DEEP OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 29, 2006)
BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to compliment the manager's amendment on reducing the fiscal impact of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation--a bill the President has said ``would reduce Federal receipts by several hundred billion dollars over the next 60 years.'' As the Statement of Administration Policy put it, the administration strongly opposed key provisions ``because of their long-term consequences on the Federal deficit.''
This bill establishes new entitlement programs--mandatory spending mechanisms that already drive up our deficit. It establishes costly oil shale leases and imposes other expensive charges the Federal budget cannot afford.
I am also worried that the bill sets up the oil and gas industry above all other Federal interests. Under section 16, all Federal permitting is prohibited, despite my other marine or naval concerns. Many of these rigs could be put in sensitive waters with national defense implications. Under this bill, the government can consider no other issue--even for the defense of this Nation.
Section 17 allows lessees to request the Federal Government to repurchase leases.
This is an irresponsible provision that allows a transfer of risk from an energy company to the taxpayer. This is ironic because while the Federal Government is in the red, most energy companies are earnings record profits.
Mr. Chairman, we can have an honest debate about whether we should open the Outer Continental Shelf to energy development but there should be little debate on granting new assistance at the expense of the taxpayer to energy companies who are some of the most profitable entities on earth.
This bill, as it has been written, was a great threat to the Treasury. I want to compliment the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member for the manager's amendment they crafted that dramatically reduces the cost of this bill. This amendment heeds many of the fiscal concerns of the President and reduces that budgetary impact of the proposed legislation. I would now urge the authors to further listen to the President's fiscal guidance.
BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/