we are doing that in -- on our own continent with the alberta sans project, the largest construction project on our entire continent, bewe also have to diversify. we have to be smart, prior generations were smart, we need to be smarter. today "the washington post" just published an article on the latest trade numbers. they tell us a lot about with our economy. there was some good news, we sold more exports in services and why wouldn't that happen? the value of the dollar has dropped as we've hemorrhaged jobs here in this country. but a funny thing happened. the trade deficit grew again.

more imported oil, high priced oil keeps pushing us further and further in the red. that have trillion-dollar trade deficit from last year think a referenced, according to the manufacturing policy project represents a loss of $7 million american jobs. in other words, this hole that's been accumulated over the years, seven million manufacturing and other jobs lost across our country. that means jobs outsourced someplace else and then they're imported here. we keep shooting ourselves in the foot over and over and over again. we can no longer afford to add hundreds of billions of dollars annually to our trade deficit. we need a different trade model that results in trade balances at a minimum and hopefully trade surpluses because you simply can't balance our federal budget

or family budgets when our trade accounts are so costly and so out of whack and so many jobs have been moved offshore. we hear that the majority wants to bring up more nafta-like trade agreements and one of the countries they're talking about is colombia. they're talking about korea, they're talking about colombia. what colombia's really about is oil. more imported petroleum. when you really get into the weeds and you look at what that agreement is about. and the question for america really is, if this is the history of imported consumption of petroleum, is that really the future that we want for this generation and the next and the following? the red lines here represent the growing share of petroleum consumption in our country that's represented by imports. it's increased steadily over the last quarter century. that is not a path for american liberty nor american economic

success. we need a trade policy that is results oriented, that results in balance and energy independence here at home. we need to grow our exports, yes, and create jobs here in our country by moving our nation toward energy independence here at home. and we need for somebody in the executive branch to stand up and fight for reciprocal trade agreements. say said that to president obama. what's wrong with the trade surplus? what's wrong with a trade balance? why do we keep going in the red? why would anyone accept that as a solution for america? the unemployment rate rose this past month, i contend, because of rising gas prices. it was not good news for an economy that has been struggling to recover. and if we look back again at the last quarter century and this chart looks a little

complicated, but what it shows is that every time the red line is oil prices, every time oil prices peak what follows? higher unemployment. it's a very predictable pattern. it happened in the 1970's twice, here we go, high oil prices with the arab oil embargo back in the 1970's, what happened? rising unemployment. if you go back to the 19 -- late 1980's, early 1990's, same thing, higher oil prices, higher unemployment. and certainly now with the greatest recession since the great depression an enormous rise in 2008 when the stock market crashed. what preceded it was an increase in oil prices to over $4 a gallon. and what happened? the crash. yes, it's a housing crisis, yes it's an unemployment crisis, but what triggered it? gas prices over $4 a gallon.

the american people, once they understand what's happened, will fix it. america really is a hostage in her own land as a result of imported petroleum. just as america's starting to regrow her economy now, billing big oil wants to steer our country back toward recession. now, look at this chart. in the first quarter of 2011, just one of the companies, exxon mobil, took in $10.7 billion, that's a b, in profits, in one quarter. that's a 69% increase over last year. oxydental, that's the group that wants to drill more in colombia and they need a free trade agreement to do that and bring it in here, their profits are up $1.6 billion, 46% increase.

conoco phillips, $2.1 billion, their profits up 43%. in one quarter. and most of these profits are being with pocketed tax-free. while working americans earning less than $20,000 paid 15% of their income in taxes, chevron, which made $6.2 billion in one quarter, their profits went up 36%, they only paid 4.6% in taxes on their total of $32 billion in profits last year. now, i heard my colleague earlier talking about, oh, gosh we should really feel sorry for them, you know, because, my gosh, they're making all this money but they need more tax preferences because they won't invest. what are they doing with all this money? these are the largest profits in american history. oil companies aren't paying what they owe in taxes. i'll tell you one thing they're doing with their money, they're handing out handsome campaign

contributions. the coke brothers of texas who made a whole lot of money in that industry generously donated more than $2 million last year and recently bank rolled governor walker in wisconsin and the antiworker movement that they're pushing in that state. overall the big oil and gas industry don't doe nated $27 million last year to political campaigns and, get ready, spent $146 million on lobbyists. that's over, gosh, for each member of congress, it's like they've assigned one or two people to each one of us. no wonder congress voted against closing $53 billion in tax loopholes to big oil. that's a 300% return on their investment. more than they can make searching for new sources of energy. in 2010 the biggest oil company, exxon mobil, paid only 2.3% of its profits to the united

states. that's scandalous. when businesses in my district are paying a 35% corporate profit rate and they don't ask me for all those special privileges. the businesses working hard in my region, gosh, i can think of bakeries and factories and machine tool companies, they don't ask for special terrific. they want to help -- privilege. they want to help america, they want to do their fair share, but this group, they're wired in here. the year before chon mobile received an $838 million tax refund. meanwhile those in the majority would take away unemployment benefits for working americans and i can tell you what, you can go across this country in the food lines in community after community and you know who's lined up? so many of our veterans who have come home to no work. i say, take some of this, create a civil works program, let our

returning veterans lead it and improve communities across this country. let them take unemployed americans and move around this nation fixing up roads, figuring up bridges, painting up what needs to be done, reforesting, doing what franklin roosevelt knew how to do a century ago. of course, you know, looking at these numbers, is british petroleum. british petroleum over the last five years, instead of paying taxes, actually took over $48 billion in tax breaks. and in the first quarter this year they've already made $7.2 billion more, 15% increase, over what they earned last year. that's despite the terrible oil spill down in louisiana and along the gulf. so it's clear who the winners are. since january crude output has actually risen absolutely -- slightly and although demand has

remained steady, prices have climbed by 23%. meanwhile oil stock prices have risen just at chevron, oil -- the stocks have risen 14%. tax loopholes, corporate welfare, government subsidies, does this really sound like a free market to americans who are listening tonight? i urge my colleagues to reject more giveaways for oil companies who are raking in money by holding the american people hostage. it's time to hold them accountable, they ought to pay their fair share, other businesses do. americans do. let's cut the billions of dollars in corporate welfare and focus on getting hardworking americans back to work. we need to create jobs in this country and close those trade deficits. we need to stop outsourcing of our jobs through these so-called free trade agreements that really aren't free and we need

to move to balance trade accounts. we need to reform the nafta trade model and not pass the same kind of deal for korea or colombia we need reciprocal trade, not trade deficits. our country for too long has been held hostage to these agreements. and we need energy independence to help restore our own liberty. wouldn't it be great if we could put all americans to work that needed jobs, in helping that to create these new sources of energy? and i know full well it is within the capability of the american people to do this. but we shouldn't put all our eggs in the basket of big oil. we ought to give them some competition. on price. we ought to look at hydrogen generation facilities across the country, we have with the capability to do that. we need to move into biofuels through the department of agriculture, working with our