Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act of 2012.

Every developed economy in the world looks to their own resources as assets to fuel their economic growth. Yet many folks in Washington view our domestic energy resources as a liability. Unelected and unaccountable Federal bureaucrats continue to dream up ways to lock up, restrict, tax, or otherwise regulate these assets away from benefiting the American people.

This is an issue of critical importance for our economic security, our national security, our energy security, and most importantly for the opportunities that we hope to leave for future generations.

We desperately need the stability that comes from unlocking access and tapping into our American energy resources. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act does just that by allowing us to pursue an all-of-the-above energy plan that removes unwarranted government roadblocks to domestic energy production and supply.

This bill will also help reduce our Federal deficits and our trade deficits. In the case of the former, it helps to reduce our Federal deficit in multiple ways: one, by growing the American economy and American jobs; two, by increasing royalties and lease payments to the Federal Treasury; and, three, by reducing the cost of our energy for the American economy. In the case of the latter, increased production of American energy will result in lower oil imports from foreign sources and reduced payments for those imports, thereby keeping more American money at home to rebuild our economy.

I urge my colleagues to support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, which would create jobs, grow our economy, reduce our dependence on unstable Middle Eastern oil, improve our national security, and restore the American Dream for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2578. Title V of this bill incorporates my legislation, H.R. 1545, and would recognize and establish the Waco Mammoth Site as a national monument.

In 1978, Waco residents Paul Barron and Eddie Bufkin were out looking for arrowheads and fossils along the Bosque River. During their journey, they happened to come across a large bone protruding from the Earth. Realizing the possible significance of this discovery, Mr. Barron and Mr. Bufkin immediately took the bone to the Strecker Museum at Baylor University for further analysis.

Over a period of nearly 30 years following their discovery, crews of paleontological and archaeological experts, scientists, and volunteers slowly excavated this lost world, eventually unearthing more than two- dozen mammoths and other artifacts. In 2006, the Waco Mammoth Foundation, a nonprofit organization of local citizens, helped make the site a public park. The city of Waco and Baylor University have been working together since to protect the site and to develop further research and educational opportunities at the site.

This legislation will recognize the unique discovery of an extinct species while providing education and enjoyment for families and students visiting from all over the country and throughout the world while benefiting future generations for many years to come.

A special resource study on the Waco Mammoth Site was conducted by the National Park Service and was completed in 2008. This study concluded that the site possesses national significant resources, is a suitable addition to the system, and would be a feasible addition to the system. The study cites an appropriateness to investigate a partnership arrangement between the city of Waco, Baylor University, and NPS. Given our current fiscal situation, the legislation included in this title has been drafted to provide the national recognition that the site deserves without its adding additional burdens to the Federal budget or to the backlog at NPS.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument and give this Central Texas treasure the national recognition it deserves, all at no cost to hardworking American taxpayers.

City of Waco,

Office of the Mayor,

Waco, TX, June 12, 2012.

Re H.R. 1545.

Congressman Bill Flores,

Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Flores: We respectfully request your

support on H.R. 1545 designating the Waco Mammoth Site as a

National Monument. A special Resource Study was completed on

the Waco Mammoth Site in July 2008 which clearly concluded

that the site meets all four criteria necessary to be added

to the National Park system. To date we have raised more than

$4.4 million locally to construct a climate controlled

protective structure for the in situ remains along with

associated infrastructure to allow for visitation by the

public. We also have formed the Waco Mammoth Foundation as

formal partnership between the City of Waco and Baylor

University along with an active friends group for fund

raising activities.

There will be no cost to the Federal Government for the

transfer of this five acre site with its improvements from

the City of Waco to the National Park Services (NPS). Support

of the Waco Mammoth Site will not be a drain on federal

funding. It will provide national attention to a national

treasure. If the site receives national recognition, we would

desire a management and operations partnership be developed

with the NPS, the City, and Baylor. This anticipated

partnership would capitalize on the strengths of each of the

participating groups and ensure that the Waco Mammoth Site

would receive the same protections and operate under the same

guidance required of all other units of the NPS.

Your favorable support on H. R. 1545 will be greatly

appreciated.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Duncan, Jr.,

Mayor.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment which addresses another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prevents Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of a fuel unless its life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. In summary, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on all Federal agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

The initial purpose of section 526 was to stop the Defense Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet fuel. This restriction was based on the opinion of some environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might produce more greenhouse gas emissions than jet fuel from traditional petroleum. We must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and that it can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel.

Unfortunately, section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all Federal agencies, not just the Defense Department, which is why I am offering this amendment again today to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel restrictions when there is a simple fix: to not restrict our fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, and misguided regulations like those in section 526.

With increasing competition for energy and fuel resources and with the continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is now more important than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop all of our domestic energy resources, including alternative fuels.

Placing limits on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent to set in regard to America's policy independence and our national security. Mr. Chair, section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 will help us to promote American energy, improve the American economy, and create American jobs.

Now, in some circles, there is a misconception that my amendment will somehow prevent the Federal Government and our military from being able to produce and use alternative fuels. Mr. Chair, this viewpoint is categorically false. All my amendment does is to allow the Federal Government purchasers of these fuels to acquire the fuels that best and most efficiently meet their needs.

I offered a similar amendment to the CJS appropriations bill, and it passed with bipartisan support. My similar amendments to the MilCon-VA and to the Energy and Water appropriations bills also passed by voice votes. My friend Mr. Conaway also had language added to the Defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this burdensome regulation.

Let's remember the following facts about section 526: It increases our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It hurts our military readiness, our national security and our energy security. It also prevents a potential increased use of some sources of safe, clean and efficient American oil and gas. It also increases the cost of American food and energy. It hurts American jobs and the American economy. Last but certainly not least, it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense amendment.

At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, but I do want to say this:

Again, my amendment does nothing to restrict the fuel choices of any Federal agency, in particular, those of the U.S. military. What it does do, for instance, is to allow the agencies to procure fuel that is refined from oil from Canada oil sands once the Keystone pipeline is built and once those fuels are refined. Today, theoretically, section 526 would restrict the use of those energy resources from our friendly neighbor--I think that is inappropriate--and it also causes our taxpayer funds to be spent less wisely.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment which addresses another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prevents Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of a fuel unless its life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.

In summary, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on all Federal agencies funded by the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.

The initial purpose of section 526 was to stop the Defense Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet fuel. This restriction was based on the opinion of some environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might produce more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. We must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and that it can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. Unfortunately, section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all Federal agencies, not just the Defense Department.

This is why I'm offering this amendment again today to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel restrictions when there is a simple fix, and that fix is to not restrict our fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, and misguided regulations like those in section 526.

With increasing competition for energy and fuel resources and with the continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is now more important than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop and produce all of our domestic energy resources.

Placing limits on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent to set in regard to America's policy independence and our national security. Madam Chair, section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 will help us to promote American energy, improve the American economy, and create American jobs.

In some circles, there is a misconception that my amendment somehow prevents the Federal Government and our military from being able to produce and use alternative fuels. Madam Chair, this viewpoint is categorically false. All my amendment does is to allow the Federal purchasers of these fuels to acquire the fuels that best and most efficiently meet their needs. I offered a similar amendment to the CJS appropriations bill, and it passed with strong bipartisan support.

My similar amendment to the MilCon-VA appropriations bill also passed by a voice vote. My friend, Mr. Conaway, also had language added to the Defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this burdensome regulation.

Let's remember the following facts about section 526: it increases our reliance on Middle Eastern oil; it hurts our military readiness, our national security and our energy security. It also prevents a potential increased use of some sources of safe, clean, and efficient American oil and gas.

It also increases the cost of American food and energy. It hurts American jobs and the American economy. Last, but certainly not least, it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

I want to make sure that we clear up any misconceptions about this bill. This bill does not tell the military that they cannot pursue alternative sources of fuel. What it does is it removes all restrictions that have been placed on the military and on the Federal Government to procure any type of fuel, whether it's based on coal technology, whether it's based on the oil sands from a friendly country next door in Canada. It contains no restrictions. It takes away the restrictions that have manipulated the market and have forced up the cost of energy for the Defense Department.

For instance, the Navy was buying vegetable oil to burn in its ships and aircraft in 2010 at a cost of $424 per gallon. Last year, this cost was reduced to $27 a gallon, yet it's still six times higher than what the cost of normal Navy fuel would be.

What this hurts is our personnel readiness; it hurts the ability to buy more tanks, to buy more airplanes, to buy more protective gear for our men and women in the military.

It also hurts our taxpayers. As I said earlier, it keeps the military from being able to even buy fuel from Canadian oil sands next door, which, hopefully, some day, will be transported through the Keystone XL pipeline down to United States refineries.

I want to also talk about what the Defense Department has said.

Thank you. I should be able to do this in a minute.

A letter from the General Counsel of the Department of Defense to Senator Inhofe says:

The Department of Defense supports Senate 2827, a bill to

repeal the requirement with respect to the procurement and

acquisition of alternative fuels. The bill would repeal

section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007. Section 526 has the potential to generate significant

problems for the DOD and its procurement of fuels for the

national defense. It creates uncertainty about what fuels the

DOD can procure and discourage the development of new

sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of energy

supplies for the Armed Forces.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which addresses another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prevents Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of a fuel unless its lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. In summary, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on all Federal agencies funded by the Milcon-VA bill.

The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet fuel. This restriction was based on the opinion of some environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might produce more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum.

We must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and that it can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. Unfortunately, section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all Federal agencies, not just the Defense Department. This is why I am offering this amendment again today to the MilCon-VA appropriations bill. Federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel restrictions when there is a simple fix, and that is to not restrict our fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, and misguided regulations like those in section 526.

With increasing competition for energy and fuel resources and with the continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is now more important than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop and produce our domestic energy resources. Placing limits on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent to set in regard to America's energy policy, independence, and our national security. Mr. Chair, section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle East oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 will help us to promote American energy, improve the American economy and create American jobs.

Let's remember the following facts about section 526: It increases our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It hurts our military readiness, our national security, and our energy security. It also prevents the potential increased use of some sources of safe, clean, and efficient American oil and gas. It increases the cost of American food and energy. It hurts American jobs and the American economy. Last but certainly not least, it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars.

In some circles, there is a misconception that my amendment somehow prevents the Federal Government and the military from being able to produce and use alternative fuels. Mr. Chairman, this viewpoint is categorically false. All my amendment does is to allow the purchasers of these fuels to acquire the fuels that best and most efficiently meet their needs. I offered a similar amendment to the CJS appropriations bill, and it passed with strong bipartisan support. My friend Mr. Conaway also had language added to the Defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this burdensome regulation.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Let's restate what this amendment does.

It prevents section 526 from restricting the fuel choices available to our military and to our Federal agencies. It doesn't say that they cannot go ahead and develop alternative fuel sources. We can debate whether or not that's appropriate. The Navy recently made a purchase of biofuel for $27 a gallon, which was five to six times more expensive than traditional fuels. Now, we can debate if that's the appropriate use of taxpayer money. I think it's wrong. This amendment would not affect that whatsoever. All it says is that the Navy or the other branches of the military or any Federal agency affected by MilCon-VA can buy whatever fuel it deems most appropriate for its needs.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which would address another restrictive and misguided Federal regulation.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prohibits Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of an alternative fuel unless its lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. In summary, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on all Federal agencies funded by the CJS appropriations bill.

The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet fuels. This stifling was based on the opinion of environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum.

I recently offered similar amendments to four appropriations bills last year and each passed this House by a voice vote. My friend, Mr. Conaway of Texas, also had language added to the Defense authorization bill last year to exempt the Defense Department from this burdensome regulation.

We must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and can efficiently rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. But section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all Federal Agencies, not just the Defense Department. This is why I'm offering this

amendment again today for the CJS appropriations bill.

Federal Agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel emissions when there is a simple fix, and that's not restricting their fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies and misguided regulations like section 5266.

With increasing competition for energy and fuel resources, and the continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is now more important than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop and produce our domestic energy resources. Placing limits on Federal Agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent to set in regard to America's energy policy and independence.

Madam Chair, section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle East oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 will help us promote American energy, improve the American economy, and create American jobs.

Let's remember the following facts about section 526: it increases our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It hurts our military readiness, national and energy security. It prevents the increased use of safe, clean, and efficient North American oil and gas. It increases the cost of American food and energy. It hurts American jobs and the American economy. And last and certainly not least, it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Let's walk through this again. For instance, if you can't use fuel that's refined from Canadian oil sands, which is blended in with fuels from all sorts of oil sources, then you're stuck to use conventional sources, which means you're stuck with Middle Eastern oil.

Will the gentleman yield?

One of the things the Navy's had to do in order to do this and to develop other alternative fuel sources because it's not sure where it's going to get its fuel is to start using biofuels at the cost of $20-plus a gallon instead of buying it at $5 a gallon for jet fuel. That is not easier on the taxpayer.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer a simple amendment to address an overreach by the executive branch of the Federal Government. My amendment bans the use of Federal funds for any implementation of Executive Order 13547. Executive Order 13547, signed in 2009, requires that various bureaucracies essentially zone the ocean and the sources thereof. This could mean that a drop of rain that lands on your roof could cause the Federal Government to have jurisdiction over your property since that drop will eventually wind up in the ocean.

Concerns have been raised that the recently created National Ocean Policy may not only restrict ocean and inland activities, but given that it has not received any of its own funding, it will take scarce funds away from Federal Agencies and their currently authorized activities that are critical to the ocean and coastal economies, as well as our overall economy.

I look at a chart that I prepared, a look at Chart 1 reveals just how overreaching, overly burdensome, and ill conceived this plan is. The Natural Resources Committee continues to ask questions about ocean zoning, including its scope and its cost. However, we are not getting answers from the administration.

This chart, which is the watershed for the Mississippi River, our largest river, shows that 26 States would be affected by ocean zoning. This executive order would give unprecedented Federal reach by the Federal regional planning bodies to areas far inland to dictate activities that may affect the ocean or Great Lakes. And this is just one example of the incredible reach of this particular law or this particular executive order.

When you hear the words ``national ocean policy'' it sounds benign. But that's only a small part of the story. The scope and reach of this regulation is why we have the Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau, the home builders, the timber, mining and fisheries groups weighing in so heavily against this executive order. It affects our whole Nation and our whole economy. Again, if you think about it, it

means a drop of rain that falls on your property could be subject to this law.

Now, the last thing we need in Washington today is more bureaucracies. And you can see by this chart this executive order creates a huge new bureaucracy at a time when we're trying to grow our economy. This law, this policy, has been debated in the last four Congresses, and each time Congress elected to do nothing. So Congress explicitly does not intend for the oceans to be zoned in the manner that the President proposed to do it. Thus, Executive Order 13547 has no specific statutory authority, and there have been no congressional appropriations to pay for the cost of this new bureaucracy.

There are 63 agencies that are involved with this new policy. The last thing we need is more Federal bureaucracy trying to say that it's enacting a policy which doesn't cost anything. The last thing we need are more regulations from bodies like this in an already uncertain economic environment.

We also have a list of 83 groups that are in support of our proposed amendment. These groups include, as I said before, the American Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Home Builders, the offshore fishing industry, not only recreational but commercial, and the energy industries, including the renewable energy industries. We have letters of support for this as well.

There are significant concerns that remain related to the implementation of this executive order, its impact, the limit of its authority, and the lack of true stakeholder involvement. I urge Members to support this amendment in order to stop excessive regulation and to protect our ocean and affiliated inland economies.

The particular agency that is affected under CJS, more than any of the others, is the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Office, and that was specifically zeroed out in fiscal 2012. Yet this is the group. That red chart shows you that it's still actively involved in the process. Now, where they're getting the money, I don't know, but we have to assume it's from the taxpayer.

In closing, I am just asking that Congress do what Congress intended, which is not to have this activity.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let's make sure we all understand exactly what my amendment does. My amendment doesn't roll back any regulation that currently exists. My amendment doesn't strike any money for any Agency that is currently looking at how the ocean works. My amendment does nothing like that.

My amendment specifically says that if this process is going to be done, that it's going to start where the Constitution says it starts. It starts in the United States Congress.

Now, Mr. Farr talked a few minutes ago about how this was already an authorized activity. And to that extent, he introduced a bill in the 111th Congress, H.R. 21, on January 26, 2009. That has not become law. There has never been an appropriation that has been issued to support that.

On the other hand, here is what the executive order does do: it creates 10 new national policies, nine new national priority objectives, nine new strategic action plans, seven new national goals for coastal marine spatial planning, 12 new guiding principles for coastal marine spatial planning.

In addition, the agencies are advised to evaluate necessary and appropriate legislative solutions or changes to regulations to address the constraints. That, my friends, did not start in the United States Congress pursuant to the Constitution.

Now, it's been said this is not going to cause any additional regulation. It's been said this is not really ocean zoning. Well, let me give you an example of one of the things that is required to happen.

It requires the Department of Transportation to inventory and evaluate best management practices to address storm water runoff from the Federal highway system. In terms of where people say it's not zoning, it says:

CMSP allows for a comprehensive look at multiple sector demands, which would provide a more complete evaluation of cumulative effects. This ultimately is intended to result in protection of areas that are essential for the resiliency and maintenance of a healthy ecosystem, services, and biological diversity.

I've got no problems doing that as long as the Congress authorizes it and the Congress appropriates the money to do so. The Constitution doesn't say that the President is king and under the executive orders he can do whatever he wants to.

This action will identify and assess high-quality ocean and coastal waters and the waters that drain into them and establish or modify existing water quality monitoring protocols and programs.

That sounds like a regulation to me. That's government-speak for ``regulation.''

This executive order is an overreach. The cost of this executive order is being hidden. The National Ocean Council specifically asks agencies to tell us what this is going to cost, and the agencies have specifically refused to comply. The Natural Resources Committee in these hearings has specifically asked for the cost of this program, and we've specifically been ignored.

If these agencies are spending this money to implement this program, this executive order, where are they taking it from? What legislatively authorized activities are not being done and what appropriated dollars are being used from their appropriated function for something else? What's going on?

There are 83 interest groups in this country that are not the types that you would not like--it includes folks like the cattlemen and the farmers--that think this is an overreach and think this could damage our way of life. All we want is to have a clear and transparent and constitutional process for this to be carried out.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Coach Kim Mulkey and her Baylor University Lady Bears for winning the 2012 women's NCAA college basketball national championship. The Lady Bears were

ranked number one in the country all season long, going undefeated and becoming the first NCAA basketball team, men's or women's, to ever win 40 games in a season.

The Lady Bears recorded some impressive team and individual accomplishments on their way to their second Final Four in 3 years and winning their second national championship in 7 years.

The Lady Bear senior class, Terran Condrey, Ashley Field, and Lindsay Palmer, finished their 4-year careers with a record of 131 wins and 19 losses, one national championship, two Final Four appearances, four NCAA tournament trips, two regular season Big 12 titles, and three Big 12 tournament titles.

Ashley Field, Lindsay Palmer, and Makenzie Robertson were all chosen as first team 2012 Academic All-Big 12 honorees. Odyssey Sims, Destiny Williams, and Brittney Griner were named to the 2011 2012 All-American team.

After dominating opponents on both ends of the court all season long, Griner was chosen as the NCAA tournament MVP, and became the third women's basketball player to ever win all four National Player of the Year awards.

The Lady Bears are led by the remarkable Head Coach Kim Mulkey, whose resume and accomplishments have already cemented her place among the best women's basketball coaches of all time. As a player, Coach Mulkey was a member of the 1984 gold medal winning U.S. women's basketball team. She was inducted into the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame in 2000 and has been named Big 12 Coach of the Year three times. This year Kim was named National Coach of the Year.

Coach Mulkey is the fastest women's basketball coach to ever reach 300 wins and is the fifth coach in the NCAA to win multiple national championships. She has led the Lady Bears to the NCAA tournament in 11 of her last 12 seasons at Baylor.

The Lady Bears return their top six scorers and rebounders next season, so there is more to come from this outstanding group of young women.

I am privileged to represent the city of Waco, McLennan County, and Baylor University in my district, and I wish best wishes to Baylor President Ken Starr, Athletic Director Ian McCaw, and everyone else at the Baylor Nation as they continue to show that a Christian institution of higher learning can, indeed, compete and win in college athletics as well.

2011 2012 has truly been the year of the Bear. Sic 'em, Bears.

I thank my colleague, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Caucus budget amendment creates devastating cuts to our Nation's defense. Our Federal Government's primary responsibility under the Constitution is to provide for the common defense for the security of all Americans. This budget amendment causes the Federal Government to abdicate this important responsibility.

This substitute amendment guts the Defense Department by calling for cuts that are $900 billion deeper than the nearly half a trillion dollars that the President already proposed to be cut from the defense plan that he proposed just 1 year ago.

This substitute has no specific plan to replace the sequester, which Secretary of Defense Panetta said would have catastrophic consequences and which would devastate our Department of Defense.

This amendment ignores our constitutional responsibility and tells our troops in the field that, regardless of where the mission is and what state it's in, that we're going to cut all funding. This comes despite the fact that U.S. commanders have made it clear that there will be a continued role for the U.S. in Afghanistan even after Afghanistan security forces assume lead responsibility for security.

This budget amendment also ignores the economic impact that deep defense cuts will have on low- and middle-income Americans that work for the Department of Defense or work for suppliers of the Department of Defense.

Our Nation suffers from a growing number of low-income families and high levels of poverty. We also have more people on food stamps than ever before. This is not the time to cut spending on the one Federal Government function that is specifically called for in our Constitution.

The American people, as you hear from the other side, are looking for fairness. Cutting defense funding, as our colleagues are trying to do here, is not fair to the economic and military security of this country.

This proposed budget amendment, as well as the President's budget, which was soundly defeated a few minutes ago, are not fair for America. What is fair is to set forth a budget which approves the atmosphere for job creation and which stimulates economic growth by relying on Main Street American solutions.

If the Progressive Caucus and the Obama budgets are looking for fairness, they should not be looking to cut the Department of Defense. I urge my colleagues to oppose this substitute amendment so that we can ensure the safety and security of the brave men and women serving our country and for the American workers who support them.

In the alternative, I urge my colleagues to support the House Budget Committee's FY 2013 budget. It is the budget that will restore America's promise, prosperity, and security for future generations.

I thank my friend from Colorado, and you're exactly right. I do have extensive experience in the oil and gas business and also in the energy service business. So I know firsthand the impact on jobs and American energy security that having a robust supply of domestic oil and gas can have.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight another missed opportunity by the Obama administration to address rising gasoline prices, to promote American job creation, and to provide for American energy security. While the President may claim his administration supports an all-in approach to energy, the facts, however, tell a different story.

Here are four examples of rhetoric versus reality:

Example number one, last November, the Department of the Interior released a draft 5-year plan that fails to open any new areas to new energy production in the Outer Continental Shelf through 2017. This proposal will send American jobs overseas, forfeit new revenue to the Federal Government, cause higher gasoline prices, and will deny access to American energy resources that would reduce our dependence on unstable and unfriendly Middle Eastern sources of oil.

Yesterday, I helped spearhead a joint bipartisan letter with 182 signatures from this House, which we sent to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, expressing strong support in the House for the consideration of new and expanded access offshore for the production of oil and gas.

The vast offshore areas of the United States serve as a potential source of the Nation's energy supply containing significant quanties of valuable taxpayer-owned resources in yet-to-be discovered fields. Opening up access to new areas of the OCS will bring new jobs, new energy, and new revenues to the Federal treasury and all at a time when economists expect gas prices to soon skyrocket. Our country desperately needs these benefits now, not at some far-off date in the future.

In addition, new access to American resources will help reduce our reliance on unfriendly and unstable Middle Eastern sources of energy. For these reasons, it is vital that our country have in place a plan that maximizes the opportunity to assess all of these resources that we have available so that we can make informed decisions regarding the appropriate shape and scope of future domestic offshore activities.

Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming support of the American people for offshore drilling, the Obama administration's 5-year draft plan released last November severely limits the outstanding resource potential of America's offshore areas, and it neglects our Nation's vital energy needs. That is why the Obama administration should listen to the strong bipartisan message that the House has sent supporting increased access that would allow us to extend offshore energy production.

Example number two, the President buried the Keystone pipeline and the thousands of jobs and the energy security that it would have helped provide. In light of the fact that his administration approved a similar Canadian oil sands pipeline, the Clipper pipeline, in 2009, it is obvious to the American people that the Keystone XL pipeline was sacrificed solely for political gain.

Example number three, the Obama administration has directed numerous Federal agencies to attempt to regulate and reduce the use of hydraulic fracturing. This is the technology that makes our current abundant supply of cheap natural gas available to us today. Restricting fracking will reduce natural gas, hurt jobs, and hurt American energy security.

Example number four, this iPad costs about the same amount of money, $600, as six barrels of oil. In terms of profit, however, Apple makes many more times the profit margin on this one iPad than the American oil and gas industry makes on that same six barrels of oil, yet the Obama administration wants to raise taxes on oil companies. This doesn't make sense. How can we expect American energy producers to produce more oil and gas at a lower cost when we raise the taxes on them?

The American people have more common sense than this. The American people know that if you raise the taxes on Apple computer, Apple can't make more of these available at a cheaper cost. Yet, for some reason, the President thinks that we're going to have more domestic energy if we go and attack the oil companies with higher taxes.

Access to affordable energy will always be central to our Nation's prosperity. But with new technologies, today's strengthened environmental review, and updated safety standards, there's never been a better time to develop energy responsibly. But without the option to even look, we deny ourselves an incredible opportunity for energy security and the promised economic benefits that domestic energy production entails to the American people.

The American people want us to get this right. They want Washington to get it right. And they overwhelmingly support an all-of-the-above energy approach for American energy, increased offshore drilling, and they approve overwhelmingly the Keystone XL pipeline.

This is important. Just yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned: ``A major disruption that sent foreign oil prices up substantially could stop the recovery.''

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have a plan to wean our economy away from unstable Middle Eastern oil. If we want an America built to last like the President referred to in his State of the Union address, then we must have access to safe and affordable American energy to build that economy, to build that America built to last, and to power that America that's built to last.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and pass H.R. 7, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, so we can work together to grow the economy, to create American jobs, to facilitate lower gasoline prices, and to provide energy security that this country needs, not only for our current generation, but for future generations of American children and grandchildren.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, although the Obama administration may tout signs that the economy is improving, we are still way below past economic recoveries. The reality is the economy is growing too slowly and not creating enough jobs.

Economists agree that legislation considered by Congress can have significant impacts on economic growth, both positive and negative. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported this week that we are on track to have our fourth $1 trillion deficit in a row, despite President Obama's earlier campaign promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. At such a critical time, we should ensure that all lawmakers have as much information as possible about the effects of proposed legislation on economic growth and job creation.

The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012 would require CBO to provide lawmakers with a macroeconomic impact analysis for all major legislation reported by a House or Senate committee. The economic analysis would describe the potential economic impact of all major bills or major economic variables, including real gross domestic product, business investment, capital stock, employment, and labor. It would also describe the potential fiscal impacts of the bill, including any estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes in gross domestic product.

If the last Congress had had this type of real-world economic analysis, it would have never passed the job-killing Democrat takeover of our Nation's health care system in 2010.

In addition, if the last Democratic-led Congress would have known this information when it passed its $800 billion stimulus bill, it would have known that the elusive millions of jobs that it claimed to create were going to cost about $400,000 per job. This $400,000 is about the same amount as the total salaries of seven middle class Americans.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012, so that we may promote pro-growth policies that will help get our economy back on track, reduce the deficit, and protect hardworking taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember an American hero from this country's Greatest Generation. John ``Jack'' Francis Hannigan was born March 27, 1918 to Frank Hannigan and Elsie Sternweiss Hannigan in New York City. He attended parochial school throughout his life, obtaining a college degree and a law degree from St. John's University in New York. Through his beloved sister Myrtle, he met the love of his life, Marion Josephine Ronayne, and he also fell in love with her large and caring Irish family. They were married on May 2, 1942 at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, thus beginning a union that lasted 67 years.

Jack was a navigator and a lawyer in the United States Army Air Corps, serving during World War II in the European theater of operations. As part of the 397th bomb group, also known as the Bridge Busters, he flew 70 combat missions in a B-26 Marauder, including three over Normandy Beach on D-Day. He earned a Purple Heart during his wartime service. In 1948, his commission as a JAG officer was transferred to the newly created United States Air Force.

Jack's and his wife's military service spanned 30 years, living in Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Arizona, Germany, Virginia, the Philippine Islands, Massachusetts, Maryland, and, of course, Texas. Throughout his service, he was awarded many medals of commendation, including the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, and the Army Commendation Ribbon. Upon retirement, Colonel Hannigan received the Distinguished Service Medal in 1971 at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. The Hannigans retired to Allen, Texas, and were active parishioners at St. Jude's Catholic Church. While there, he volunteered his legal services and his wife's typing to many church members.

Jack and Marion raised a large Irish Catholic family with six children. While the family is spread across the country, the love that Jack and Marion held for them is a bond that will forever unite the Hannigan clan. Jack is survived by his children, John F. Hannigan, Jr., United States Air Force retired colonel of Colorado; Mary Gadow of Arizona; Barbara Clark of Massachusetts; Joan Johnston of Massachusetts; Dr. Jim Hannigan of Austin, Texas; Kathy Havel of Dallas, Texas; 14 grandchildren; and 10 great-grandchildren. He will also be remembered for his quick wit, practical jokes, skill with crossword puzzles, love of sports--especially golf--and yes, his ``yes dears'' to his wife, Marion.

This Friday, on February 3, 2012, a memorial service will be held at Arlington National Cemetery to honor his and his wife's life of service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, the service of Mr. and Mrs. Hannigan to our country will never be forgotten. They serve as examples for our current generations of Americans to emulate. God bless their service, and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, just like America's families and businesses, Congress must base its spending on a budget so that the Federal Government lives within its means. While Americans struggling in the Obama economy must sit down every day and produce a budget for their families, Senate Democrats have decided it would be a better political move to not produce a budget for the Nation, even though the law requires passage of an annual budget.

To repeat, the Senate leadership is ignoring the law and has been for 1,000 days.

A budget plan is Congress' most basic responsibility of governing, but without a budget, the State of the Union is uncertain, just like the economy is today.

Coincidentally, today is not only the President's State of the Union address; it is also the 1,000th day since the Senate last passed a budget. And without surprise, yesterday, just like it did last year, we also learned that the White House will again miss its deadline to submit a budget to Congress.

For 1,000 days, the Democrat-led, do-nothing Senate has refused to fulfill this duty to the American people. During this time, our national debt has surpassed our gross domestic product. And we've seen 35 straight months of unemployment higher than 8 percent. That means trillions of dollars of debt are being added to the bill our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay.

House Republicans put together a plan to put America back on a sound fiscal trajectory and to avoid a future of doubt, debt, and despair. Our ``Path to Prosperity'' budget will cut excess spending while strengthening vital programs like Medicare so they will be around for current and future generations.

Unfortunately, Senate Democrats rejected this bill; and, in fact, they have not bothered to do their job and pass a budget for the Federal Government since April 29, 2009, exactly 1,000 days ago.

Today, I call on President Obama and Senate Democrats to do their jobs, providing real leadership for the American people and to join House Republicans in passing a responsible budget so that we may restore America's promise, prosperity, and security for future generations.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution, H. Res. 516.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the White House announced that it was going to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. The White House did this among a backdrop with record high gas prices in January. A major factor in these high gas prices is the continued political upheaval in the Middle East and the impact that it's having on economic uncertainty around the world.

Keystone would bring nearly a million barrels of oil from our friendly neighbor, Canada, to the north and also up to 100,000 barrels of oil from the Bakken discoveries in Montana and North Dakota. It would also put more Americans to work while improving our energy security.

The Department of Energy has stated that ``gasoline prices in all markets served by the gulf coast and east coast refiners would decrease'' as a result of the pipeline's construction.

The White House would be well-advised to consider a poll that I took in

a recent tele-town hall of our constituents, where 87 percent of the constituents said that they strongly supported the Keystone XL pipeline.

We cannot wait for more jobs and for better economic certainty for all generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a constituent of Texas District 17. His name is Robert Griffin, III, of Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and he is the recipient of the 2011 Heisman Memorial Trophy.

The son of two U.S. Army sergeants, RG3, as he is more popularly known, epitomizes what it means to be a student athlete and a role model for all Americans.

During the Baylor Bears' 2011 season, Robert threw for nearly 4,000 yards and had 45 touchdowns. His 72 percent completion rate placed him among the most accurate passers in the Nation, and he was the only player in the country who had at least 3,300 passing yards and 300 rushing yards.

He is one of only three players in Football Bowl Subdivision history with 10,000 career passing yards and 2,000 career rushing yards. He owns or shares 30 Baylor football records.

Among his awards and accolades in 2011 were the Chic Harley Award for the National Player of the Year, the Big 12 Player of the Year, first team All-American, the Davey O'Brien Award, and, of course, the 77th annual Heisman Memorial Trophy, awarded to the most outstanding player in college football each year. He did all of this while leading the Bears to their first nine-win regular season since 1986 and a berth in the Alamo Bowl in 2011.

What makes Robert such an excellent role model is that his success at Baylor has not only been on the field. Robert graduated from Baylor in 3 years with a 3.67 GPA and a degree in political science. He is currently in graduate school pursuing a master's in communication and plans to attend law school in the future. He is a six-time member of the Big 12 Commissioner's Honor Roll and a two-time Dean's List honoree. This year, he was named second team Academic All-American.

Robert is also very active in his community, regularly volunteering for several charities in the Waco area. Robert is also a world-class hurdler, and he hopes to qualify for the 2012 Olympic Team. I am personally proud of RG III because he is a fine Christian man and publicly professes his faith in God.

I also want to congratulate Baylor University and football coach Art Briles on a great 2011 football season. As Coach Briles says, ``great things come with great effort,'' and the Baylor Nation should be justifiably proud of their football team and coaching staff for their great effort this year.

Before I close, I would like to wish all Americans a safe and fulfilling Christmas season and holiday season. I ask that all of us continue to pray for our country and our military men and women during these difficult times.

Sic 'em, Bears.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about options for American middle class jobs and American energy security. In this regard, I want to talk about two real-world examples that highlight the differences between President Obama's plan and the GOP plan for America's job creators.

Option A is Obama's plan. Option B is the GOP plan. Here are the examples: Under option A, Solyndra. Under option B, the Keystone XL pipeline.

How many part-time jobs were created under option A? One thousand. They have come and gone. Under the Keystone XL pipeline, there were over 20,000.

How many full-time jobs from Solyndra? None. They're gone. How many full-time jobs from option B, the Keystone XL pipeline? Thousands.

What did option A do for America's improved energy security? Nothing. How about for option B? Yes, we get improved American energy security.

In reducing the demand for Middle Eastern oil, Solyndra provided none. The Keystone XL pipeline will offset Middle Eastern demand by 700,000 barrels per day.

The cost to American taxpayers for Solyndra? Over $1.5 billion wasted. For the Keystone XL pipeline? Nothing. Nada.

What was the taxpayer return on Solyndra? There was none. What is the taxpayer return on the Keystone XL pipeline? It's infinite.

Who benefited from Solyndra? The President's political contributors. Who benefits from the Keystone XL pipeline? The American middle class.

How do you get more information? Go to jobs.GOP.gov for more information about the GOP plan for America's job creators.

Mr. Speaker, we can't wait for more middle class, Main Street jobs, so I urge my colleagues to vote for both the rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011, is just the answer that we need at this critical time.

I also wish all Americans a very Merry Christmas.