Jeff Landry

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today in memory of one of Louisiana's great public servants, Ms. Sydnie Mae Durand. As the parish in which I grew up lays her to rest today, it is notable to recognize that she grew up at a time when a woman's place in the South was culturally in the home. She pioneered her way into a male-dominated oil and gas industry. She constructed and then walked proudly through the door that many women of south Louisiana would soon follow. During the 37 years she devoted to the oil and gas industry, she found time to serve her community--again, leading women into politics locally by becoming the first woman to preside over the St. Martin Parish Council and then by becoming the first woman to be elected to serve as the District 46 State House representative, where she served for 16 years. Her passion involved health care, where she chaired the House Health and Welfare Committee and served on many other national and State boards that dealt with the health care needs of children. While she will be missed by all, her work and legacy will continue to have a positive impact on the great State she leaves behind.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, this is not a divisive issue; this is a bipartisan issue. The language in H.R. 358 was in the Stupak-Pitts amendment passed in the Democrat-led House last Congress. If they supported it then, why would they not support it now? Because of Executive order? Absolutely not. ObamaCare created a fund specifically reserved for abortion coverage. So what in the world makes one think this money will not support abortion coverage? We all remember, ``We have to pass this bill before we find out what's in it.'' Unfortunately, they passed the bill, and we found no language to ensure taxpayers won't have to pay for something the majority of Americans don't support. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted the health care law prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion, then they should support the bipartisan H.R. 358 to ensure that it is, indeed, the case.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, with the free trade agreements being debated this week, some of my Democratic colleagues have been talking about our trade deficit. However, if they really want to reduce the trade deficit, they'd help me end the President's de facto moratorium on offshore drilling. You see, if oil were a country, it would be our biggest trading partner. Oil makes up 65 percent of our trade deficit. And it's simple: Drilling equals jobs. It equals American jobs. You see what I have here is a parking lot to one of the heliports down in my district. In 2004, the parking lot was full. Last year, the parking lot was empty. And you don't have to worry because that parking lot, when we're drilling offshore, is this full 365 days a year. Here is a port in my district which supplies over 30 percent of the oil and gas that fuels this Nation. You can see the boats in 2004 in the busy port; and today, it's empty. If we really want a jobs bill, this is it. In the past year, deepwater permit issuance is 39 percent below the monthly averages observed over the past 3 years; and shallow water permits, permits that were supposedly never impacted by the moratorium, are off 80 percent over historical averages. As a result of this de facto moratorium, 11 offshore rigs scheduled to drill in the gulf have relocated to countries like Brazil, Nigeria, Egypt, Congo, French Guiana, and Liberia. Now, what does this say about American policies when businesses prefer the regulatory certainty offered by Egypt over the bureaucratic uncertainty off our own shores? And while 11 rigs might not seem like a lot, each drilling platform supports 200 to 300 workers every month. Additionally, each exploration and production job supports four other positions. Therefore, 900 to 1,400 jobs per idle rig platform are at risk if production does not resume as soon as possible. Wages for those jobs average $1,800 per week, so the potential for lost wages is more than $5 million to $10 million per month, per platform. Drilling equals good-paying jobs. According to the Obama administration's own estimates, the 6-month ``official moratorium'' on drilling cost up to 12,000 jobs. However, the long-term impacts of the de facto moratorium could be significantly higher. A study by Louisiana State University predicts, if the de facto ban on deepwater drilling were sustained for 18 more months, we could lose 36,000 jobs nationwide, 24,000 of those along the gulf coast region alone. If the administration would accelerate the permit issuance instead of continuing this de facto moratorium, we could create a quarter of a million jobs in this country, and we could increase the GDP by $8 trillion over the next 10 years. As I said, the solution is actually very simple--at no cost to the taxpayer and with the ability to bring revenue into the Federal Government. It's simple, Mr. Speaker: Drilling equals jobs.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LANDRY. I find it very amusing that the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Washington would use an argument that we are overburdening a Federal agency when it is that side of the aisle that has a tendency to overburden and overregulate and demand reporting from our private sector. They have no problem asking the private sector to report things to the government so that they can discern whether or not the private sector is conducting its business accordingly. And when this amendment comes up--and we're simply asking for transparency in order to see whether or not my constituents are being disingenuous or whether it is the government that is being disingenuous in the permitting process. That is simply all we're asking here. This allows us to help separate fact from fiction as to whether or not BOEMRE is rejecting permits for ridiculous reasons or legitimate reasons. And so, again, it just amazes me that when we have an opportunity to shed a little light on a Federal agency that the party who has claimed that it's all about transparency and open government is now trying to shield that agency. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment should fail. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity this weekend to go home to Louisiana, which I enjoyed doing. I heard from a State senator of mine who is also a banker. He said that he had a gentleman come in his office this weekend, asking for some more money on his loan. He said, Well, in order to do that, you have to give us some more information. We have to see your debt-to-income ratio--your assets versus your liabilities. So, after looking at that, he explained to him that, if the ratio doesn't work, he can't lend him any more money. If you were to plug in that same ratio of what our Federal regulators are requiring of our financial institutions when they look upon the American people and American businesses, you would find that if we put that same set of rules on this government that, basically, our Federal regulators would not let us borrow any more money. The point of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a spending problem here in Washington. We cannot raise this debt ceiling unless we do three things: unless we cut, we cap, and we balance our budget.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, when I ran for this office, I didn't run to get a job. I ran to create jobs. I know that there is a new poll out there, supposedly, that tells us that a vast majority of Independents wants us to compromise for a deal; but the question which all of the Members of this House should poll their constituents and the American people on is whether or not they want this Congress to compromise their country for a deal. Do we compromise our country for the sake of simply getting a deal? I also ran to uphold the Constitution. I supported Cut, Cap, and Balance. It is the compromise that I came here to make. I compromised in agreeing to raise the debt ceiling if we get real cuts, if we cap our spending and if we do what a vast majority of the States in this country do--and that is to have a balanced budget amendment. What is so wrong with this balanced budget amendment? It's hard for me to understand, Mr. Speaker. Then along comes the Gang of Six. Let's see what the Gang of Six has. Part one is that they cut $500 billion in gimmicks compared to our real cuts. How do they cut $500 billion? Part of it is by changing the CPI formula and indexing for Social Security. Only in this city does the law of mathematics not work. You see, when I was in the second grade, I was taught that 2 + 2 is 4 and that 2 2 is 4. That hasn't changed. It's still that today. But in this town, when you get inside this Beltway, mathematics is different. You can get a different outcome based upon a different formula. Then the second part is they used the reconciliation process in order to control our spending. Let's see. The last time we used the reconciliation process, we got ObamaCare. That's how they passed ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, they used the reconciliation process to pass ObamaCare; and I have a feeling that what we're going to get out of this Gang of Six is a bill that they're going to ask us to vote for before we know what's in it. Thirdly, if through this reconciliation process they come out with the cuts that are necessary to bring them within the amount that they allocate that we need to cut and save, then if that reconciliation process produces a supermajority in the Senate, only after they produce a supermajority of votes in the Senate will they move to shoring up our Social Security system. What they should be doing is working on getting a supermajority so we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. What is so wrong with giving the American people the opportunity to speak, to say, Congress, you have been out of control. You need to balance your books like all of the American families in this country do. In closing, I want to warn our Members in this Chamber that the Gang of Six proposal cedes the power of the House to the Senate. Now, I came here to uphold that Constitution. The power of the purse, article I, section 7, clause 1, gives the power of the purse to this House. Regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you should care about that. Those committees in the Senate should not be dealing with our tax laws or they should only deal with them after we have had a chance to send it to them. This is what the American people demand. They demand that our Constitution work. And for it to work, revenue and spending starts here in the House. Let's not cede the power of the House over to the Senate.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, I'm new to Washington; so sometimes I don't understand why this town makes everything so hard. For decades now, this town has squandered the wealth of the people of the United States. And, yes, it is the people's money, not Washington's. Our spending is 24 percent of our economy. Our revenue is 15 percent. And 24 is larger than 15. What we spend is more than we take in. We have a spending problem here. Mr. President, stop the class warfare and end the threats to our seniors. You know they are the most vulnerable, and it is they who have carried the burden of this government's reckless spending for decades. Since you refuse to lead with a plan, we have. I'm sorry you don't like our plan, but you don't have a plan or have not put a plan forward. We must get America's fiscal house in order. To do so will require fiscal discipline and sacrifices. We must separate our wants from our needs. This bill forces us to do that. It is the responsible thing to do, and it is the only way to guarantee the future solvency of the United States and the protection of our citizens from an out-of-control government.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 2560. We need to set the record straight. See, the President said we don't need a constitutional amendment to make government do its job. I don't see why he cares. He normally ignores the Constitution most of the time. He says he will veto this bill if it comes to his desk. Well, he can go ahead and veto it; but if he does, it is he who is choosing our seniors over everyone else. It is he who is choosing not to move America forward. Let's look at the record. House Republicans reluctantly passed a CR which was diluted by him and the Senate. We passed a budget, something the Senate hasn't done in 811 days, and something the last Congress didn't do in the last year of the last Congress. I'm sorry if they don't like our plan, but the President hasn't even put up a plan. He gives us no choice. So, no, Mr. President, we don't need a balanced budget amendment, but you do. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to rise and support Cut, Cap, and Balance. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It prevents the misuse of recess appointments while preserving the Founders' intent by allowing the President to quickly make emergency recess appointments if the need arises. I know this may surprise many Members, but current law actually prohibits the salaries of recess appointees, which was a law passed in 1863 that stayed on the books until 1940. It prohibited those who received recess appointments from being paid. Then some exceptions were made, and those exceptions basically took the intent of the law out. So these exceptions, these loopholes, are so broad that they make the prohibition against recess appointments useless, but the administration can always find a way to make these recess appointments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANDRY. I don't argue the legality of the President's recess appointments. I am doing what many Congresses have done prior, all the way since 1860, when they realized that this was a problem when Presidents and administrations tried to bypass the will of the people. I am using the power of this House, which is the power of the purse, to make sure that, when the President makes recess appointments--look, this isn't the 1800s anymore. Congress is not out for months and months at a time. If the President needs to make an appointment in an emergency, he certainly has the time, and he will be able to take that recess appointment and put it before the Senate. I am simply saying, until that recess appointee is confirmed by the Senate, he or she shall not receive any pay. My friends across the aisle have spent most of the past month talking about closing loopholes, so I hope they will join me in protecting the taxpayers by closing the loophole in the law that currently exists. Let's bring the law back to the intent of it, which is to prohibit recess appointees from receiving salaries until the appointees are confirmed. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, let me help this body interpret how the American people see this debt crisis. Now some of you may question how I can, with this accent, provide an interpretation. Well, let me show you. Americans have a keen understanding of how credit cards work. They know that each card holds a limit on it, and this limit is the borrowing limit on that particular card. And it is a fact that when one reaches the limit on his or her card, that they are unable to borrow more money or charge more at that time. Now it is not factual to say, however, that when one maxes out his credit card, that he is in default personally, or in layman's terms, that he is bankrupt. No. When one reaches his limit, you simply cannot use the card anymore. If you want to continue to use the card, you need to pay down on the principal amount that is owed. If and when you reach this unfortunate circumstance, you and your family are required to live within your means. As long as you can continue to pay the interest on the card and the bills that you have accrued, then you are not in jeopardy of defaulting. Of course you can only do this if you're employed and you have income, unlike the approximately 9.2 percent of Americans out there who are looking for us to do everything we can to help create private sector jobs. So this is where we are. Look, I don't believe if we fail to raise the debt ceiling that we will default. What I do believe is not raising the debt ceiling will finally require Congress to make the tough decisions necessary to restore fiscal sanity to our Federal Government. It will force Congress to understand that at this time we need to live within our means. Why? Because going back to our layman's term, if the Federal Government was a person, that person is not unemployed, they still have a job, unlike the approximately 9.2 percent of Americans I spoke earlier about. So if we still have a job, that means we're still getting a paycheck. That paycheck is currently sufficient to pay our bills. After 2 years, where the President and previous Congresses spent like they were going out of style, the President is starting to understand that we have spent too much. What he hasn't realized yet--and I hope he does--is that we don't have a revenue problem here; we have a spending problem. Now, I know that we would like to spend more on things we like. That is human nature. But the reason so many of us are opposed to increasing taxes is that our constituents are opposed to increasing taxes. Make no mistake about it: If the American people believe that an increase in taxes would once and for all eliminate our debt problems here in this country, they would support it. But, you see, this institution has a credibility problem--in fact, the entire Federal Government has a credibility problem with the American people. The American people do not have confidence in our ability to be prudent with their tax dollars. Do you blame them? When over the course of the last 2 years we have spent over $3 trillion on money, on stimuluses and bailouts, promising that we would increase their opportunity to be more financially secure, and of course that didn't happen. The proof is in the pudding. We spent the money, and guess what? No results. We have a spending problem. Why? Because so many politicians here who have been here for a long time believe that everything in the budget is a need, not a want. As a parent of a young child, I'm constantly having to explain to him the difference between needs and wants. So the longtime politicians here believe that government is the solution to everything. Well, my friends, believe you me, some of us know it's not, and the vast majority of people know it's not. Trust me. Trust me. We must get serious. Washington is not an elastic piggybank that is able to continue to fund everyone's wants. Let's get serious. Let's quit spending what we don't have. Let's restore credibility. And we do this by cutting spending through prioritizing. It is that simple. Restore credibility, restore trust. Get down to creating certainty, reducing redtape and creating jobs.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I thank him for speaking today on what I believe is one of the most important areas in this country for getting our economy back on track. And I want to share with him and the rest of you an email I received today. Today I received an email that said, Jeff, my wife has finally convinced me to send you an email and update you on where I am in Louisiana. It says, I still have not returned to work, but it is looking like I may go to work in early August. And I'm going to be headed out to a particular block out in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico to do a P&A job, a plug and abandonment job. So this isn't looking for additional oil and gas or producing more oil and gas. It's a plug and abandonment job. He says, I'm not sure when we will actually get back to drilling or completing wells. This moratorium is beginning to impact me. I am fortunate that my company has kept me on since I'm a consultant, not an employee. But my income is down significantly, and my concerns about the future of the Gulf of Mexico has me looking elsewhere. I recently turned down an opportunity in Malaysia but may not turn it down again. At a time when our country is hurting, it is unbelievable that our leaders are putting more of us out of work, yet still giving money to other countries. The government spends. Spending and total unconcern for the working people of this country is wearing on us. It is also annoying to see that one of the first cuts in government spending is in education, but numerous other entitlement programs continue to keep money going towards them. He is fed up. And the sad part, the sad part about this is that this is an American worker. And our government is basically saying, to him, a guy who has a trade, who is plying his trade, that you can no longer ply that trade in this country. If you want to continue to earn a living for your family, you need to go to another country. You need to go to Brazil or Malaysia or to Egypt and follow the rigs out of the Gulf of Mexico, out of this country, in order to keep your job. Think about that. We are basically telling Americans right now that we don't like the job that you've been doing. Regardless of how dangerous it was and regardless of how many weeks away from your family offshore you spent, Christmases, Easters, that doesn't count. Your job isn't good enough for this country anymore. You need to go somewhere else to ply your trade. That is just absurd when we have an opportunity in this country to do all the things that fix the economy. We can reduce the deficit, just like the gentleman from South Carolina said, we could, by increasing drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and domestically, we could send an additional $1.7 billion, $1.7 billion, to the Treasury to reduce our deficit simply by increasing our drilling activity. We could increase employment. We all know we need it. The jobs numbers came out last week, 9.2 percent unemployment. We are not creating jobs. We can create jobs by drilling domestically. And I'm not talking minimum wage jobs. There is not a person in the Gulf of Mexico on a drilling platform who makes minimum wage. Those jobs pay good money. So we can do that. We can reduce our deficit, and we can reduce unemployment. Do you know what else we can do? We can lower the price of energy for Americans out there. Drilling domestically does all three. It creates jobs, reduces the deficit, and decreases energy costs to Americans all over the country. It lowers the price at the pump. The President has already acknowledged that supply affects the market when he went out there and released millions of barrels--30 million barrels--out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It's the wrong reserve, Mr. President. The proper reserve is in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska and elsewhere in this country. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for giving me this time.

Mr. LANDRY. That is why, the last time prior to this when we did release oil from the strategic reserve was exactly that instance, when Hurricane Katrina affected the refineries and the production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. And you're right. We should not be using that reserve unless it is an emergency.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 477 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy. Reuters', April 27, reported that the President urged other countries to lift crude oil output, to lift crude oil output. How come, if other countries increase their output, it affects the price; but yet, if we increase our output, it does not? So if other countries promote their drill, baby, drill, it affects the price; but yet, when we in America try to drill, we don't affect the price, according to my colleagues on the other side. Electric cars. So let's get this straight. They want Americans to charge their car up on a system, on a grid system that's already failing and broken. We've had rolling brownouts and blackouts in this country, and that's what we want to plug our cars into? I'm sorry. No. Then they say there are the hybrid cars. I can't pull my boat with a Prius. I can't do it. I enjoy going fishing. I enjoy the time that I get to take my little boy out and teach him what my father and my grandfather taught me, and I have to do that pulling a boat with my Chevrolet pickup truck. I sure wish that, when I fill it up, that it was affordable. And we can make it in America. Let's make American energy. That's what this bill, our bill, does. That's why I rise in support of this rule and this bill. If we want to make things in America, let's start with making our energy. When we can make our energy in America, we can make our products here.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion.

Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order while rising in opposition to the motion.

Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, my Democrat colleagues are trying to distract us from the central issue, which is jobs. We're trying to put people back to work, but instead of putting people back to work, we're having to deal with procedural gamesmanship. The American people are tired of games. They want results. Last night, on the phone while I checked on my constituents who are preparing for floodwaters not seen in some 50 years, constituents who may lose their homes, one gentleman asked me, he said, Congressman, when are we going to get back to work? I will need my offshore job to pay for the damages that this flood brings us. Shockingly, I said, do you understand that these floodwaters may not recede for months? He looked at me and he replied, like any good old Cajun, sha, them floodwaters were sent here by God, and it will recede; the same God who gave me my two hands and my two feet, so that I can get back to work. My job is gone because of a man and my government, not God. Please tell them that we are not only ready to get back to work, we need to get back to work. Now, my friends, how do you say no to him? How do you say no to a people who have endured over two calamities per year since 2005. Katrina, Rita, Ike, Gustav, the Deepwater Horizon incident, the Mississippi River floods that are coming upon us? These people simply want to get back to work. They understand that putting them back to work will ease the price at the pump they too pay. Let's put our differences aside. Let's put America back to work. Let's crank up those steel mills in Pennsylvania. Let's tell the boys in Illinois that we need those Caterpillar engines. Let's tell the Texans, the Louisianans, the Mississippians, the ones in Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, that jobs are coming back to the gulf. Let's fuel our plants with American energy and American oil. No more shall we beg those who hate us for their oil. America is on her way back, and it starts in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's put the gulf back to work so we can put America back to work. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should listen to this story. It's a true life story very well. It talks about the face of Big Oil, and I'm going to tell you what it is. There's a little community in my district named Coteau Holmes which has been around since the Cajuns were kicked out of Acadian and settled down into Louisiana. It's a fishing village. There's a gentleman down there who graduated high school in 1968 and began to work in the oil and gas industry, and for 30 years, he worked in the oil and gas industry. He raised two children in that oil and gas industry, never asked the government for anything other than to ply his trade. The experience he gained in the Gulf of Mexico led him to work on the first Deepwater projects in the Gulf of Mexico. He worked for Shell Oil and Gas--Big Oil--and guess what. When he retired, he was making in excess of $1,750 a day. He put two kids through college.

Mr. LANDRY. If this is not the American Dream that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to tout so much, what is? This is a gentleman who doesn't have a college education. Who actually his children were the first generation in his entire family ancestry to ever make it to college, and he could not have paid for them to go to college if not for the opportunity to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. My colleagues should understand that down there we create jobs. We create good-paying jobs, not minimum-wage jobs, the type of jobs that provide for the American family and allow the American Dream to be a reality.

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, I do. I live on the coast. I represent most of coastal Louisiana. And what I wonder is, where were my colleagues in 2008? I was not in this body; they were. They were worried about my shrimpers? In 2008, almost every shrimp boat from Venice to Delcambre was at the dock. Why? Because they had run diesel to just about $5 a gallon. You see, it takes energy for those shrimpers to go out there on the Gulf of Mexico. They worry about the tourism in Florida? There are already multiple articles in the paper that say that high gas prices are killing tourism in Florida. This is a responsibility bill. You see, they want to punish those who make a profit while they give taxpayer money to those who fail, who are too big to fail. They punish the companies who make profits in this country while they give our money to those who fail to make a profit. It amazes me, because what really matters here, what really creates jobs not only in my district but in everyone else's district is affordable energy. Affordable energy is what powers the U.S. economy. If they want to bring the profits of those four Big Oil companies down, they should vote for this bill. Because when we drive the price of oil down and when we drive the price at the pump down, we are going to drive those profits down and we are going to take away our dependency on those foreign countries that are making way more profits than those private companies. So I urge my colleagues to remember that the responsible thing to do is to vote for this bill so that we can bring the price at the pump down.

Mr. LANDRY

Mr. LANDRY. I would like to point out to my colleague that one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), H.R. 56 puts into law a portion of that report. And since he is so interested in making sure that some of the information in the President's report becomes law, I certainly hope he will cosponsor that legislation. I am sure those in the gulf would appreciate that piece. I didn't know that he was an expert in oil and gas drilling. Because when I go back home and I talk to those in Louisiana, they tell me that they have already instituted safety guidelines above and beyond what the gentleman from Massachusetts puts forth here. The industry is safer today than it was the day before the Deepwater accident. In addition to that, we have the ability now, today, in the Gulf of Mexico, that no one else has in the world, to cap the type of incident that happened in the Gulf.