Charles Boustany

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds by the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of implementation, administering, or enforcing any rule or guidance similar to the proposed guidance that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released regarding financial assurances for oil and gas operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Federal Government currently requires American offshore oil and gas companies to buy liability bonds ranging from tens of thousands of dollars to tens of millions of dollars for every offshore lease. In August of 2014, BOEM published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking industry input on ``risk management, financial assurance, and loss prevention.'' Inexplicably, BOEM elected to circumvent the rulemaking process it initiated and, instead, released proposed guidance in August 2015 that creates new rules that will change the way the oil and gas industry funds these decommissioning costs--also referred to as ``plugging'' or ``abandonment''--of wells, pipelines, and other facilities in the Gulf of Mexico's Outer Continental Shelf. The Obama administration ignored warnings from stakeholders that this proposed guidance could drive many companies into bankruptcy precisely at a time when the industry is suffering from a commodity price collapse. A lot of workers in Louisiana and across the Gulf Coast have been laid off. BOEM has asserted that these rule changes are necessary to prevent taxpayers from being left with the tab for decommissioning work in light of a number of recent bankruptcy filings by OCS shelf operators. Ironically, BOEM's solution will likely trigger the major risk that it is trying to protect against. If implemented, these changes will pose an existential threat to many OCS shelf operators, discourage future investment, cost thousands of jobs, and dramatically reduce the royalties to U.S. taxpayers. For example, under the new rules, each party would be assessed 100 percent on shared leases, and a joint operating agreement is no longer accepted as a reflection of actual liability. This means that if there are four companies sharing a project and it would cost an estimated $20 million to remove that particular platform, BOEM would, nevertheless, require each party to post a $20 million bond to remove the platform. It hardly seems necessary to require $80 million in bonding for a $20 million project. The new rules also require full bonding up front for all possible wells in the exploratory plan, despite the fact that the wells may never be drilled. The P&A liability, in many cases, will not accrue for many, many years. For facilities already in production, BOEM will require capital assurance for the lifetime production value of the property every year, meaning that each year a lessee will be responsible for 100 percent of the P&A liability for every production facility exploration activity in production value. In fact, many of the industry experts have expressed concern that BOEM has not even provided a clear definition of the problem that the agency is trying to solve nor has there been any justification provided as to the need for major changes to the existing regulatory framework. Experts throughout the industry remain concerned that if this proposed guidance were to be finalized, it would dramatically limit the industry's ability to successfully explore and extract oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico. A new rule, guidance, or any other form of notice from BOEM on supplemental bonding will stifle oil and gas production on the OCS and throughout the Gulf of Mexico. This is not in the interest of the United States. I urge adoption of my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Polis of Colorado be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 5545.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Restoring Access to Medication and Improving Health Savings Act, bipartisan legislation to fix yet another provision within ObamaCare that defies all common sense. I have to commend my colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee, Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins and Congressman Ron Kind, for coming together on this bipartisan legislation for the sake of getting good policy. This legislation repeals an ObamaCare provision that prohibited Americans from using their pretax healthcare savings to purchase qualified over-the-counter medications. Over-the-counter treatments provide the first line of defense for minor ailments and illnesses. As a physician, I certainly know this well. Also, as a parent of two children, I know this quite well. We all know, Mr. Speaker, concern over the rapidly escalating cost of health care is shared on a strongly bipartisan basis. On this point, I think we all can agree. In that same vein, ensuring Americans have access to the most appropriate care at the right time is a critical factor in curbing overutilization of healthcare services. In short, not every ailment or minor illness necessitates a trip to the doctor or emergency room. My colleagues across the aisle, the architects of ObamaCare, have vastly underestimated the value in savings that over-the-counter treatment options provide each year to the U.S. healthcare system. Access to over-the-counter treatments is estimated to save the U.S. healthcare system and consumers $102 billion, on average, each year in avoided clinical and prescription expenditures. On average, physicians cite roughly 10 percent of office visits each year that could be avoided through appropriate use of over-the-counter treatment options. In my home State of Louisiana, out-of-pocket expenditures for health care over the past 10 years has more than doubled, with the most recent annual statewide expenditure for medications, alone, totaling nearly $5 billion. This is the right approach for protecting American families and seniors from some of the worst effects of ObamaCare. I firmly believe allowing Americans to use their pretax dollars toward their out-of-pocket healthcare costs serves as a powerful tool to start really bending the healthcare cost curve in America. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this very sensible bipartisan legislation.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to thank my colleague, Mike Thompson from California, for his collaboration. I want to thank the Ways and Means staff for working with us to get this legislation done, working with the stakeholders. I also want to single out some of our staffers who really worked very hard on this: Melissa Gierach, Casey Badmington, and Lakecia Foster. Without their help, we could not have gotten all this put together and seen this legislation through, so I am deeply grateful for their efforts as well. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense change that will expand options, it will increase portability, it will protect small businesses, and it will end these harsh penalties that small businesses were encountering as they were trying to do the right thing. So I urge my colleagues to join me and support H.R. 5447. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5447) to provide an exception from certain group health plan requirements for qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangements, as amended.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5447, currently under consideration.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), who is the chairman of the Physicians Caucus.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand here before you to offer this bill. This is a very important bill, H.R. 5447, the Small Business Health Care Relief Act. It is bipartisan legislation that has been more than 2 years in the making. Mr. Speaker, as a small-business owner and a heart surgeon, I understand how important coverage is to get good, high-quality health care. But I also understand, from the standpoint of being a small- business owner, how difficult it often is and how expensive it has become to provide this kind of coverage for employees. In 2013, Treasury issued regulatory guidance indicating that any employer offering health reimbursement accounts, also known as HRAs, was in violation of the Affordable Care Act group health plan requirements, irrespective of the size of the employer. The very smallest of small businesses were affected by this, businesses that were trying to help their employees, doing the very best they can to help their employees have coverage. Furthermore, Treasury's guidance included an astronomically high penalty fine assessed on employers offering these HRAs: $100 per day per employee, with the potential of accruing a $36,500 fine per year per employee. This is just draconian treatment for small business. In my home State of Louisiana, small businesses--those with 50 or fewer employees--account for 72 percent of all businesses in Louisiana. Yet only about 30 percent of those small businesses offer a specific group health plan, often citing the full cost of group health plans as the reason for offering nothing. I am sure this is the case all around the country. We have to help small businesses and their employees afford good coverage. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague from California, Mike Thompson, for working with me on this bill to give small-business owners an opportunity to financially assist their employees with their health costs. This legislation will be critical to ensuring that small businesses in Louisiana and around the country have an option that allows them to help their employees afford health coverage and costs. When 65 percent of those in Louisiana who are currently uninsured, indeed, have a full- time worker in their household and nearly three-quarters of all employers in Louisiana are small businesses, it is clear we can do better. This is something that will actually help these small-business owners and their employees get affordable coverage. Mr. Speaker, the government must not penalize small-business owners for doing the right thing and trying to help employees with the high cost of healthcare coverage, so I urge swift passage of this legislation to empower our small-business owners. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Louisiana Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) for a successful 2016 State Convention in Alexandria, LA. Our veterans are a national treasure. These men and women have sacrificed tremendously, many continuing to live with service-connected disabilities, in service to our country. Without their courageous decision to answer the call of duty, our nation would not be the shining beacon of hope and freedom we are today. As we continue working to improve healthcare delivery and expand healthcare services for our veterans, the VFW will continue to be an important partner in organizing and advocating for our veterans across the country. I also want to express my pride and congratulations that Louisiana was selected to host the 2017 VFW National Convention in New Orleans, LA. I am confident those attending next year's convention will experience the rich culture and hospitality during their stay that makes us proud to call Louisiana home. I remain committed to working with the Louisiana VFW to ensure they are represented on the local and national levels. Their tireless efforts and advocacy in support of veterans in Louisiana and across the country are tremendously appreciated.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleague, Chairman Roskam, for bringing this legislation to the floor. It is an important piece of legislation, Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act. Back in 2012, when I was the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, I started this investigation into the IRS' unconstitutional targeting of conservative groups for their political beliefs. We passed some legislation back then to improve transparency and accountability at the IRS, but I can tell you much more needs to be done, and this is part of that effort to continue to hold this agency accountable. Taxpayers deserve to know whether the IRS is violating their privacy. Chairman Roskam's bill furthers that effort by preventing the IRS from targeting nonprofits by prohibiting the agency from collecting the identity of donors who contribute to these organizations. We know that the IRS can impose an audit at any time, but there is no need for the IRS to just collect all this information when they can't even do some of the things they are supposed to be doing with the resources they have. This bill is a step toward restoring individual privacy that the IRS has been exploiting and abusing, and I think the American people have had enough. Passing this bill would dramatically reduce the information that the IRS has the legal ability to demand, lessening that chance, that potential for abuse. Specifically, the bill would limit the Secretary of the Treasury from requiring the name, address, or other identifying information of any contributor, regardless of the nature or size of the contribution, with two exceptions. We know the IRS still operates under the shadow of a scandal in which it admitted to targeting organizations based on their political beliefs. We have to get to the bottom of this. This agency has to be reined in. We need to strengthen the laws that protect American citizens' privacy. This investigation is still ongoing. I can tell you, the IRS still refuses to admit that some of its employees engaged in intentional wrongdoing. To successfully carry out its mission, the IRS must be viewed by the American people as an unbiased arbiter of the law. It cannot do that without coming clean. H.R. 5053 is a necessary step to require more accountability and transparency at the IRS. I urge my colleagues to support us in passing this critical bill.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the gentleman's passion and intellect, and we have had many conversations. We do agree that we have to fix our deplorable infrastructure, and he and I have worked on some of these things together; but I have to say this: When I was in medical school--and I am a heart surgeon and I have had years of medical training--one of the things we learned a long time ago in medicine was to avoid iatrogenic treatment, which is a fancy, Greek-derived word which means to avoid a treatment that makes the problem worse. That is what this $10.25 tax would do on a barrel of oil. I have often referred to that plaque above the Speaker's desk. It is a quote from Daniel Webster. The very first line of that reads: ``Let us develop the resources of our land.'' I think it goes beyond simple concepts of highway transportation. It is all the resources of our land. We should be embracing the energy revolution that has been unleashed by American innovation, not taxing it into oblivion, not overregulating it into oblivion. This has offered tremendous hope not only for Americans, but for the world over, to offer a new view of energy security, taking us away from the Iranian approach or the OPEC approach or a Russian view by which they hoard resources and use this for their own political purposes. America can reshape it by embracing this energy revolution, and we can grow the economy, create jobs, improve wages, and have the revenues to take care of our infrastructure. As the gentleman well knows, Ronald Reagan believed that a user fee was important, a specific user fee. I think he and I would both agree that a specific user fee is important for infrastructure. This is not a user fee. This is a detrimental tax on American competitiveness, on American jobs, on American wages, on American energy security, and it hits at the very foundation of our national security. It is the wrong way to go. It is an iatrogenic solution, a harmful solution. It is not pro-growth. We are not proud of the economic performance we have seen in recent months: 0.8 percent economic growth in the first quarter, only 38,000 non-farm jobs created last month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor. That is deplorable. America must lead, and America can lead by embracing the energy revolution. Let's look at all of the impacts it will have across our entire economy, and then we can fashion specific solutions for transportation and infrastructure and for the other things we need to do. This is why I stand here. That is why I oppose this tax. That is why I think this debate was important, and that is why I think it is very important to go on record as opposing this very detrimental tax. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, as I have no further requests for time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to something before I yield to my colleague. Let me just say that I appreciate the gentleman's passion for transportation infrastructure. I share it. We have had many conversations. But he well knows that the ideal way to solve this is with a specific user fee for that purpose. This particular tax, $10.25 on a barrel of oil, has such a huge detrimental economic impact across all sectors of our economy. That is not the way to go. That is why I don't think this is something we should entertain as the President has proposed. I think we need thoughtful discussion about this, and that will come in due time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and someone I have great respect for.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a very important member of the House Ways and Means Committee and someone who has extensive private sector experience.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 767, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 112) expressing the sense of Congress opposing the President's proposed $10 tax on every barrel of oil, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the Obama administration, in its budget proposal, proposed a $10.25 tax on each barrel of oil. This will severely harm America's already struggling energy industry, but it will have a very detrimental impact throughout the American economy, and that is why I introduced H. Con. Res. 112, sending a very clear message that Congress and the American people refuse to allow this administration to fund an environmental agenda on the backs of working families. It is pretty simple. At $10.25 per barrel of oil, this increase would not only add significantly to the cost of a gallon of gasoline at the pump, certainly disproportionately hurting fixed-income families, seniors, and so forth, it would also have a detrimental impact on job creation, on wages, and on the Nation's overall economic health. This also would effectively act as an export tax on oil, just as we opened up the door to export crude oil to allow American producers to have market access worldwide, just like our Iranian opponents worldwide currently have the luxury to do. Why would we tie up the hands of American energy producers and allow the Iranians and OPEC to dominate world markets? Wrong. Secondly, at a time when, in Louisiana and Texas and other States on the coast, we understand how important our environment, our economy and energy policies are, we are looking to use revenue sharing to help us rebuild coastline and marsh and replenish our beaches, the administration opposes this. They have listed that in their budget proposal. This tax is a tax on hardworking American families. It is a tax on American competitiveness; it is a tax on American innovation; it is a tax on our energy security; and it is a tax on the very foundation of our national security. Now, the oil and gas industry has watched as market conditions have changed because of slow growth globally--low demand and abundant supply thanks to American innovation, largely. We have seen the oil price drop from $115 a barrel in November of 2014 to as low as $27 a barrel in January 2016. Right now, prices are hovering around $48, $49, $50 a barrel. This industry is struggling. This is the industry that took us out of recession with job creation and economic growth. Now, I know in my home State of Louisiana, just last year, we lost 11,700 jobs alone in Louisiana in the oil and gas sector, 5,500 in my hometown of Lafayette alone. Even worse, globally, over 250,000 people have lost their jobs. Of course, if you look at what happened in the first quarter of this year, the revised statistics on economic growth, 0.8 percent. How is American business going to create value and jobs with that kind of growth, that kind of private sector growth? Not only that, just last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics release showed 38,000 jobs created last month, the worst number since 2010. That is a terrible statistic, with real human dimensions. This tax will make it worse if it were to go forward. In fact, the Tax Foundation created an economic model to show the impact of a $10.25-per-barrel tax over 10 years; and what this would do, if implemented, an estimated 137,000 Americans in full-time employment in this sector would lose their jobs. It is important to remember that oil is used for a lot more than just gasoline in our automobiles. The U.S. Energy Information Administration points out that a quarter of a barrel of crude--a quarter of each barrel of crude oil--is used for nonfuel goods such as plastic, asphalt, dyes, lubricants, power plants, home heating, and other nontransportation uses. In fact, products throughout the American economy have, as their base ingredient, these fossil fuel ingredients. This tax, $10.25, will be passed on to those industries and consumers across this country. The oil and gas industry supports more than 9 million American jobs, and what happens through this industry and within this industry reverberates throughout our entire U.S. economy. But it is also important to look at what this proposal would do as we view it through a national security lens. American innovation, the energy renaissance we saw with shale exploration and hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, as well as new deepwater technology and better assessments of our reserves, has given us this tremendous opportunity to change global energy security away from an OPEC- or Russian-driven model, where state-owned enterprises control pricing and control supply, to an American view of energy security, which our allies desperately want. It is a view of energy security with diversity of supply sources, transparent pricing, open markets, a view of energy security globally, uniquely American, that would help economic growth globally and help so many countries that are struggling today, many currently in recession. But energy security is linked to our national security, and we have an opportunity to create a Western Hemisphere energy trading bloc based on these principles rather than an OPEC or a Russian model. This is an opportunity for America to change not only energy security, but the entire national security environment in a more pro-American way. This tax would really be a stab in the heart of that. It is the wrong thing to do. And, of course, this tax would increase the cost of domestic production, translating into higher prices for oil and all petroleum products, potentially eroding America's price competitiveness in the global marketplace. If the purpose of this proposal was to increase revenue, then I would say that the President should be, instead, pursuing sound energy policies consisting of embracing this energy sector, American energy production, one of the clearest examples of American exceptionalism, not an unfettered drastic tax increase. If you want to build roads, we need economic growth and sensible tax policies that will help us build out our transportation. According to a report released by the American Petroleum Institute, our energy producers could create 1 million new jobs in just 7 years and increase revenue to Federal and State governments by $800 billion by 2030 if we allow this energy sector to do its work responsibly. It is time for our Nation to fully embrace the vast opportunities unleashed by this U.S. energy renaissance. Let's embrace this new era of abundance. Let's embrace this new era of energy diplomacy that puts America in a strong position. It is time for the President to stop his relentless tax and regulatory assault on the oil and gas industry that is only worsening our economic problems. This resolution shows very clearly that Congress stands for job creation over a radical political agenda, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Con. Res. 112, currently under consideration.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my colleague and friend on the Ways and Means Committee, Mrs. Black, for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 89, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. At a time when 80 percent of domestic energy consumption comes from natural gas, from oil, from coal, it is, clearly, counterproductive to make these necessary resources more expensive by imposing an indirect tax on these fuels. A carbon tax means higher utility bills for families, more expensive goods and services for consumers, decreased economic activity, and it would really hurt job creation. We already heard about the dismal numbers last week that were released--38,000 non-farm-related jobs. Let me just be clear. When we were in the recession, one of the prime drivers economically that took us out of the recession was the shale revolution--a real energy renaissance in this country. Mr. Speaker, this type of tax is not just a tax on carbon--it is a tax on working families; it is a tax on the American economy; it is a tax on American competitiveness; it is a tax on our energy security. It strikes right at the foundation of our national security. It is the wrong thing to do. It is a regressive tax. It hurts the people who are most dependent on fixed incomes--seniors. It hurts them most. Why would we even consider doing this? There are better ways to set up taxation for this country that meet our needs. I just don't understand why one would propose this type of tax, other than the fact that there is a radical environmental agenda, which would hurt manufacturing and American competitiveness. We can't do this. We need to grow this economy. We need growth around 3 to 4 percent minimum to create jobs, to let American business create value, to assert American leadership globally. We are not going to do this with a carbon tax. We won't do it. We need pro-growth policies. Mr. Speaker, the American people understand this. A recent study by the Institute for Energy Policy found that over 60 percent of Americans oppose this type of idea. I applaud Whip Scalise for offering this sensible resolution because it then puts forth a very strong, affirmative statement that we are not going to disarm the American economy, that we are not going to strike a blow at American competitiveness when we are struggling already as it is. I am sick and tired of the fact that American leadership is eroding around the world. I am sick and tired of the fact that we are walking around with timidity. We ought to be embracing the concept of American leadership. This gives us an opportunity, based on American innovation and energy--the clearest example of which I know of American exceptionalism--to rewrite the rules of energy security based on open markets, transparent pricing, and diversity of supply source.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Gary Edmondson. A veteran of the United States Army, Gary recently celebrated 70 years of playing TAPS at military funerals throughout the state of Louisiana at no cost to the families. He played his first military funeral in 1946, as a young Boy Scout at the age of 12 and for the last seven decades has never looked back. Born in August of 1934 in Brooklyn, N.Y., Gary joined the Army at the age of 21; eventually earning a place in the U.S. Army band in Louisville, Ky. Gary dedicated his life to playing TAPS to honor fellow veterans at their funerals. After relocating to Lafayette, Louisiana, in 1959, he notified all six of the local funeral homes to let them know he was always available to play TAPS free of charge. Since moving to Acadiana, Gary has become a fixture of the community. He has played countless funerals, military, veterans, and community events throughout his lifetime of service. Just this past Memorial Day, he played in services at Lafayette Memorial Park, as well as Green Lawn Memorial Park--a tradition he has kept since 1964. Gary's seven decades of heartfelt dedication to our fallen heroes is an inspiration to us all. In 2013, he earned an induction into the Living Legends Hall of Fame in Erath, La. In 2014, he created the Acadiana Veterans Honor Guard and was instrumental in securing funding to ensure every local veteran will receive full military funeral honors. Beloved by the entire community; Gary Edmondson has enriched the lives of countless families during their darkest hours. I rise to ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing his lifetime of service, dedicated to providing the final tribute to our fallen heroes as their families lay them to rest.