Is there any way for us to honor the commitments we have made to everybody in the Social Security system, and yet move that system to an actuarially sound foundation?

The gentleman from New Mexico seems to argue that that one bad actor, BP, required the imposition of the moratorium.

The Secretary of the Interior sat right where you are sitting a couple of weeks ago, admitted that they still don't know the cause of the catastrophic failure of the blowout preventer, which I find absolutely stunning, and a result of the policies that they have adopted without that crucial determination has meant thousand of workers unemployed, billions of dollars lost to the economy, billions more lost in royalty revenues to a Federal Government that is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

I believe in American energy resources, I believe in solving our energy independence through offshore/onshore deepwater GOM, deepwater Alaska, onshore on Federal lands, natural gas production, fracking, everything we can do to meet our energy independence in this country and lessen or dependence on foreign oil is very, very important.

There is a de facto moratorium, and it is affecting energy production, and it is definitely affecting the economies in Louisiana.

Aren't they really the same thing? Isn't the deficit is simply a future tax?

So, to borrow from the Clinton Administration, with obvious apologies, it is the 'spending, stupid.'

Cut spending four percent. Now, George W. Bush takes office, and ends up increasing federal spending by a full two percent of GDP.

The clear pattern is one of closing off our national forests to the public.

You appear to have become an active obstacle to developing them to the sustainable prosperity of our Nation.

Again, overpopulation is an unhealthy condition for any living community, be it timber or animal populations.