tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 15, 2010 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
elevations have been made and a flood rate map update is taking place. my amendment is simple. it will help to ensure communities and homeowners that might be affected by new maps are made aware of the process taking place from the beginning. currently fema is only required to publish notice of new flood elevations in the local newspaper. for one community in my district, this translated to roughly a two-inching by two-inch paragraph in the legal notice section of the newspaper. . it will require fema to notify a local radio station and television stations that are still -- in communities that are still in the middle of the
flood map modernization process this will ensure the home one verse the information they need to make informed decisions and to participate in the process while also ensuring media outlets for disseminating important information -- important information to the public are made aware as well. the more homeowners who are aware of the new flood elevations, the more people involved in the process. it will serve to make more people aware of the national flood insurance program itself hopefully increasing poll vare participation rates as well. i think we can agree that notifying radio and television stations is a common sense change and will help get the word out about flood map changes. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of homeowners in all our districts. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman
reserves the balance of his time. does any member seek recognition? the gentleman from iowa. mr. loebsack: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-537, for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. mcmahon: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-537 offered by mr. mcmahon of new york. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. mcmahon and a member
opposed each will control five minutes. mr. mcmahon: i want to thank chairman frank and chairwoman waters for their work to re-authorize the national flood nurns program for five years. it's a good example of government providing a basic need for millions of americans, insurance against catastrophic flooding at a reasonable price. the program is only as strong as the reserve fund create by selling insurance to people in certified flood risk areas and pooling whose premiums to cover any losses. that's why this bill includes money to educate local authorities about flood insurance. many people don't know that an area requires flood insurance or that the nfip program exists until very late in the process. other hearse the words flood insurance and think it is costly or will affect the value of their home. sometimes people can't close on a house or refinance without having insurance in place.
sometimes people have been living in a neighborhood all their life only to find out that nfip is needed when they try to move or sell their house. the uncertainty of the program is something i have heard quite often from my constituents. representing parts of the city of new york staten island and brooklyn and urban areas, people are quite often shocked to hear they live in a flood plain. often they find out too late. that's why this program is so important. my amendment will allow nfip in education and partnership efforts to also include local real estate on the nfip program and costs and benefits. no one knows neighborhoods, markets and price point options better than a local realtor. this works in the bill existing outreach program and does not increase the cost in any way. nfip should work with realtors
to increase their knowledge of the program and notify them when areas are added to the floodplain area and a keep them up to date on the flood program itself. things change all the time and nfip should communicate directly to them on how they can help their clients take advantage of the program this dovetails nicely with the way they have other issues. the fact that the program expired in 2008 and this congress continues to do short-term extensions. we need to extend this program for five years. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves his time.
does any member seek recognition? mrs. capito: i seek time in opposition though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capito: i thank the gentleman for his amendment. i raise questions about the amendment for the same reason i raise questions about the previous amendment, that is, you know, we are at a point here in our economy where we have high unemployment, we have our deficit that has just passed over the trillion-dollar mark for the second year in a row. we have increasingly excruciating debt that we're going to pass on to our children and grandchildren and yet we're still going to be creating a grant program in this bill that's going to cost the taxpayers $250 million. significant dollars at a time when people are losing their jobs or cutting back or making decisions in their own lifes about the ways to afford what
they not just want but absolutely must have and need. i think now would be a good time for us to make a statement in this bill by saying, not now, not this time, not this $250 million. i have a question, too, in terms of the gentleman's amendment not being a real estate agent myself, i'm not sure that in the real estate -- in the training to become a real estate agent and the things, i know you have to be licensed and take continuing ed and keep up on all kinds of different financing and property valuations and all the different things it's kind of a surprise to me that real estate agents don't already know the extent or how to deal with the flood insurance program, particularly if there are regions of the country that are
prone to this type of damage and these types of floods. i don't know if the gentleman has an answer for that, are you aware of whether real estate agents now are exposed to this type of information? mr. mcmahon: is the gentlelady yielding? mrs. capito: i'll yield if you have an answer. mr. mcmahon: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. while real estate agents go through rigorous train, the boundaries and lines of floodplains change through time as topographical maps are changeds a physical conditions change many certain areas, certainly along the coast or in the harbor, where my district exist the water levels change as well and requirements change system of that changing nature of the program that we seek to have that information provided as requirements change as the mapping lines change and the like.
mrs. capito: thank you for the clarification. i would just additionally say that i would think through the continuing education of the real estate schools an licensing boards that this would already be something that's covered. again, i go back to my original premise, $250 million in five years in a time of record debt and deficit to me is an improper expenditure at this time, with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. mcmahon: i thank the gentlelady for her ke requests and comments. i would add that the federal deficit and debt itself are of deep concern to me and the people who sent me here a little over 18 monthsing too represent them. my amendment raises no cost.
if the nfip does share information with the local community leaders and local entities that they include the local real estate community as well so they can better provide that information to the people they represent and i think it's a way to certainly build confidence in the real estate markets that do exist in floodplain areas providing good common sense solution an proposal and doesn't cost the taxpayer any money. i certainly would comment that i share the gentlelady's concern about the growing debts and deficits. i'm glad the gentlelady has joined our side of the aisle for the fight when they were in the majority it didn't seem to be a great concern but certainly we are glad that it is a concern they share with you.
that being said, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-537. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. murphy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-537, offered by mr. murphy of new york. the chair: pursuant to the resolution, the gentleman from new york, mr. murphy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york.
mr. murphy: i am deeply concerned with the nation's fiscal mismanagement. we learned that in fiscal year 2009, federal agencies are estimated to have made $98 bling in improper payments. you don't have to be a democrat or republican to know this is unacceptable. it's just common sense. my simple amendment to this bill reiterates that all the funds authorized in this act must be spent in compliance with the manuals of standards of ethical conduct for the employees of the executive branch. it's our duty to allocate dollars in a measured, responsible way. we know congress must do more to reen in wasteful spend -- to rein in wasteful spending. it's our job to make sure money is allocated in the appropriate way by federal agencies. we are far too accustomed to federal dollars being used inappropriately. the homeland security's office of inspector general noted that $240 million of improper expenses were charged to fema
credit cards. these reports show the need for congress to to hold agencies accountable and create a system in which waste, fraud and abuse are eliminated. yesterday the house took an important step toward this goal when it passed a bill to identify, reduce and eliminate improper payments. in that same spirit my amendment today is intended to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that federal employee in this case fema employees, spend federal moneys properly and on their intended purpose with only the best interest of the taxpayer. i urge my fellow members to support this amendment as well as the underlying bill and i thank you. i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. does any member seek recognition? mr. murphy: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to mr. murphy: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman in new york will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will resume on those amendments presented in house report 111-537, earment number four by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 11 by mr. murphy of new york. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the request for a record vote on amendment number four in house report 111-537 by the gentleman
from arizona, mr. flake, on which the yeas repre-vailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 111-537 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a -- members, this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-537 offered by mr. murphy of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. members, this is a five-minute vote, a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 421 and the nays are none. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in plafere, please say aye. those opposed, no. -- those in favor, please say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, under the rule, 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 has had under consideration h.r. 5114, and pursuant to house resolution 1517 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 5114, and pursuant to house resolution 1517 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading.
the clerk: a bill to extend the authorization for the national flood insurance program, to identify priorities essential to reform and ongoing stable functioning of the program, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. please take your conversations outside the chambers. clear the aisles. members, take your seats. on both sides.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. hensarling: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: mr. hensarling of texas moves to recommit the bill to the committee on financial services to report the same back forth with with the following amendment. strike section 18 relating to flood insurance outreach. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. hens thank you, mr. speaker. the -- mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. the motion to recommit is a simple one. it says today right here right now this body will decline to create yet another new government spending program, this one a quarter of a billion
dollars new fema outreach program on top of the fema outreach program that is already in place. mr. speaker, the american people know already that the national flood insurance program is in trouble. just almost like every other federally administered insurance program. now social security has a long-term deficit of $15.1 trillion. the federal pension benefit guarantee corporation has a deficit. the federal crop insurance program, medicaid, and the list goes on and on. the federal -- the national flood insurance program owes the taxpayers owes the treasury already $19 billion why are we going to add to this burden today, mr. speaker? and in addition, as i said earlier, this is duplicative of
an already existing program. i'm not here to say, mr. speaker, that outreach is a bad idea. but i am curious, what is wrong with the cooperating technical partners program of fema? mr. speaker, the house isn't in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. please take your conversations outside the chambers. please take your seats. conversations in the back of the chambers, please take them outside. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: and, mr. speaker, even if this wasn't duplicative of an already existing system, even if we truly needed it, the question is, can we afford it? is it really worth borrowing 43 cents on the dollar mainly from the chinese in sending the bill
to our children and grandchildren? at this time, mr. speaker, at a time when our nation is facing a debt crisis, the motion to recommit says, no, it doesn't meet that test. i mean, mr. speaker, we know already that the deficit has increased almost 10-fold in just two years. i mean, we're looking at the largest deficits in american history. the national debt, the debt held by the public. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: can we take all conversations outside the chambers, please? members in the back, please take your seats. on both sides. the gentleman deserves to be heard. let's try one more time.
mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. our nation is literally drowning in debt, and don't take my word for it. mr. speaker, i have the honor, as many do, to serve on the fiscal responsibility commission. it's led by democrat former chief of staff to president clinton ho just this week said before the national governors association that debt is like a cancer. it's truly going to destroy the country from within, that is the democratic head of the commission. he recognizes the problem we are facing today. . our spending could trigger an economic and political death spiral. former comptroller david walker has said, we are facing, quote, a fiscal cancer.
mr. speaker, if there was ever a crisis in our nation's history that we could see coming from miles away, it's this one. why do we want to make it worse? right here, right now we can take one tiny step towards ensuring we don't put more debt, more debt on our children and our grandchildren for a program that is already in the red. almost $19 billion. now, i would say that there is very little that i agree with the distinguished chairman of the financial servicings committee on -- services committee on, but i noticed last night on n.p.r. he was quoted as saying, quote, reef to reduce the deficit. i believe we are reaching a point where the deficit could be unsustainable. we have to make this point, we are going to have to reduce government spending fairly significantly. and i agree with chairman on that point.
-- with chairman frank on that point. i would hope this would be the moment where we could take that one particular step -- with just 30 seconds, mr. chairman, i'll yield to him. mr. frank: i hope he would join me in something significant like getting our troops out of iraq for a year and a half and save about 1,000 times as much as this recommit. mr. hensarling: reclaiming my time, with the chairman being in the majority, i'm certain he wants to do that, he has the opportunity to do that. if the democratic majority wants to raise taxes on those who have less than a quarter billion dollars in income, that is their opportunity to do that. if they want to quit funding our troops in harm's way, they have the opportunity to do that. what we are saying is there's an opportunity right here, right now not to create yet another duplicative program and add to the debt burden. now, i'm shire we might hear that somehow this is going to create more jobs, but i ask
where has the spending led to? i encourage all to support the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: i rise to speak in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker and members, we patiently waited over here to hear what this motion to recommit was going to be all about. we thought about all of the members who have been calling us, writing us, working with us from both sides of the aisle to please help them acresse the concerns -- address the concerns of their constituents about flood insurance. we have worked very hard with members from both sides of the aisle to include their concerns in this bill. you saw members come to the floor with those amendments. you saw in the manager's amendment that we had worked with so many members, not only
to include their concerns, but to answer questions and prepare them for going back to their communities explaining how this whole thing works. many of those questions that have been raised by our constituents have been raised over a long period of time. our offices are bombarded with questions about the mapping, how does it work? how are they going to get timely notification? what are the premiums all about? these questions go on and on and on to the point where our offices are oftentimes overwhelmed, not able to give sufficient information or to assist those communities where they have banded together despite the fact oftentimes they have few resources to deal with these issues. and now in this comprehensive authorization that we are doing, we address those constituent concerns with this outreach. i am very surprised that the
members on the opposite side of the aisle would try and deny to their constituents the basic kind of information and services that we should all be responsible for. we should be able to say to our constituents not only do you have a right to this information, but we are going to give you some help. you don't have to try and band together. with resources that you don't have to find out how it all works to oppose fema, to find out from your mortgage servicers why you didn't get a timely notice, to find out from your city who was notified, perhaps, by fema why they didn't notify the community. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. we cannot hear her. ms. waters: mr. speaker and
members, these are simply outreach activities that must be dealt with. these are outreach activities that our constituents deserve. to oppose assisting our constituents when they may be forced into new mapping that's going to cost them money that they had not anticipated, on and on and on, is just unbelievable. and so i would simply say, it speaks for itself. assistance to our constituents answers those basic questions. i would ask for a no vote on this motion to recommit. it works against the best interest of all of our constituents. they deserve better than this. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from texas.
mr. hensarling: i demand a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: i ask that the clerk make technical corrections to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing and the insertion of appropriate headings and clerical errors and amendatory instructions. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
the speaker: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, i'm writing to tender my resignation as chief officer of the u.s. house of representatives effective july 15, 2010. it has been a distinct honor and privilege to serve you and the house in this position over the past 3 1/2 years. i believe we have made substantial strides to make house operations more sustainable. provide members and staff with improved benefits and provide the house community with a safer and more secure information technology system. i'll always be grateful for you giving me this opportunity to serve this wonderful institution. i also want to thank you for your personal support. with warmest best regards i am, signed sincerely yours, daniel p. beard.
the speaker: without objection, the resignation is accepted. pursuant to the provisions of section 208-a of the legislative reorganization act of 1946, the chair appoints daniel j. strotto of the district of columbia to exercise and to act temporarily the duties of chief administrative officers of the house of representatives effective july 15, 2010. the chair will administer the oath at this time. will mr. strotto present himself in the well? do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear truth faith and allegiance to the same, that you won't have any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will -- so help you god? >> i do. the speaker: congratulations.
. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 4840, to designate an -- an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1981 cleveland avenue in columbus, ohio, as the clarence d. lumpkin post office. mr. conyers: madam speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules -- by the direction of the committee on judiciary, i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule to accompany house resolution 1455. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1455, resolution directing the attorney general to transmit to the house of representatives copies of certain communications relating to certain recommendations regarding administration appointments. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask to address the
house for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker. and yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the republican whip for yielding. on monday the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:00 p.m. on tuesday, madam speaker, the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. and on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we'll consider several bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of all suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, we'll consider mr. taylor's bill, h.r. 1264, the multiple peril insurance act of 2009. we are also expecting to consider several items from the senate including senate amendments to h.r. 4313, the
restoration of emergency unemployment compensation act, and senate amendments to h.r. 4899, the supplemental appropriations act of 2010. lastly, madam speaker, we expect to consider several bills addressing the oil spill in the gulf, including h.r. 2693, the oil pollution research and development program re-authorization act and h.r. 5716, the safer oil and natural gas drilling technology research and development act. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, given the schedule the gentleman just announced, i'd ask the majority leader whether he expects the house to be in session next friday? mr. hoyer: i say to the gentleman that will again depend upon what our colleagues in the senate send over to us and whether or not we can complete the business that we have before us that i have announced, can complete that by thursday.
in the event that we don't have legislation coming back from the senate we need to deal with on friday, or business that is scheduled does not take longer than thursday, it is possible we would not be in session. but, again, i would caution members that we have two weeks left to go and those days will be scheduled and will be utilized if needed. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, the gentleman just explained that we do only have two more weeks left in the month of july for legislative business. and would ask the gentleman if he could expand upon the schedule for those two weeks and what we might expect for those following weeks. i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. in addition to the bills that we have already mentioned for next week, including the unemployment exdention and the -- extension and the supplemental coming from the senate, science and technology bills addressed in
the oil spill will also likely consider a number of other bills adressing oil spill legislation. in addition, i expect we'll consider several bills from the appropriations committee. i have talked to the chairman about which bills would be most likely for floor action before august and he's looking at the veterans and military construction and transportation, h.u.d. bills. as the gentleman i'm sure knows they have marked up now seven, i believe is the accurate number, seven appropriation bills -- excuse me, i think it's nine because they marked up two today or are in the process of marking up today, and i expect by the end of the day there will have bven nine appropriation bills marked up -- been nine appropriation bills marked up. they'll proceed. but i think those two bills are probably the first ones that will come forward. yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i'd ask if those appropriations bills coming to the floor will be brought up
under an open rule. i yield. mr. hoyer: i have not yet -- those bills as you know have not been reported out of committee yet and i have not discussed with the chairman his plans on how he would hope to bring those to the floor. i will be discussing it with him probably in the latter part of next week and perhaps we'll have more information for you next week. again, we expect the bills to come to the floor not next week but the week after. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, the gentleman mentioned the troop funding in the schedule for next week. i know that originally the goal was to fund our troops by memorial day. that didn't happen. then it became the goal of july 4 and that didn't happen. i know that the gentleman and i are both committed to getting this critical funding for our men and women in uniform and i would just suggest to the gentleman it is probably the most direct route to getting our mutual goal accomplished, of
getting this bill across the floor, that perhaps he and the majority ought to consider taking up the senate-passed legislation and send it right to the president. i could say, madam speaker, to the gentleman that the senate bill does have 21 votes on this house floor. and would ask if the supplemental is coming to the house floor next week whether that is his intention to go ahead, take this route, expedite it so our troops can get the money they need. i yield. . i thank the gentleman for his question and for his assurances in terms of the number of votes we may have available for that alternative. i say to the gentleman that it is my intention that certainly by the time we leave here that we will have made sure that the troops have the resources they need to prosecute the mission that we have given them as a congress and the
administration. there's no doubt that we will have 218-plus, large plus, i think, of votes to accomplish that objective. as the gentleman knows, however, we have passed a supplemental which does fund the troops. it wasn't a senate supplemental. the house has obviously its own views on policy, and i'm sure the gentleman would want the house to prosecute its policy and redeem the majority of the house's view and try to reach agreement with the senate. the house acted on the supplemental before the break, including all the president's request for troop funding, as the gentleman knows. it also included the administration's request for fema, haiti, oil spill and border security. in addition, as the gentleman knows, we added money to take care of almost 140,000 teachers and offset the additional money with spending cuts so this was paid for. i'm hopeful that the senate
will not make significant changes to the bill in the house, that the house passed and will be able to pass that bill before the august work period begins. again, however, i want to emphasize that i am fully committed and intend to ensure that the troops have the resources they need. with respect to the gentleman's observation, he's absolutely correct. i was hopeful we'd do it before memorial day and then i was hopeful we would do it before the july 4 break. interestingly enough, however, as we kept going along and i kept in contact with the chairman of the defense appropriations committee, mr. dicks, as to when the funding was needed, the date kept moving and the date that we now have, as the gentleman probably knows as well as i do is august 7. but certainly i want to see us pass the funding for the troops and for the prosecution of the
effort that the congress has supported and the administration set forth for our troops prior to that time. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, and i know the gentleman in receipt of the same information that i am about the urgency now being communicated to us for the need for that money to be delivered. i would say, madam speaker, probably a little different view as to the intentions of the senate to try and deliver on stripping out the house amendment that we are -- health amendment that was attached to the supplemental bill and would say again to the gentleman, house republicans stand ready to vote in an expeditious way on the senate-passed bill in its original form and look forward to being able to deliver that. i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank you for that effort, and we will -- we will look forward to working with you to make sure that our troops are fully funded.
mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, as we're discussing the schedule for next week, i believe it's important to announce the eighth youcut vote that will take place on the house floor next week. over 1.3 million votes have been cast on youcut to date that's the republicanwhip.house..gov youcut's website. one would be one to eliminate mandatory g.p.o. printing which is a $35 million savings. another would be to eliminate senator dodd's health care clinic earmark in the obamacare health care bill estimated to save another $100 million. next would be, madam speaker, an effort to prohibit subsidies for long distance, first-class sleeper train tickets estimated at a cost savings of $1.2 billion. another, madam speaker, could be the reform the energy star
program effort which requires companies to pay for the cost of the program saving the taxpayers $665 million. another could be, depending on the vote, in order to prevent liheap payments to fraudulent claims, an estimated savings of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayer, madam speaker. and, madam speaker, i would say the gentleman's party has been extolling the virtues of cutting $7 billion from the president's $1.12 trillion f.y. 2011 budget. $7 billion. and i'd say to the gentleman, i know we have a lot of discussion about youcut and the amount of money that we are attempting to cut from the federal deficit through our program. and in fact at this point, that total is now reaching $130
billion, and i know that many in his party have been dismissive of this program saying that that's not real money in washington, and i would just point out to the gentleman, if individuals on his side of the aisle think that $7 billion reaches a significant milestone, i would say as well $130 billion of proposed cuts would do just as well or if not better. madam speaker, i'd like to at that point take a quick moment to congratulate someone who works together with our staff tirelessly behind the scene, someone on the staff of the majority leader, austin burnes, who got a moment to get away from the floor prior to the recess to attend his own wedding. we would wish the gentleman great success and best wishes in his nuptial.
mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: yes. mr. hoyer: we have a very strict leave policy in my office but we were convinced that getting off for his wedding was an appropriate use of that leave. and austin, a wonderful member of the staff. i'm very pleased that you mention it. he has a wonderful new bride. his demeanor has changed marketedly. he's much happier and we are all happier to work with him. so, austin, congratulations to you. mr. cantor: well, i'm told and hopeful as well there will be many more nuptials on your staff, i'd say to the gentleman. with that, madam speaker, i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on monday next for morning hour debate and further, when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on tuesday, july 20, 2010, for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
mr. herger: madam speaker, the federal deficit has topped $1 trillion, and there are still three months remaining in the fiscal year. spending is out of control and the president and democratic leadership have shown no sign of slowing down. americans are still asking, where are the jobs? unemployment stands at near 10% nationally, and the administration's massive spending increases are harming the small businesses that are so crucial to our job creation. president clinton's former chief of staff has said, quote, the debt is like a cancer. it is going to destroy the country from within, closed quote. madam speaker, we must reject big government and embrace fiscal responsibility and the
pro-small business policy that have guided our nation out of troubled times in the past. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam speaker, and thank you for your leadership, and as well i appreciate very much the debate that this house had just a few minutes ago with h.r. 5114, the flood insurance priorities act of 2010. i rise to support that legislation and to specifically discuss an issue that really impacts all americans and an amendment that i crafted very effective amendment would have prohibited states and local governments from misusing new federal flood insurance program requirements to disadvantaged businesses and homeowners in any way. meaning, to take your property
away because they have misinterpreted the federal laws as to whether or not your home is in a flood plane or in a floodway. those of us from the gulf understand this very well. unfortunately, under federal law, it's often misinterpreted by state and local officials resulted in an unintended consequence in many communities across this country. for example, in the white oak community, 2,400 homes were being violated because our local government was misinterpretting whether or not these particular individuals could stay in their homes. their values plummeted. i am going to continue to work under this legislation -- the speaker pro tempore:he time has expired. ms. jackson lee: to ensure this language gets in the bill and we fight to protect homeowners once and for all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i rise today as a lifelong resident of howard, pennsylvania, to honor its bicentennial.
howard, a small community of almost 700, has an extensive history dating back to the first settlers in the late 1700's. it was named after english philanthropist john howard. howard features many -- several historical structures, such as the post office built in 1828, a methodist church dating back to 1843 and house fathers 1810. in the 1820's, howard produced a growth. the howard iron works attracted settlers. the first store opened in 1829 and the town was known for the wool factory during the last century. i recently sell participated in a parade. seeing residents come out and celebrate our history is humbling. we are proud of this friendship. i'd hope to see howard continue to prosper through another 200 years. it's a great town and a welcoming place to live.
and congratulations to the howard citizens on its 200th anniversary. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one minutes. -- minutes? seeing none, for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. moran for july 21 and 22. myself, mr. poe, for july 22. mr. jones for july 2. mr. burton for july 19, 20, 21 and 22. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, i is unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks, and
include therein extraneous material. mr. hoyer of maryland for five minutes. mr. rangel of new york for five minutes. ms. woolsey of california for five minutes. mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes. ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes. mr. honda for five minutes. mr. polis of colorado for five minutes. ms. jackson lee of texas for five minutes. mr. honda of california, needs to be corrected, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. moran from kansas. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
mr. poe: madam speaker, it's with great pride but a heavy heart i honor a fallen son of texas tonight. a united states army soldier from my second congressional district. staff sergeant jesse anse worth gave his life fight -- ainsworth gave his life fighting terrorists near kandahar in afghanistan on july 10, 2010. he died from injuries caused by an i.e.d., the weapon of terrorists, those cowards that hide in their holes in the rugged deserts and come out at night and plant roadside bombs to kill americans, women, and children. this is jesse, he was 24 years of age. he was an american warrior, he was born in texas an he was an all-american bhoism loved to hunt and fish in the woods near his home in dayton, texas.
after attending dayton high school he joined the united states army. he was a team leader with the first squadron 71st cavalry regiment out of fort drum. he served two combat tours in iraq before deploying to afghanistan and re-enlisted after his second duty in iraq and then that is why he went to afghanistan. yesterday, i talked to jesse's mother, margaret hutchins and the said a -- she said a lot about her son. they live just outside of dayton. he was her only son and margaret said jesse was her hero. she said she used to pick him up when he was a little kid from kindergarten and every friday they'd go to wal-mart and buy some toy for him. she said ever since he was an itty bitty fellow, he wanted to
be a soldier in the united states army. the last time she talked to him he said he was setting up camp in the middle of no place in the middle of the desert. he asked his mother to send him big red soft drinks and copenhagen chewing tobacco in his next care package. he was doing what he wanted to do. he was an army man. all the flags in the small town of dayton, texas are flying at half smast this week. there are signs all over this town of just 5,000, handmade signs, electronic signs throughout the community honoring jesse. the services will be held on saturday at the dayton community center and the whole town will turn out to honor their native son and honor his family. jesse is survived by his wife sara, their 6-month-old daughter, lana rose, and his
daughter who is 3. also his mother and stepfather and two sisters. he will be buried in houston, texas. all his fellow soldiers gave some, but jesse gave all in his defense for freedom. our brave troopers go to war defending freedom and liberty in faraway lands. in the dark, cold desert night and the parched insufferable desert heat, these brave warriors pay with their blood and sacrifice for freedom and liberty and for america. they sanctify the -- with their blood lands they have never seen and they fight for people they do not know. madam speaker, i have a recent photograph of jesse. here he is in afghanistan. with an afghan farmer. you see, that's what our
american troops are doing. they are the greatest ambassadors for freedom and liberty and the american way in the world. here they are, here jesse is, with a person in afghanistan, a nation that jesse and his fellow troopers are liberating. patrick henry once said, the battle, sir is not to the strong, it's to the vigilant, to the active, to the brave. those words still ring true today and our american soldiers carry those values into battle because they are army strong. jesse was such a soldier and family man. he was that hero who has given his life to something bigger than himself. so when we gather saturday to honor this fallen american, jesse's flag-draped coffin will be carried by the honor guard. the old warhorses of the patriot guard, motorcycle riders made primarily of the
vietnam veterans will stand vigil over their fallen brother carrying american flags. the rifles will fire a 21-gun salute and the bugle will sound tappers in last time as the name of staff sergeant jesse ainsworth is placed on the hallowed roles of those who have given their lives for american freedom of the will be surrounded by his family for the last time and the war will be over for staff sergeant ainsworth but the war will not end for his family. it has been said what we have done for others -- what we have done for ourselves dies with us, what we have done for others remains and is immortal. staff sergeant jesse ainsworth is that rare american breed that lived and died for something bigger than himself. today we honor his life and sacrifice. that's just the way it is.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hoyer of maryland. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady they may proceed for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, after general stanley mckristal was relieved of his -- mcchrystal was relieved of his command last month and replaced by general david petraeus we read a lot of headlines that said things like this, generals change but afghan doesn't, afghan policy won't change after dismissal. but that is precisely, madam speaker, the problem. all the chatter about general mcchrystal's indiscretion and firing obscured the critical point. the problem isn't with the personnel or the leadership, but with the strategy and the
policy. the problem isn't with the general, but with the war itself. there's a bit of rearranging of the deck chairs on the titanic quality to all of this. no matter what the captains say and no matter who captains the ship, as long as we continue to prosecute this failed war, as long as we keep sending americans to die on a mission that's doing nothing to defeat terrorists or stabilize afghanistan, then we are headed straight for that iceberg. the more troops we deploy, the more violent afghanistan becomes and the more taliban grows its ranks. unless general petraeus is prepared to change that, then this change at the top doesn't amount to much. if general petraeus' appointment leads to any change at all, it may be -- it may not
be the kind of change we should be enthusiastic about. in his confirmation hearing, general petraeus refused to take ownership of the july 2011 troop withdrawal deadline, stating very clearly that he did not recommend such a date to the president, nor did anyone else in uniform. he once again equivocated about july, 2011, calling it the beginning of a process, which sounds an awful lot like a diplomatic way to say he doesn't believe in it and will ask the president to extend it. he also added in his testimony, and i quote him he said, the commitment to afghanistan must be an enduring one. on that point, madam speaker, i couldn't agree with the general more. but an enduring commitment doesn't have to be a military commitment.
we need an enduring civilian commitment a smart security approach that invests in afghanistan's infrastructure, bolsters afghan education, fights afghan's poverty, invigorates afghan's democracy and much more. but we can do it without combat troops occupying the country, without the military footprint that has earned us more enemies than friends. madam speaker, eight americans were killed during a 24-hour period in after dwan stan early this week. we've had 75 fatalities in july, putting it on track to be the deadliest month of the entire war. we are losing our people, we are losing our money, we are losing our credibility without advancing our goals, that has to end. it's time to bring our troops
home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. without objection. mr. -- >> i had the opportunity to visit a place in north carolina where care packages are being put together for the k for the canine units overseas. they're sent to active duty dog teams in afghanistan and iraq. mr. jones: it was touching for me to see the boxes being prepared by people who care so much. i was absolutely amazed by everything i saw that day at the american kennel club in raleigh, north carolina.
last year, i had the great opportunity to watch some of these valuable dogs being trained at lackland air force base. lackland is the center for all the training of these dogs that help our men and women in uniform. through the years i have been in congress, i've had the pleasure and honor to talk to many military dog handlers, some that go back to the vietnam war, some to desert storm and certainly many who have been in iraq and afghanistan. these dogs are so valuable because they are trained to sniff out the i.e.d.'s that kill so many and maim so many of our wonderful men and women in uniform. these dogs themselves many times are wounded and many times killed. but as i had a soldier tell me one time, yes, it break misheart, this has become my friend, this has become my buddy, but you know what? my buddy is willing to give his
life for me so that i can continue to serve this nation. i bring that story forward, madam speaker, because these dogs are truly heroes. these dogs are truly valuable to the national security of our country. i have beside me a poster that has the dog named lex. lex is look at the headstone of his master, marine corporal dustin lee, killed by a rocket propelled grenade in iraq. he was a dog handler and this was his friend, his dog, lex. lex himself has shrapnel in the back. the family, the lee family wanted so badly to have lex since they gave their son up for this country, i want to thank mike regna of the united states marine corps for helping this become a reality. madam speaker, when dustin was
killed and lex was wounded, the marine corps told me they found lex laying next to the body of his master. war dogs have been used in every war throughout history. they are currently -- there are currently between 500 and 700 dog teams stationed in the middle east. this is not a new concept but it is time that these dogs and their handlers are acknowledged for their sacrifice to this country. i would like to thank the united states war dog association for all they do and for helping the american kennel club with this tremendous effort. i also encourage anyone who would like to donate to this effort to contact the american kennel club or the united states war dog association. both dogs and handlers are in need of basic daily items that we all take for granted. madam speaker, as i begin to close, i would like to ask god as i always do on this floor to please bless our men and women in uniform, i ask god to please
bless the families of our men and women in uniform, i ask god to please hold the families who have given a child diing for freedom in afghanistan and iraq and i ask god to please bless us and the senate that we'll do what is right in the eyes of god and i ask that god help president obama do what's right in the eyes of god. i ask three times, god please, god please, god please continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. rangel of new york. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: as you can see, there is untold stories of valor on the front lines of war around the world. we can be very proud as americans of the resilience of
the men and women in the united states military and those valiant animals who stand by them and the support that families have given to them. i stand here as a proud american, not out of arrogance but simply out of recognition that we are the front liners for peace and democracy. i had the privilege of spending the last week in afghanistan, not closed in in a small room but traveling throughout the country. visiting with our commander on the ground. visiting with the international allied forces. being briefed and seeing in action the afghan national security forces. meeting the leadership of the afghan government in kabul, going down to kandahar and being out on a command post at a check site that was engaged
with afghans on the highway. i got a sense of the country of people striving for democracy and freedom. and i want to say to my colleagues that i stand here asking us to do what you did not do in vietnam, to recognize the value and outstanding service of our men and women and to understand victory had been achieved. today, we have two vietnam side by side, north and south, exchanging and working. we may not agree with all that north vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. i would look for better human rights record for north vietnam but they are living side by side because that was a civil war. and because the leadership of this nation did not listen to the mother and fathers who bore
the burden of 58,000 dead and did not declare victory, the mounting death, the violence continued going up and up. rather than understanding the political nature of the war in vietnam, we did not listen to those families. and so we mourned. but i say today they were valiant heroes, proud of them although fallen and proud of those who lived. as i look back on afghanistan in the past week i will say to you that it is time not out of defeat but it is time in victory to return home. our soldiers can come home in victory for not one more treasure should be cast in this war that is a civil war. al qaeda is not present in afghanistan, and we have the opportunity to cast over to the afghan civilian government who is now working to build up on
the afghanistan national security forces which we expect to be some 300,000 strong over the next couple months. national police and national army trained by the brilliance of our young men and women. oh, we understand the military says the job is yet not done, conditions on the ground, conditions are movable. they are always changing. what you have to look at is whether you have a government that has the resolve to lead itself. president karzai must stand against corruption. he must fight to eradicate the poppy crop. he must stop the bribery so that farmers could get their products to market. that is a civilian challenge. that is a challenge of the afghan people. he must get electricity with the money that has been given to him down in the south. but to go into the nato hospital or to go into a hospital in germany, to see the brutality of the i.e.d. injuries, to see the lost limb, we have claimed victory.
we have provided an opportunity for president karzai to lead. and so i am a proud american, again, not standing here in arrogance, but the sacrifice of reservists and others who have come and the full-time military willing to stay as long as the civilian leadership of this country demands that they stay. so i say to the moms and dads and families who sacrificed their loved ones both in terms of those who now serve us and those who are fallen in battle, we cannot thank you enough and none of us can mourn as you are mourning if you've lost a loved one. but we can say thank you by bringing our troops home with a hero's welcome, something we have not done probably since world war ii. it is time to bring our troops home to declare victory and to thank them for being heroes, not only of america, but for this world in the name of peace and freedom. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio of oregon. ms. kaptur of ohio. without objection. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: it should be common sense that with the limited dollars we have in law enforcement, diverting those law enforcement resources to hunt down immigrants detracts from our efforts to combat violent crime. however, believe it or not, some supporters of arizona's new immigration law actual low claim it's a crime-fighting measure. that overlooks a basic point. crime rates have already been falling in arizona for years despite or perhaps in part because of the presence of immigrants. this was once again proven by a recent study conducted by
america's voice, which documented the change in violent crime levels in various arizona police your dictions from 2002 through 2009. as you can see, crime is down in arizona. the purple line. in fact, the only jurisdiction in the study was in the part of maricopa county under the jurisdiction of the incompetent sheriff who famously used anti-immigrant policies to advance his political agenda at the expense of keeping his communities safe. from 2002 to 2009, the crime rate in maricopa county increased 58% while the state as a whole averaged a 12% decrease. compare that 58% crime increase to other localities of arizona that did not use the immigrant bashing approach. in that same time period, phoenix enjoyed a 10% decrease in crime. mesa, 31% decrease. communities dealing with the same types of immigration
issues as maricopa county and yet communities during the same time period, during the sheriff's tenure, decreased their crime rate. why? in recent years local law enforcement communities have increased successfully community policing efforts which include establishing relationships with immigrant communities to fight crime. these efforts are part of the reason why crime is dropping in arizona and senate bill 1070 threatens to undo that process. that's the reason that the arizona association of police chiefs, the yuma county sheriff, mesa police chief and many other law enforcement officials nationally are opposed to the new arizona law. senate bill 1090, which will stretch local police forces and hinder law enforcement's ability to obtain critical information on criminals. anti-immigrant laws, like senate bill 1070, will lead to a crime wave across arizona and across the nation and we see it right here in maricopa.
the chief police of boulder county has been an outspoken leader on this front. misguided laws like senate bill 1070 will increase crime only comprehensive immigration reform can address this issues and only congress has the power to pass it. we need to pass tough, fair and practical reform that will secure our borders, crack down on employers who hire immigrants illegally, require all immigrants here illegally pass the security check, pay taxes, learn english. i call on our government to help the broken immigration system now. none thinks the status quo is working for our country. it's time to stop playing politics with an issue that should have been addressed long ago. we must pass comprehensive immigration reform immediately. i yield back.
>> madam speaker, will the gentleman yield if i could? will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back his time. >> i just want to ask the question -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back his time. mr. honda from california. seeing that he's not here, under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. brady: madam speaker, the spill on the gulf coast has produced environmental tragedy and obviously losing lives of 11 american workers which has been devastating for the families. our prayers are with them. the gulf coast right now, the priority of america has to be stopping the oil from gushing and it seems to be making progress, protecting our
beaches and marshes. but we have a new threat to the gulf of mexico and america, especially its workers, and this is the white house's moratorium on drilling in the gulf of mexico. according to the federal courts, the moratorium said it was overly broad and didn't provide anything more safe and secure for the gulf. but nevertheless, the secretary of interior has issued a new moratorium, thumbing his nose at the court and creating a broader moratorium that has stopped drilling in the gulf of mexico. the impact of this is american rigs are leaving the gulf of mexico and u.s. jobs with it. capital will soon follow. and ultimately if the moratorium is allowed to go its full six months we will see a significant severe dismantling of america's energy
infrastructure, future higher gas prices, and we'll be seeing more of our energy dependence to the middle east and foreign oil. the truth of the matter is today, the gulf of mexico has been extraordinarily safe to explore for america's traditional energy, our oil and gas. over 50,000 wells have been drilled in the gulf of mexico. this is the first major spill. over 14,000 deepwater wells have been drilled around the world. you don't stop automobile production because there is a problem with one model, the white house has stopped all energy production in the gulf because of the disaster with british petroleum and they are laying off workers today. small businesses are struggling to survive. rigs are being deployed overseas. joining me today to talk about
the impact is john culberson of houston as well. he and i were in a roundtable last week with a number of our small, mid-sized, independent businesses who are already laying off workers and redeploying resources as a result of this terrible moratorium that unfortunately is turning into an environmental disaster, making it worse by creating an economic disaster. not just in the gulf of mexico but one that will reach throughout the united states. so i would yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. john culberson. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. brady. kevin, thank you for the invitation, for putting together the roundtable with industries in the houston area who are part of the oil and gas industry. we in houston know that our city is to the energy industry what silicone valley is to the computer -- silicon valley is to the computer industry. and there is not jobs throughout southeast texas and
louisiana but others dependent on the oil and gas industry. we as a nation rely on the oil and gas produced in the gulf of mexico. i've seen numbers as high, kevin, as 80% the oil the united states consumes -- where does that 80% number come from, kevin? oil and gas produced in the gulf of mexico. what percentage of the oil and gas consumed by the us comes out of the gulf of mexico? mr. brady: we produce at least 30%. most of the oil is for jet fuel. a number of our -- mr. culberson: and the jet fuel is vital. kevin, we found out from the roundtable you held in houston last week, as you said, jobs are being lost as we speak. we as a nation could lose those jobs permanently. the infrastructure, the rigs themselves, particularly the semi submersible floating rig is particularly difficult to operate and maintain and they are already leaving.
kevin, what did we learn -- what did you hear? what's happening to these offshore rigs? where are they going if we don't reverse this moratorium and stop it? mr. brady: well, the first rig is leaving the united states for egypt. they are already leaving -- planning to leave others for west africa, the middle east, brazil and those points. as they made the point, these rigs, you have them for a limited amount of time. they are well -- when they leave they don't come back for years. with them are energy workers, the companies that support them, the american businesses that sell to them and ship to them and provide those services. and as we know, the rest of the world, including one enterprise in china, are now aggressively swooping in to bid for these rigs which, again, takes away our jobs and our prosperity. and i would yield. mr. culberson: once they're
gone, those rigs will be almost impossible to come back to the united states. the world's appetite for oil will continue. we encourage alternative energy sources and the longer term developing innovative new technologies like the quantum power, carbon nanotubes holds for producing electricity, so many new technologies we have as a nation, great promise to invest in. that's down the road. right now it's vitally important for our nation's strategic security that we continue to find and develop every natural resource we can here in the united states, the gulf of mexico, our offshore waters is -- has produced so much of this nation's oil and gas and we're joined by our good friend, mr. scalise from louisiana, kevin, and since the
one controlling the time, if i could call on mr. scalise to verify, steve, as i heard it, 99.99% of the oil produced in the offshore waters of the united states have been produced cleanly, safely and without incident and this is the first kind of this incident, very tragic as it is, it's like an airline falling out of a clear blue sky. you wouldn't ground airplanes if a plane fell out of the sky for no good reason as you would shut off all drilling. i'd ask mr. scalise to join us. . mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman from -- mr. brady: i thank the gentleman from louisiana for joining us. our families in the gulf have
been hurt. i yield to congressman scalise. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding and i thank my colleagues for talking about this important issue. as we're battling what is already a human tragedy with 11 deaths, an environmental tragedy, probably the worst in the country's history, we're trying to battle to keep the oil out of the marsh and the seafood bed and the estuaries where the pelicans live. we're now fighting a new battle, an economic battle against this moratorium on all energy exploration in not only deep water but shallow water which is going on. we've been trying to point out is that in fact if you look at the safety recommendations made by the president's own scientific panel, right after the explosion of the deepwater horizon, the president assembled a team of scientists, engineers, experts he picked, we didn't pick he picked to come back with a 30-day safety
report to improve safety on rigs. they came back with the recommendations. many of the recommendations they came back with are things that are already being implemented out there in the gull biff companies who have a safety record much different than b.p., company that was been in even deeper water. the deepwater horizon was 5,000 feet below the surface. there are companies drilling in 10,000 feet that haven't had any problems because they do follow a different set of safety standards. in fact, they have a high bar for safety and as you were talking about, over 2,500 wells have been drilled in deep water, many more over 50,000 across the gulf but over 2,500 wells in the deep water. yet this is the first time you've had an incident like this. that's because the companies out there, unlike b.p., have a different safety approach and haven't cut corners, haven't done the things that led to this disaster. as we are trying to find out
what went wrong we know many of the things that went wrong and what needs to be done to stop it from happening again. not by reinventing the wheel but by looking at those companies doing it the right way. that's what the group of scientists came back with in the safety report. we embrace the safety changes recommended that most of the industry is using but another thing the president's commission said is, the majority of those members said they oppose this moratorium on drilling. they did it for a number of reasons but one of the things they point out that's been interesting and hasn't been talked about, it's not just the loss of jobs. there's a tremendous loss of jobs, over 40 thourblings, good, high-paying jobs in louisiana alone in texas an even bigger number but they point out, the scientists the president appointed said it would reduce safety in the gulf of mexico by having a moratorium, or as the secretary
of the interior calls it, a pause. as if there's a magical pause button you can press and six months later the industry magically reappears. what's already happening today is companies are leaving the gulf of mexico to go to foreign countries. brazil, west africa, other nations competing for these scarce resources. you have 33 shallow water rigs, deepwater rigs, many of these are assets of half a billion to $1 billion each and their operating costs are $1 million a day. they can't afford to sit idle. they're starting to lay off employees, starting to move to foreign countries. what that does, it makes our country less safe because it reduces america's energy independence. our demand for oil in this country hasn't dropped. i want to support all the alternatives and wind and solar and nuclear and everything. all the above. but in the meantime, our demand in this country hasn't dropped for oil so as we reduce the supply by maybe 20% that means
we're import manager oil from foreign countries who don't like us. how does that oil get here? it doesn't magically appear. it has to come in from supertankers and big barges that bring in the oil and 70% of all spills of oil come from tankers, not from drilling. you've increased the likelihood of spills but the other side is while you reduce safety, your most experienced crews you most safe and technologically advanced rigs are the ones that leave first system of you lose your rigs, you lose the experience of those 10 to 20-year employees, people who understand drilling better than anybody in the world they won't sit around idle for six months collecting unemployment as the president suggested. they'll find work somewhere else, maybe in other countries. we lose all that experience and if you then six months later remove your hand from some mysterious pause button you don't have an industry left and don't have experience left. if you start drilling again,
you're doing it with people out experience and without those new rigs. it poses tremendous damage not only economically for the jobs lost but it also poses safety challenges and safety problems by having this pause as the president calls it on drilling. it's a horrible policy. it's making our country less energy secure and creating a bigger dependence on middle eastern oil. >> i want to -- mr. culberson. you serve -- mr. culberson: you serve on the energy and commerce committee. isn't it true that your committee and other committees of congress have come to no conclusion as to the cause of this accident and even though we don't know what caused it yet, the president is supposed to want a moratorium, shutting down all drilling.
mr. scalise: there are a lot of groups doing investigation, private institutions are, a lot of different investigations are going on as there should be but we know many of the things that caused the problems on that rig on the transocean b.p. horizon and in fact, they were preventable. that's the sad part of this. this was a preventable disaster and if you look at what the companies do that are in deeper watters that don't have the safety problems b.p. had it's because they do things the right way and that's what we should be following. we should go and look to what the president's own safety commission came back with. unfortunately, the president when he got that 30-day report back from his scientist and engineers that didn't give him the results he wanted, it didn't suggest a moratorium, he wanted to do one anyway, so he threw away the science and trumped science with politics. that's a sad state of affairs for our country to be in where we're ignoring science that recommends the right way to go for safety and the president
chose a path for a less safe approach that throws jobs away and makes our country more dependent on foreign oil. >> which flies in the face of the record of tremendous safety and producing oil and gas in the gulf. all the oil and gas produced in offshore watt sers produced cleanly, safely, in giant hurricanes when there were underwater lands slides. hurricane ivan which caused underwater landslides severed oil pipelines in the gulf of mexico. they got have tremendous record of safety because they follow guidelines, all these rigs as a rule follow the guidelines of the ipaa, the independent petroleum association of america has safety guidelines that are followed by offshore drilling rigs, they've got a tremendous record of safety,
i'm not sure of any other industry that's got a better safety record than the oil and gas industry other than the nuclear industry and this catastrophic, tragic accident is one we need to make sure doesn't happen again but not in such a blanket, destructive way. mr. brady: this moratorium's impact on our economy is greater than most imagine. it's not just along the gulf coast but imagine if you will, you have at this point both the 33 deepwater rigs that are now idle, now leaving america along with our american workers and our american vendors, but in the shallow waters which has even a more sterling record of a safe and secure exploration, which now is also idle, because the interior department is not providing, permitting, in any timely passion at all, those rigs are going away, those workers are going away and that impact is deep.
there are, on any of those deepwater rigs, you've got at least 1,500 workers tied directly to the rig and more beyond that. each rig may well have 1,000 vendors supplying and servicing it, vendors throughout the united states, we can talk about that in a few moments with the map we've got here on the floor as well. these companies are not the big companies. these are family-owned businesses, small, medium-sized businesses. they're already starting to lay off workers. they're already redeploying, i think halliburton and others, they've been forced to relocate some 4,000 jobs. offshore energy development impacts at least 170,000 jobs all of which are at risk. with this moratorium. as small businesses have told us, who said, i've already laid off 20% of the work force, next week, i lay off 50% of the work
force. what small business in america, what industry, can hope to survive without six months of revenue? mr. culberson: the answer is none. maybe the big guys can but most companies cannot. mr. brady: people are desperately looking for work but here we have a white house policy that puts at risk 150,000 good-paying american jobs. that will impact every state in the nation and by the way, congressman culberson, there have been studies that talk about what the impact is in various areas, if you think about it, the average salary in the gulf of mexico for petroleum-related workers, almost 118,000 -- $118,000 average annual salary. some of those are roughnecks, who may not have a high school education, who are getting
$70,000, $80,000, because it's a tough job. it's hard work. but it's not -- it not only produces fuel to drive america's prosperity but gives them an opportunity to raise their family, you know to live the american dream to put their kids through college to own their own home. those jobs are now at risk. who is fighting for them? it seems to me the white house, so far, and i hope it changes, has a deaf ear to the american workers. these are u.s. energy workers. there's more -- with this moratorium as the rigs leave, as the jobs go, as our vendors and small businesses go as well, we need -- many of those are not coming back for years. with it goes the capital, the funding from companies who have to decide soon whether they put money into exploring in the gulf of mexico or over in brazil or west africa or somewhere else around the world. also with the rigs and capital and jobs go ours brainpower.
we worry about a brain drain of america's best and brightest energy research and workers who will go and ultimately, when that leave the energy headquarters leaves as well, which in many communities along the gulf of mexico make up such a big part, good-paying part of our economy system of this moratorium, the refusal to allow permits, the 10-year -- the tenure on allowing these safe wells to go back to work is having a devastating impact. i've invited, and i know you support this i invited president obama to come to houston, texas to meet with energy workers. those whose jobs have been lost or at risk. just as he has visited every state along the gulf, come to texas to see the economic spill of his policy the economic devastation that is beginning
and can be changed. and can be averted. not by stopping a well from gushing, but by stopping bad policy, overly broad, that costs u.s. american jobs throughout the country, raises energy prices, makes us more dependent on countries that frankly don't care much for us. i yield to you. mr. culberson: i know you've seen where the companies are going oversea, the companies have high standards, they'll maintain as safe, clean an environment for their workers as safe and produce oil as safely and cleanly as they can but common sense tells you, where are they going to have better, cleaner standards for producing oil and gas? in indonesia, or off the coast of louisiana or texas? is it better to protect the environment, here in the united states or in a third-world nation where they are not as concerned with protecting the environment as we are here in america? i had a chance to work on
offshore rigs in the summers in college as what's called a well site geologist. these are good jobs. i had the chance to experience it firsthand, to see the level of commitment that these men and now women that work on the rigs. and in the offshore industry that know better than anybody to make sure that well doesn't blow out. no one has a greater stake in protecting the safety of their workers and protecting the environment, in producing oil and gas safely and cleanly than the companies themselves. the liability that they're exposed to is immense. they care deeply about the safety of their workers. the rigs that i worked on offshore were both jacked up rigs and semi-submerseable rigs. this was in the -- submersable rigs. and this was where oil got to cheap and a lot of the service companies disappeared because of the price of oil declining so rapidly.
but the technology today is so amazing that we are even able to drill at the depths that the deepwater horizon was drilling in, congressman brady, the -- i have to wonder as a conservative, as a texan watching this administration not let any crisis go to waste and remembering, as i do, congressman brady, when last summer or the summer before the last election i recall speaker pelosi and this liberal majority had shut down all offshore drilling in the united states. you remember when congress adjourned in the summer of 2008 , kevin, i remember you coming to the house floor with your sweet case. we forced the speaker and the liberal majority to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. we stayed down here and talked to the gallery. we used our social media
devices to talk to the country on twitter and facebook and quick. and the country responded. the nation supports, the nation understands the importance of producing american oil and gas. the country supports drilling in offshore waters. continues support drilling in offshore waters in the united states. despite this terrible accident, the nation understands that this is an anomaly, that this is something that does not happen, that has not happened, and the many years that produced -- we've produced oil and gas in the offshores of the united states. and in august of 2008, congressman brady, when the house had adjourned and we stayed down here and kept talking, ultimately, we forced the leadership in the house to reverse its position and withdrawal temporarily the ban on offshore drilling. yet, as soon as this administration actually gets back in place and the first chance they get when they have a catastrophic accident
offshore, what do they do, in opposition to their own commission? without knowing the exact cause of the accident they impose a blanket moratorium, stopping all drilling. it literally is as though you stop all airplane flights when a dc-10 falls out of the clear blue sky. catastrophic, terrible accident but it's a particular type of aircraft and you would want to find out what caused that type of particular aircraft to fall out of the sky. instead, this administration's knee jerk reaction, taking advantage of this crisis, i believe, to achieve their long-term sought goal as liberals, to shut off as much domestic oil and gas production and exploration as they can, they imposed this moratorium. so destructive, so short sided, so damaging, not only to the economy of the gulf coast states, congressman brady, but to the nation. driving up the price of oil and gas. driving up the price of gasoline. driving these rigs overseas where the wells will be drilled in areas of the world where
they do not have the concern, they do not have the restrictions on protecting the environment that we do here in the united states. this is unfortunately a short sided, narrow -- the liberals are so obsessed with stropping all drilling in the united states, i believe this is where this moratorium comes from. and the american people understand how short sided and how destructive it is. in fact, congressman brady, one other aspect that we need to be sure to educate people about, mr. speaker, as part of the overall policy of this congress, this liberal majority in congress, that we talked about earlier today, congressman brady, is the effort of this congress to prohibit fracturing formations. there is this general direction of the obama administration and under the obama-pelosi regime to shut down as much domestic oil and gas production as they can.
they even want to make it illegal to fracture formations which would devastate the production of oil and natural gas in the united states. in fact, congressman brady, i see here on the usgs website when you look how much recoverable oil is available in north dakota and montana, the u.s. geological survey estimates that the bacan formation has an estimated three billion to four billion barrels of -- quoting -- technically recovered oil in an area known as the bacan formation. yet, if the majority has its way, congressman brady, they would prohibit fracturing thousands of feet deep, far below any fresh drinking water, fracturing those formations and allowing us to get access to that recoverable oil and gas. this moratorium on offshore drilling is devastating to the gulf, damaging to the nation, but part of, i see, congressman
brady, a larger pattern of behavior by this administration by this congress -- by this administration, by this congress until we can replace them come november is shutting down oil and gas exploration. is this what you're seeing? mr. brady: the cost of the drilling moratorium and human lives and jobs is an impact on people's lives and families. it's devastating. we face other threats, hear immediate threats to america's energy future. within the next several weeks, the blowout prevention act. to the efforts of congressman joe barton and others working with congressman henry waxman and others, i think, has become a more manageable or acceptable bill. concerns still exist. the oil spill accountability act, which will stop exploration in america's gulf. energy taxes that will force,
really drive u.s. jobs to other country. can i talk for a moment, though, about the lives that are already been affected? and we know -- we know that the lives of those 11 workers that have been lost, praying for their families and their recovery are a top priority for us. stopping that spill from gushing further, for taking the beaches and marshes and seabeds and trying to help the gulf state communities to recover will have to be our priority. the question is, do we make it worse by issuing a moratorium? the answer is yes. this is the impact on jobs since the moratorium took place. communities are redeploying people to other parts of the country. as the national oceans industry chairman burt adams said, there is no clear path for deepwater exploration companies to follow.
until a path exists, more jobs will be lost. jobs like acer solutions has workers in texas now, alabama, they have had to re focus their efforts on international projects to compensate for the loss of explore in the moratorium, their offshore work coming to a halt already. they have about 750 employees in texas and alabama, but they are now going elsewhere with their work. a.t.p. oil and gas exploration, the moratorium caused this company to stop drilling in a natural gas well and released the rig. the well produced 40 million -- would have produced 40 million cubic feet of gas daily for america. but they estimate that they will be panelized about $40 million because the moratorium, lose $100 million dollars a day.
volunteer shipyards, family owned and operated since 1946, employees 3,000 american workers, but they say in 46 years of our existence we have never been faced with such an uncertain future. it's leaving volunteer shipyards no choice but to downsize our company, thereby eliminating good-paying jobs. mr. culberson: where are they located? mr. brady: they are in texas, i believe. it doesn't say so. cap rock communications, they'll be forced, redeploy personnel to different regions or support them finding some other way. they have over 50 field service and operations personnel supporting clients in the gulf of mexico, employs 750 people throughout houston, lafayette and new orleans. c&c technologies, they expect to lay off 10 employees to begin with. will not be hiring the dozen or so workers they expected to hire. so they're laying off workers and we're missing an opportunity to put even more
people back to work. cobalt international energy with their exploration, their drilling rigs, services, vessels, tools and people that were contractors for the drilling program all have been released. and cobalt, we talked about the rigs go, the jobs go, the business go and the capital leaves america. cobalt will shift its capital spending program and resources to west africa because they have no choice. this white house, this government is forcing them overseas and, again, as you pointed out, those not only are u.s. energy workers but the work leaving. and davis lynch has work in lafayette, corpus christi. they employed over 300 people last year, had to cut 100.
were starting to hire more people back. del mar systems. operations 100% directly related to the deepwater semi-submerrabbing le in the gulf of mexico, it will affect their ability to operate. marine contractors, their business feature in -- their state and uncertainty here in the united states employ people in texas and louisiana. i will go on and on here a little bit later, but the point is these are real american workers. these are real american businesses. some family owned, some mid sized, some larger. but the economic devastation, i sometimes wonder, you know, are people as important as turtles and birds, you know? we know we all love our wildlife and are fighting to protect them, but shouldn't we be fighting to protect american workers and their livelihood?
mr. culberson: absolutely. mr. brady: what about american small businesses and their livelihood? what about their ability to survive, to employ workers? how about an energy workers who had nothing to do with the b.p. spill who no longer has a job, can't put their kids through college? mr. president, don't those workers count too, and why won't you come to texas to meet them? why don't you pay as much attention to them as you do other regions and wildlife? these lives and their livelihoods are at stake. they're already paying a price. they didn't ask for this. the energy industry didn't cause this spill. british petroleum experienced this spill. and we ought not pickuppish innocent american workers, communities, our future, force higher energy price, become more dependent on some of america's worst enemies because of a terrible policy response, the moratorium, what has been a
human and environmental tragedy of our own making now of an economic disaster of this own government's making. i would yield. mr. culberson: congressman brady, it's so well said. i also want to make the point, make sure, madam speaker, that all americans listening understand congressman brady that this moratorium is not just shutting down deepwater drilling. all of the companies we visited with, all of the industries that are involved with drilling and producing, finding, drilling, producing oil and gas in the offshore waters of the united states are telling us that this moratorium has had the effect of shutting down and stopping all permitting in shallow as well as deep water, isn't that correct, congressman brady? mr. brady: it is because they are not permitting, as you know. initially, the moratorium -- i would advise -- then it was
lifted in shallow waters. but no permitting has really -- no permit of its significance has occurred so those rigs are idle and going away. now, the whole moratorium was stayed by the federal courts. and a new moratorium was put in place, shallow, deep waters are essentially shut down. and, again, what that means to the rest of america is that their workers' jobs are shut down, the ability to provide energy supplies for america is shut down, and our dependence on other countries for our daily energy needs is increasing every day because of our wrong-headed government policy. .
mr. culberson: the obama administration has shut down all offshore drilling in the continental united states. imagine if your mr. speaker, a business owner, a banker, someone who is prepared to invest and make a significant investment because they are expensive operations to drill in the shallow or deepwater. imagine you want to make that investment, but a, you're not sure if the permit is for deep or shallow. it has been rewritten by the obama administration certainly to circumvent the federal court's order stopping their moratorium. the administration has rewritten their moratorium to bypass the court order. if you are trying to make a significant investment, significant amount of money, you have no way of knowing when and if a permit will be issued, what
type of permit is going to be issued. they are going to leave. they will go overseas, the rigs, the equipment, the jobs, the talent, the skill, the american jobs -- people and families that have worked in the offshore oil industry in the united states will just leave. they're gone. again, i know this firsthand. i have met these men and women and know how committed they are to finding and producing oil safely and no one has a bigger stake than they do. the speaker pro tempore: the chair receives a message. the secretary: a message from the senate. the messenger: i have been directed by the house to in form the house that the senate has agreed to the conference report accompanying h.r. 717 restoring america act of 210. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from texas may proceed. mr. brady: yes, mr. speaker. mr. rangel: i would ask the gentleman to yield to me for five minutes for the purposes of making a statement. mr. brady: i yield to the the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: i thank you for extending this courtesy, in view of the great contribution you make on the community and in the congress and i want to thank you for bringing it to the attention of the american people the sacrifices that so many people are making as a result of the incident that is taking place in the gulf. mr. speaker, i rise to say i have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and make it
permanent during time of war. it is h.r. 5741. and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42, whether they are men or women, whether they are straight or gay, to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened. during the last few weeks and months as we have gone through a heat wave in the northeast, i could not but think of the tens of thousands of americans that find themselves in the middle east just hoping and praying that to the extent they are inconvenience and suffering was being in the heat of being back home with their loved ones. and they are so dedicated and there are so few of them, that many of them have gone back into combat, once, twice, even up to
six times. and to me, that's asking a whole lot from such a small part of our population. and i truly believe that if people thought for one minute that our nation was in trouble, that age would not even be a factor in people saying, count me in, because this great country has been so good to me that whatever we can do, we want to be able to make some type of sacrifice. and it just seems to me that when presidents come and say that in their opinion, the country has to go or should go or makes a request to go to war, then ultimately it will be the people of this house and the senate that will determine whether or not this request is going to be fulfilled. to me, if you're not prepared to put americans and your kids and grand kids in harm's way, then you have reached the conclusion
that the president is wrong and we should not enter this type of a war. if, on the other hand, i am thoroughly convinced that when the american people are persuaded that our great democracy is in danger, that we would not want just a select group of people to be pulled out over and over and over again and put themselves in harm's way. i know the tragedies that have occurred when there have been exceptions to the draft in the past. and for that reason, it was not found to be favorable to the average citizen, that if you were in college or came from a background, you were excluded from the draft. this is not involved in this in anyway, the only exclusions would be those who have physical, mental handicaps or objectors and if you're not needed since there will be an overwhelming number of troops
that would be available, then you could be able to provide something in line for the american security. i want to thank the gentleman from texas for allowing me to interrupt this very informtive discussion on the moratorium and i thank to the contribution you make not only to the congress but specifically the ways and means committee. and i yield back any time that i may have. mr. brady: thank. i appreciate that very much. joining us today on this very important topic as we look at the devastating impact of the drilling moratorium on american jobs and energy workers is a congressman from texas who has taken a lead on a number of key national security issues, especially the border, but lives in a community that is adversely affected.
i yield to the the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: we all represent an area of the state of texas that is dramatically impacted by the oil and gas industry and having a district on the gulf coast, representing about 20% of the nation's oil refineries, this is especially a serious incident that has occurred offshore, this b.p. deepwater horizon disaster. no question about it. this problem, this accident has to be solved. i understand within the last hour that the cap that has now been placed on the well by b.p. is apparently working. hopefully it will be working long enough to finish drilling the other two wells to solve this problem. and we always must be mindful of the people that were killed in this tragedy and plus the
tremendous damage it has done to certain parts of our environment. but we cannot allow this accident to be an overreaction. and i think the federal government has overreacted in this situation. the deep water in the gulf of mexico provides 17.3% of the nation's domestic crude oil. and the federal government now has said no moredeepwater drilling for six months until we get back at you. no industry whether it's a doughnut industry or oil industry or anybody else can be shut down for six months by the federal government and expect to survive. and these deepwater rigs are not cheap endeavors. they cost $500,000 a day to drill in the deep water.
they aren't going to wait for the federal government to make a decision as to continuing drilling or not. that's why they have gone to friendlier governments. those people who work offshore in the deep water now are unemployed thanks to the federal government. it's an overreaction. 17.3 of the nation's crude oil all of a sudden is gone out of the deep water. to make up for what is going to be eliminated in the deep water, it will take 300 tankers a year coming in from those countries in the middle east to supply just the difference in the crude oil that we will not obtain from the deep water. and of course, those tankers, some of them have had problems of containing that crude oil that is coming all the way from
the middle east. once again now we are paying and sending american money overseas, sending jobs somewhere off the coast of brazil, africa and egypt and it is, in my opinion, an overreaction. give you an example. we had in 2005 in texas city, texas, we had a b.p. explosion at a refinery. more people were killed than in this explosion offshore. we didn't close all the refineries but closed b.p.'s refinery and made sure they were held accountable. but we didn't overreact. i got a letter from a real mad cajun from louisiana. their communities border our state. we have a lot of cajuns. anyway, a lot of them work in
the oil and gas industry and i want to read a portion of his letter. he wrote it to the president, but i got a copy of it as well. he is in an offshore oil drilling business. he said, i'm terribly struggling that you make the hasty decision to stop drilling for six months. did you stop coal mining after the incidents they had had? no. did you stop the airlines after the crashes and accidents they have had? no. did you shut down the mortgage companies, the banks and the auto industry after they stole money from those same americans that invested in them? no. you bailed them out. now you want to shut down the oil industry in the deep water for six months which will hurt tense of thousands of workers. i hope you understand the trickle-down effect this will have on many other industries.
i won't read the rest of the letter because it gets more colorful. these are real people that are losing their jobs because of this decision. a federal judge has said that the federal government's decision to stop or to issue a moratorium to stop deepwater drilling and i quote the federal judge. in issuing an injunchings -- the federal judge said the government's decision to stop drilling was arbitrary, it was capricious, unfounded and punitive, pretty strong words because the government couldn't show evidence that stopping the deepwater drilling was necessary because of the accident. the federal government is suing and three-judge panel ruled that the decision would be upheld. the final decision will be in august. but the federal government has had its way, because continuing
to fight americans in the courtroom, prolonging this decision, the decision that will be made by the appellate court on whether the injunchings should be granted to stop the federal government's moratorium, it's such a delay that more of those deepwater rigs will leave. people are still unemployed. they need jobs. they want to work offshore. and most of the people in this country, 73% of the nation's population thinks we should still continue to drill in the deep water, even in spite of this horrible accident, solve this problem and allow americans to continue to work. with that, i yield back to my friend from texas, mr. brady. mr. brady: i appreciate the gentleman from texas talking about that gentleman and how frustrating it is to see the federal government ride to the rescue of so many companies, unions and special interests but when it comes to an average u.s. energy worker, they go out of
their way to actually kill that job or put that person's livelihood at risk. people may think that this is just one or two states, doesn't affect us. but nothing could be further from the truth. international association of drilling contractors, you know, they have a number of members all throughout the country. they surveyed nine of their members and one boat company just to ask them, where are your workers at in america? and just nine companies found workers in almost 300 congressional districts throughout the united states of america. just these nine companies and one boat company reached tom almost 70% of u.s. congressional districts. it didn't include tense of thousands of other workers, oil service companies large and small, equipment manufacturers,
mom and pop operations, oil companies, none of that included. just these nine drilling contractors and boat company, almost 70% of the districts in america. you think, man, this can't be affecting our neighbors. but it is. you got a few examples just from these few companies. you got wire rope from missouri and arkansas that is at risk. workers who build radiators in minnesota, steel and pipe in ohio, uniform makers in illinois. those who create protective paint from missouri. machinery for the offshore oil companies from michigan. engines from illinois. could rotion prevention materials from illinois and minnesota, connecticut who make electrical cables, drilling equipment from illinois, pipe protector equipment, kansas, background checks and security services from wisconsin.
on and on and on again. these are our neighbors whose jobs are at risk not because b.p. didn't follow standard safety practice, but because the white house decided these energy jobs weren't worth protecting. . these unions, they won't lift a finger to protect these jobs. these are our people who are researchers and manufacturers, some of them are rough necks, without a high school education, who have the one job in america that allows them to raise their family, actually raise their family and live the american dream, give their kid as colonel education and those jobs are disappearing -- college education and those jobs are disappearing as we speak and they're not going to come back any time soon. the companies aren't going, the rigs aren't coming back, the workers aren't coming back, the infrastructure aren't coming back. we become more dependent on foreign oil. our energy crisis for every american will go up, we'll buy
more from companies that detest the united states, america and none of it having to happen. that's why we've asked the president to come to texas, come seast see these drilling workers -- come see these drilling workers and tell them why their jobs aren't important, why their livelihoods don't matter, why they're family -- their family-owned business, it doesn't matter if they go away or not. these people are from all across america. >> i also want to say that we vex tendsed an invitation to the president to -- we have extendsed an invitation to the president to -- extendsed an invitation to come -- extendsed an invitation to come. i asked him, i said, isn't what your administration proposing on nasa like private advertising the navy so we'd have to rent an aircraft carrier, we'd have to rent spacecraft? it looks to me, that map you've got down there that you're
showing us, i see a striking parallel there that jobs affected by the president's attempt to shut down the manned space program which thankfully congress has rejected, i want to thank the chairman of the committees that we're going to get legislation to build a heavy lift vehicle, that congress rejected the president's unwanted strategy, we need to reject this unwise moratorium, it but it looks like it affected jobs in those same areas. they shut down the oil and gas industry affects jobs in those same areas. the attempt to cap and tax energy production in the united states, devastating the american energy industry affects jobs in those same areas. i think all those areas are all republican. aren't all those states and those areas pretty strongly republican? certainly there's no correlation there, is there? looks to me like there might be a pattern. as congressman brady correctly points out, this administration is quick to bail out their buddies in the unions but slow to protect american jobs that
enhance this nation's security, that enhance our prosperity, this moratorium's an outrage. we need to stop it. i thank you forgiving us this time on the floor to talk about it. mr. brady: i thank the gentleman from hughes. you're seeing this, you have -- houston. you're seeing this you have communities that stretch from the suburbs of houston to southeast texas which has some of the highest unemployment rates in the state of texas. these are workers tied to these companies, you know them, you visited with them, you had town hall meetings, they're neighbors. you can describe how disheartening this is for these workers who had nothing to do with the spill, to have their jobs at risk and their livelihoods at risk? >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. poe: as you know, mr. brady, port arthur, especially port arthur, texas, is a refinery town but it has high unemployment and the whole area
has high unemployment for a lot of reasons. one reason, of course, is we've been hit by numerous hurricanes. just since i've been in office we've had katrina, rita, gustav and ike. all come through my congressional district and your congressional district. because of that it's affected the economy and now these workers are trying to get back to work, many of them work offshore. and then they work onshore in oil-related industries. but the affect of the shutdown in the deep water -- the effect of the shutdown in the deep water causes economic hardship not just on the workers on those platforms but for the people onshore that supply parts and maintenance and other industries, other commodities that those people that work offshore. and so we don't know yet how many thousands or hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost because of this. but one thing that we also need to understand is the loss of energy. the lack of having crude oil
that we were producing in the deep water, 17% of the nation's domestic crude oil production comes from deep water, that is now going to be gone and we'll have to make that up some other way. so, we should expect gasoline prices to rise, properly in two years. maybe less. because of that. and i think it's imperative that we understand that the folks that are affected want to continue to work. they want to continue to work offshore, they want to continue to work safely and they don't want the federal government putting them out of work and that's exactly what happens. the federal government has shut them down. has sent their jobs overseas. mr. brady: if the gentleman would yield. can we talk a little more about how the loss of energy in america from this moratorium drives up fuel prices?
makes us more dependent. i don't think most people realize, as you said, the gulf of mexico is a key generator of oil, natural gas for america, but it actually is very key to keeping opec from controlling energy prices throughout the world. opec controls about 40% of the world's oil supply and what happens is when -- what we need the world getting about 2% to 3% of the oil that's produced, opec then has amazing leverage, to drive those prices up for american families and workers. the gulf of mexico is our relief valve. that's where we produce energy and gas here in america. because we have that producing, opec doesn't have the leverage that it historically has. with this moratorium, as you said, the energy supply isn't today, it's -- the shortage is in 2011 and 2012, which we know the last time energy went to $4 a gallon we saw the devastating
impact on american energy, american prosperity, our economy and jobs. small businesses and families just suffered. we're going to see more of that in the future. mr. poe: that's exactly what will occur, not only energy costs, but we also must remember that this deep water drilling and the crude oil that comes from the deep water produces millions of other products besides just fuel. all of the plastics, many of our technology comes from some base of crude oil. and all of that is affected and the cost of all those items that are produced in our refineries and petrochemical plants will be affected because of this arbitrary, capricious and punitive decision to just stop deep water drilling. i would hope the administration would re-evaluate their position, quit suing americans, get out of the courtroom and get
down to the gulf of mexico and fix this problem and let people go back to work. i yield back. mr. brady: i appreciate the gentleman and his remarks that are right on target. i have some closing remarks, i'd like the gentleman from houston -- >> i'd like to join you and congressman poe in inviting the president to come to hue stop. come meet these people who -- houston. come meet these people who are committed to finding and producing american oil and gas cleanly and safely. these are our neighbors and friends, congressman brady, and congressman poe, we live with alongside, have picnics with these, these are good people. we all know how committed they are to this nation and to finding american oil and gas cleanly and safely. come to houston, president obama. meet them first hand, see however pride they take in their work, -- how much pride they take in their work and their country and how valuable and important their role is in this nation's economy. and i yield back. mr. brady: thank you. in conclusion let me say, these
are not republican workers, these aren't democratic workers, these aren't libertarian workers, they aren't tea party workers. they're just american workers. their jobs, these are their hope, their dreams and they didn't do anything wrong. they paid for the bailouts of other industries, they just want to go back to work, on the rig that's been safe. historically these energy workers, 50,000 wells in the gulf, this is the first accident. it wasn't their fault. you don't ground the ball because of it. if their lives are at stake, our energy prices, our energy independence, revenue to our state and federal government, small businesses who will never survive this moratorium ever if it goes the full six months did nothing wrong, whose reach is all throughout the united states of america. we have a lot at stake here. we are asking republicans and democrats in congress to join us in asking the president to end this moratorium.
accept, do not the safe practices, -- adopt the safe practices proposed by experts in the industry. allow the safe drilling to go forward. stop sending our rigs overseas. stop sending our jobs overseas. stop accepteding our service companies overseas, our capital, our best and brightest minds and ultimately our headquarters. keep america going on a path of energy independence. don't hurt these two million workers who are tied to this important industry with that -- industry. with that and the support, i appreciate congressman culberson, congressman poe for being here and congressman scalise, these are jobs. put our american energy workers back to work. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman
from texas, mr. gohmert, for 60 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. again, it's certainly a privilege to get to speak in this hallowed hall where so many courageous decisions have been made and also so many ill-begotten decisions have been made. speaking of which, today in our natural resources committee we voted out a bill out of
committee to deal with the disaster in the gulf of mexico, disastrous oil spill that hopefully, maybe they've got an cap on things, they're going to be able to stop the oil from destroying lives and livelihoods . but our bill did some amazing things. for example, the bill we passed in committee, should be coming to the floor now for a vote for the whole congress, provided $900 million a year for the next 30 years, through 2040, to buy more land for the federal government to sit on. now, it was pointed out that
actually we already own so much land, we have so many federal parks, national parks, that we can't take care of them and we're not taking care of them. there was a report that indicated that just in maintenance alone we are $3.7 billion helped, on just doing necessary mapet nance to keep the federal parks -- maintenance from keeping the federal parks from falling apart and we're not taking care of that. and here we voted $27 billion to buy more land for the federal government to sit on and it's important to understand, when the federal government buys any land at all, that land is immediately taken off of the tax rolls and the schools, the local governments, the state governments are prohibited from
taxing that land so that land that has brought so much revenue in taxes to those schools, hiring teachers, all that kind of thing, local servants, it goes away. and when this started 100 years-plus ago, people were assured locally, don't worry, though, if we take timber land, we'll sell timber and we'll give you a cut of the proceeds. well, that's gone away. and so the federal government takes land and the local folks get nothing. some say, oh, no, but it creates green jobs. right. and just like spain has found this year, as the report of the country that this administration and this majority has said repeat lid we want to emulate because -- repeatedly we want to emulate because they moved toward a green commercial spain
has found that for every one green job that's been created they lost two jobs. . i'm tired looking into the faces of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own but by decisions of public servants that were elected to come here to washington and not medical, not take over the country but just to make sure there was a level playing field. people had opportunity, not happiness, but the opportunity to pursue happiness. and what we find repeatedly is when this government, when any government weighs in, steps in and buys or takes over land, money, property, it doesn't
leave anybody really happy. so got a little chart here that we put together yesterday that shows where we have been on money that was appropriated in the budget and appropriated to buy land. you got over $150 million in 2008 and that is with this majority. this majority took over in 2007. 2008. and they had already gone many times from where we were in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, by 2008, the majority started going -- that's how we got over $100 million to buy land in 2008 and in 2009, kicked it up a bit
more. 2010, this year, we are approaching $300 million to buy more land for the federal government to sit on. and in this bill that passed committee today, there is this provision for $900 million. why don't we call it $1 billion. you know, you're that close. doesn't seem like $100 million means that much, but $900 million for the next 30 years to buy more land. i had such great hopes. we were hearing from economists telling us there is a way out of this runaway deficit. $1.5 trillion in one year. you know, it took the bush administration a number of years
to do that. and here, one year, we got it done here with this majority and this administration. but economists have said, get responsible. quit spending money like it was no issue, like it's growing on trees, because it's growing off of china. and they're saying they've about had enough. and we are printing it. got printing presses running like crazy and we'll pay for that with inflation. and so the vote today was as if we got all the money in the world. why not just buy more land. and what we heard from people who live in the western half of the country was, you've already taken so much of our state, why do you have to keep taking more
and more? one congressman from utah, rob bishop, had offered a proposal, how about if you're so inclined to spend that much money, how about if we just say, ok, we will only buy land from now on from states in which the federal government owns less than 20% of the state. when you look at the western united states, the red represents land owned by the federal government. you begin to understand why people in the west are saying, haven't you taken enough of our land? this country didn't start out owning all the land.
and as we have seen over and over, we aren't taking care of what we got. and we have people who lost their jobs. and yet last summer, we passed a bill for $700 million to buy wild horses, more habitat, because there had been a bill before that that this majority passed that said you can't do anything about the overgrowing population of wild horses on federal land. you can't use birth control. you can't sell them off in auctions. so they have pro liver ated. and -- proliferated. at a time when americans are being thrown out of their homes this year. foreclosures are up ever higher than ever before, bankruptcy continue to be filed, the folks in charge decide, you know what?
let's take care of the wild horses. they matter more to us than all of these people getting thrown out of their homes and losing their livelihood. that's more important. we have lost our priorities. and i understand it didn't just start in the last year and a half. president i admired greatly, smarter than most people i give him credit for, good man, he listened to one of the worst secretary of the treasuries we ever had, hank paulsen as he ran around like chicken little saying the financial sky was falling, but give me $700 billion and i could make my friends rich and i can fix everything. goldman sachs didn't suffer. a.i.g. didn't suffer. and the american people are
suffering. and i know, and i heard people from the other side of the aisle, including this week, talk about all the rich fat cats republicans, yet if you look at the truth, which is a good thing to look at from time to time, you look at the truth and you find out that wall street families give to democrats four times as much as they give to republicans. you look at b.p. and you wonder why it took the federal government so long to intervene and call their hand. they really haven't completely yet. and you find out they gave much more to this administration than they did to mccain campaign. they got heavy on democratic lobbyists from administrations that were democratic. they signed onto the crap and trade bill. we are pushing that to be
passed. so this administration, this majority didn't want to buck their good friend that was going to help them push through some things that weren't going to help america, even though they were going to help b.p. get richer. and that's why it took so long. and weapon are fixing it by buying more land for the federal government. how in the world that makes sense? now, we also had the committee vote against my amendment that was very important protecting our homeland. my amendment to the bill was very simple and it rose out of finding out during hearings that there was only one entity within the mines and minerals management service that was allowed to be unionized, and
that was the offshore inspectors -- unionized. well, union contracts usually have restrictions on travel, restrictions on how much the committee worked, things like that and it reminded me of the job of century and mock war games when i was in the army, one sentry wasn't about to go to sleep. article 15 punishment. you are the protection for the rest of the people there and standing guard. that's what offshore inspectors are and they are unionized and told by the director of m.m.s., the real check of how we can be so sure, we send them out in pairs. and we found out the last pair of offshore inspectors that went
to the deepwater horizon rig that blew was a father and son team. yeah, so much for checks and balances. that's what we got. so my amendment just said for people who are offshore deepwater rig inspectors, you can't strike and you can't threaten a strike, just like if you are in the military, you can't go on strike. you're protecting the country. our offshore inspectors are what stands between our homeland and environmental disaster and the loss of lives as we had on deepwater horizon rig. and all but one democrat voted against my amendment so that our offshore inspectors can strike.
can get out there on a rig and say, you know what? i'm what stands between our homeland and disaster and either you give me what i want or i'm going on strike. and you'll have no protection and who knows, you may have another deepwater horizon happen because i'm not checking anything. you have a problem with your contract, then get your congress, get others to help if you're working for the federal government. but if you're not working for the federal government as a government employee and yet at the same time you are the protection for our country, you shouldn't be able to strike. and in this case, even though m.m.s. had become basically, we're told a stagnant pond that
stunk it up because of the cozy relationship between the people who worked there and big oil, it had to be divided in three parts. i tried to find out what else is going to be unionized once it was split up in three parts and was told they didn't know. didn't know exactly how it was all going to come out. from east texas, we often find if you want to fix a stagnant stinking pond, it doesn't help if you died it up into three parts. you have to do something to fix it, and we haven't seen that happen. and, in fact, when we found out that a person involved in the leases that may have critical testimony as to why the price adjustment language was pulled
out of the 1998, 1999 leases that has now cost the federal treasury billions of dollars, 1998, 1999 under the clinton administration, wanted to know they pulled that language out. it made billions extra for the oil companies, but cost our treasury billions, because that language was normally in there. why did they dick indicate that it be pulled out? and i was -- dictate that it be pulled out. why they pulled that language out, because they left government service. when the clinton administration left, they left. and after hearing president obama talk about the cozy relationship between the people in the government managing minerals and big oil, i had a
hunch and checked and sure enough, one of the persons, i was told had been involved and had direct knowledge about the language being pulled that cost us so many billions of dollars and made it for companies like b.p. found out she had gone to work for british petroleum when she left the clinton administration. and in june of last year, she came back to work for the same people that manage the affairs of british petroleum offshore. . the president knew what he was talking about. he helped create a can cozy relationship tweep those who were supposed to keep big oil hoppest and big oil. we found out -- honest and big oil. we found out b.p. had safety violation understand that administration dealt with those in a strong way. by giving them a safety award
for wonderful safety record. and yet they were apparently the only company that had that kipeds of horrible safety record -- kind of horrible safety record when compared with others who had one or zero violations. you wonder, why was b.p. entitled to a safety award and then you find out who they gave most of their contributions to in the election. you find out they were going to support bills that the administration wanted pushed through, when other big oil companies would not. so you begin to ppeds, they felt bulletproof -- understand, they felt bulletproof. they felt like they had such good friend in thed a strace and the majority -- in the administration and the majority. when the public heat got hot enough, they got thrown under the busment and how did we deal with with it -- bus. and how did we deal with it today? we passed a bill through committee to appropriate $900
million a year for the next 30 years to buy more federal land. i haven't figured out how that solves the problem in the gulf. and in fact it creates a worse problem because as we've already seen from this administration, they do not like to lease land for drilling. and in fact in the prior administration, seven years before this administration took office, a leasing process was begun to lease land in utah, wyoming, colorado area, and it took seven years to get to the point that companies were being positioned to make a knowing bid and the bid could be chosen, the high bid, for the lease.
those leases after that seven years were let at end of 2008. immediately secretary salazar came in and ordered that the checks not be cashed and then ordered that they be reported, that he was not going to allow the leases that took seven years to come into being to exist because they were done at in his words, the midnight hour -- at, in his words, the m.i.t. night hour. for seven years -- at the mid knight hour. for seven years -- midnight hour. there was the oil that was going to eliminate the need for deep water drilling. we've seen that happening over and over. last year, as i ppeds, the second most -- understand, the second most rich deposit of uranium was declared off limits, came through our committee, that was a bill we voted out, to put our second highest, second best
source of uranium off limits. and that all at a time when we're trying to figure out ways how to get off carbon-based fuels. and nuclear should be one of those ways that we utilize. and especially when you find out, as we have in our committee, that 90% of our uranium we're using in our nuclear plaments right now is imported. and -- plants right now is imported and yet we have uranium that can be used for that. god has so richly blessed this country with resources when you take them all into consideration, like no nation in the world. when you look at all the natural resources that would produce energy, nobody comes close to this little country where we've had, until more recently, an experiment, as the founders
called it, in a democratic republic, in an elected respective government. -- representative government. and we appropriate $900 million a year for the next 30 years to buy lapped to put more of it off -- land to put more of it off limits. we heard when gasoline went to $4 a gallon that actually there is lappeds about 500 square miles -- land, about 500 square miles in this country, where within a 500-square-mile area, from the thicker tar sands, if oil is $1,800 a barrel, they can do it, make must, produce maybe a trillion barrels of oil. also we've heard that in the entire middle east, there may home be one trillion to three trillion barrels of oil and yet since then we've heard there may
be three trillion to five trillion barrels of oil in that same area, as long as oil is $80 a barrel or higher. when you start realizing that, you say, why are we not like 90% effective in providing all our own energy? why do we continue to funds people that hate us like chavez and countries in the middle east who are harboring terrorists and in which terrorists are farm-fed and farm-grown. i mentioned yesterday here on the floor about yemen, i just wonder how many new englanders, how many people who live in boston know that this year for the first time they've gotten rid of their contract for liquid natural gas, liquefied natural gas, from areas that are very friendsly to us, some in the
caribbean -- friendly to us, some in the caribbean, that's been done away witha and now contract for the next -- away with and now the contract for the next 20 years is with yenl. i know there are nice folks, there are nice folks from yemen, but they also happen to harbor terrorists. when people from guantanamo were released to yemen they ended up getting away and those terrorists are at large, maybe back here in the united states now. and another thing, of course today that occurred in addition to this massive appropriation, came out of committee, we find out the senate has voted to seppeds the so-called financial reform -- send the so-called financial reform bill to president for signature to become law. break mice heart. now, there's some things in there that are good reform rules and changes that needed to be
done. but there are also poison pills in that bill. for example, the systemic risk council in which we have some federal unelected, unconfirmed by anybody in congress bureaucrats who are going to decide what businesses they deem to be a systemic risk and therefore businesses that the federal government will never let fail. what happened to america? we used to be the land of the free. but when the government gets to pick and choose, we're going to let your business be the one that lives because nobody can
compete effectively with a business that can run in the red because they know the government will not let them fail, because the other businesses can't run in the red, they have to declare bankruptcy, so what used to be the land of the free has become the land of the government's hand-picked winners and hand-picked losers. we're not going to allow the opportunity to sink or swim as god has given us, as we've been endowed with our creator because our government has now come to the point where it's kded -- wrts decided, we're not going to let you -- where it's decided, we're not going to let you decide who wins by how hard you work and how smart you work, we're going to pick winners and losers with our systemic risk council and there are things in
there, once again, they're going to cripple community banks who have suffered enough because of the greed, in some cases ave russ, displayed in some of the investment banks that nearly bought the -- brought the finances to stand still. community banks have just been lumped in with them. and they've been hurt by the regulators and it is tragic. so much for the financial deform bill because it deforms the market that used to exist and this government has gotten so busy picking winners and losers and meddling and telling car makers what kind of cars to make and exactly what they got to do to make them, how to make them quharks they can do to make them
and how they got to be when they finish. we've gotten so busy getting into the ma unusuala of things that we shouldn't be involved in that the government -- we haven't diop our jobs because if we had, there would never have been somebody that was able to bill people out of 50ds billion of their life savings so he can squandser it on himself, there were plenty of red flags that went up, but we were too busy as a government meddling to actually do the job to make sure everyone has a level playing field, everybody has an opportunity and people are playing fair. and when they're not playing fairly we punish them. that's what government's supposed to do and if as the founders -- to do. and you see that as the founders believed, governments are or
draped by god and if you believe as philosophers have pointed out that a democracy ensures that a people are governed no better than they deserve then you see that we get what we deserve and so for generations they've been deserving of more opportunity than the last generation before them and now we've come to a place where 70% of adults in america when polled say they don't believe their chirp will have as good a life, as good of opportunities as they've had. that has never been the case in american history that a majority of americans would say that. we've lost our way.
but, if you're concerned about the detainees in began tap mow, there's good news. you know, week been releasing detainees and, let's see, this is a report from this year, it's believed that roughly 20% of the 560 detapees released from guantanamo are back on the terror frontlines. interesting, huh? but i really like this story about abdullah masud. he came to guantanamo q as the house panel was told previously, he came to us without one leg from about the knee down and we fitted him with a prosthetic leg before he left while he was in u.s. custody. u.s. custody. so the leg, this report