Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011--Continuing
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I thank the gentleman.
On September 11, 2001, when Richard Clarke, George Bush's terrorism czar, was asked to sit in the control room to take over the response on 9/11, the first call he made was to the port of the city of Boston to shut down the port because of the LNG facility in Everett, Massachusetts, in my district. That was the first thought in his mind. And why was that so? Because the al Qaeda had actually come in from Algeria, jumping off those ships in Boston Harbor in Everett, Massachusetts, in my district.
Now we've had a tremendous amount of development of natural gas in the Marcellus shale formation and all across the country, an addition of 30 percent to the natural gas reserves of our country over the last 4 years.
Now if a city, if a State determines that the terrorism threat is so great that they do not want an LNG facility in the middle of their most densely populated area, it should not be the right of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to override the public safety decision made by the State and local police that it is too great of a danger. That is why the Wu amendment is correct.
We have a bonanza of natural gas domestically. If a State decides they can get it from our own people rather than overseas, it is not up to the FERC to make that decision if they are going to override the national security, the safety consideration of that community, in making that decision.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Wu amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, we all agree that we have to do some serious work to reduce the deficit. But we need to start by first eliminating unnecessary taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies. I'm going to finish the rest of this opening statement in the well.
As a result of a poorly drafted law passed by the Republican Congress in 1995, oil companies are now drilling for free on public lands offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The Government Accountability Office projects that the American people currently stand to lose as much as $53 billion in royalty payments over the life of these leases. And according to a brand new study, that's as much as $1.5 billion just this year. And with oil prices at $90 a barrel, we do not have to be allowing them to drill on public lands for free and take all of the profit for themselves and giving nothing back to the American taxpayer.
This amendment is very simple. It says to these companies we will allow you to continue to drill and not even pay any royalties, but we're not going to give you an opportunity to bid on any new leases on public lands in our country.
So if you renegotiate so that you are paying your fair share back to the American taxpayer, then fine, you can drill in the future. But we need that $53 billion that they owe in royalties, in taxes to be put towards reducing the Federal deficit.
That's what this debate should be all about: Where do we go to find where the waste is in our Federal Government? The oil companies drilling for free, paying nothing to the taxpayers while reaping windfall profits is absolutely something that we should not tolerate.
This amendment passed in 2006 on the House floor. This amendment passed as part of the BP response bill last year. This amendment passes over and over again with significant Republican support, 60 votes just 5 years ago. In order to reclaim this money, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
This amendment encapsulates this entire week. This week's debate is all about priorities: Will we stand with Big Oil or with Big Bird? With the big corporations or with the little guy?
Shell Oil isn't curing our addiction to oil, but the millions of Americans afflicted with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's need a cure for those diseases; and they need these revenues from the oil companies.
Executives from BP won't be shivering in the cold any time soon, but our Nation's poorest families and senior citizens will be.
ConocoPhillips doesn't need help feeding their profits; but millions of America's poorest women, infants, and children who don't have enough to eat need help staying fed.
Chevron doesn't need special treatment, but special education programs for our neediest students are on the chopping block.
ExxonMobil doesn't need a head start on success, but our kids do need the Head Start program to send them on the right educational path.
My amendment focuses on just the kind of special interest loophole that should be closed before we open attacks on programs for the poorest Americans most in need of help.
One of the several dozen companies receiving this windfall is BP. Imagine that. BP spilled oil freely into the Gulf of Mexico for nearly 90 days, and yet they are now drilling for free in some of those same waters at the expense of the American taxpayers.
Just last week the former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, was quoted in the National Journal as saying, ``In the face of sustained high oil prices, it was not an issue for large companies of needing the subsidies to entice them to looking for and producing more oil.''
Well, I agree with Mr. Hofmeister. At nearly $90 a barrel, subsidizing oil companies to drill is like subsidizing a bird to fly or a fish to swim. You do not have to do it.
Unless this amendment is adopted, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron will continue to hold leases that let them drill on public land without paying taxpayers a single dime. These companies are already getting 100-year-old tax breaks to sell $100-a-barrel oil to make $100 billion a year in profits. They don't need a $53 billion windfall courtesy of the American taxpayer and our national debt.
Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment. Cease paying big oil companies' windfall profits for the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source