Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Gardner

Amendment No. 32: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Gardner

Amendment No. 33: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Leona Martens of Greeley, Colorado.

Leona faithfully served the community of Weld County for 22 years as the executive director of the Weld County Food Bank. While Leona lost her battle against cancer, her legacy and influence will continue the fight against hunger for generations to come. Under Leona's leadership, the Weld Food Bank grew its annual distribution from 40,000 to 8 million pounds of food. She expanded their operating facilities to 35,000 square feet, where they serve more than 10,000 residents each month.

The tremendous leadership, dedication, and passion she held for the citizens of Weld County is unrivaled, and the county has truly reaped the benefit of her work.

I had the opportunity to tour the food bank--part of it is named after her and in her memory--this past December and fully agree with her colleagues and friends who described Leona as ``an amazing leader with tremendous vision,'' a ``tireless worker,'' and ``true friend.''

Thanks to Leona's passion and tireless effort, Weld County citizens are ensured continued service and dedication.

It is my honor to stand here today to remember and recognize Leona Martens for her incredible vision, hard work, and passion to improve the lives of the citizens of Greeley, Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to congratulate Paul Gresky on reaching the 15,000 mark in teaching the Hunter Education Certification. His lifelong commitment to safety instruction is an invaluable contribution to Colorado citizens and the responsible upholding of our 2nd Amendment rights. We are grateful for the countless hours he has dedicated and the leadership Paul has exhibited to better Coloradans.

Since 1974 Paul has educated our community in the safety necessary for firearm owners. In 1983 Paul began serving Coloradans as a Master Instructor, receiving Instructor of the Year in 1985. Now Paul has successfully reached the 15,000 mark. All of these are impressive feats. I commend Paul for his service, not only because of his work teaching the Hunter Education Certification, but also because of his work in educating the Boy Scouts of America who are involved in the National Rifle Association's marksmanship and home firearms responsibility programs

Colorado is greatly indebted to individuals like Paul who continue to promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. I commend him for his work and wish him the best as he continues to make Colorado a safer place.

Mr. Speaker, Nancy Kay Judkins was born in Amarillo, Texas, to Burnell Campbell and James Roy Judkins on October 18, 1946. When she was four, her sister Peggy arrived, and there began a

sweet, abiding, lifelong bond. Then, only 8 years into her childhood, she contracted polio. At this early age, an inner strength and fortitude arose in her which was to define Nancy throughout her life.

Throughout her upbringing, Nancy was an honor student and was recognized for academic excellence. She earned her Bachelor's Degree in Medical Technology at North Texas State University and went on to work at Baylor Hospital and Dallas/Fort Worth Medical Center for many years before moving to Salt Lake City where she worked for Asarco as a Laboratory Supervisor. Almost four years ago, she and Peggy moved to Colorado to be closer to family living there.

Among many of Nancy's passions were the arts--especially the theater. She worked backstage for many theatrical productions and loved musical theater above all else. Some of her favorite shows included ``The Fantasticks,'' ``Brigadoon,'' ``Annie Get Your Gun,'' ``Showboat,'' ``Kiss Me Kate,'' and ``Yankee Doodle Dandy.'' She collected a variety of music including classical, ragtime, show tunes, and jazz, and learned to play the piano herself as a young adult.

Her love of words was reflected in her large book collection--from Austen to Whitman, Shakespeare to Safire, Twain to Thurber. She delighted in the Harry Potter stories, as well as stories of murder and intrigue. There was hardly a time in Nancy's life when she was without a feline friend or two, and she adored her sweet Maggie dog. She had a fascination with Germany; and after studying the language, she traveled there several times. Italy, London, and a cruise to the Caribbean were also on her list of travels.

Her love and connection to her family were never so strong as when she began an interest in genealogy and became the family historian. She spent countless hours tracing the family's ancestors' lives and traveled to many of the places they lived and died.

Nancy loved red hats, anything chocolate, irises in the spring, puzzles, popcorn, and the color purple. She loved Chaplin, Egyptology, Monet and O'Keefe. She loved so much and so many and was so loved in return. Her gentle strength and quiet courage inspired so many. She lived a difficult and challenging life with grace and dignity.

We honor her today for all the gifts she gave and all the wonderful ways she expressed her beautiful soul.

Nancy passed on January 28, 2012, in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I'm here tonight for one reason: to stand up for hardworking Americans who are spending far too much when they fill up at the pump, and I'm here for that same American who turns on the TV or reads the newspaper after a long day at work to see that Iran is threatening to cut off our oil supply out of the Middle East and to see continued inaction by this administration to discourage energy projects, energy production that would lower the price of gas here at home. These are Americans that are scared. They simply don't have the money in their pocket, in their budget to pay for these high prices, $60 to fill up a tank of gas, $80 to fill up the tank of gas.

I find it increasingly more difficult to explain to my constituents from rural Colorado why this government isn't advancing policies that will bring down the prices at the pump. It pains me the look on people's faces when they tell me that they're making $10 an hour and are paying upwards of $4 for a gallon of gas. What are they supposed to do, Mr. Speaker, stop going to work because gas is so expensive?

We are facing a significant crisis, and it's a travesty, it's a shame. My colleagues here tonight are here to say we will not stand for it.

How do I go back home this weekend to explain to my constituents why gas prices have risen $1.80 per gallon since this President took office? How do I explain that this administration may be willing to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is only to be used when there is a severe energy supply disruption, instead of opening up more land for exploration, which brings me to my next point.

Mr. Speaker, this administration alleges that it has opened up vast amounts of our lands for leasing. In fact, just a few days ago, on February 23, at the University of Miami, I quote:

Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any other time in the last 8 years.

This is simply false, a false telling of reality. While it may be true that new production is occurring on private lands where the President can't involve his anti-energy administration, Federal lands and offshore development is far below what it has been in previous years. Let me cite to you some very startling statistics.

According to an article on E&D on Monday, just a few days ago, production of natural gas on public lands and waters in fiscal year 2011 dropped 11 percent from 2010. That's a drop of 11 percent on public lands and waters in fiscal year 2011. Oil production on Federal lands dropped 14 percent since last year, and this reduction was most significant in the gulf, which declined by 17 percent since 2010.

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial from the other day, drilling plans have historically been approved 73 percent of the time. Since the beginning of 2012, the President has only approved 23 percent.

Approval of an offshore drilling plant typically takes about 92 days right now. That's 31 days over average.

In 2000, just 12 years ago, 32 percent of our oil was from Federal lands. Why? In 2010 that number shrank to 19 percent of total U.S. production. Let me say that again. In 2000, 32 percent of our oil was from Federal lands. In 2010 that number shrank to 19 percent of total U.S. production.

We aren't opening up our Federal lands for development, and that's the reason for the significant drop. The total onshore acreage leased under this administration in 2009 and 2010 is the lowest in over 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, the President has claimed that he is opening up new offshore areas for production and more land for leases. Again, this is false. Many of these lease sales were already

scheduled to take place before he even took office. One was even cancelled for a year by the administration and is now being reinstated. His plan even closes the majority of the OCS to new energy production through the year 2017.

In recent days and months, we have seen the President touting an all- of-the-above energy approach, but his actions speak louder than his words, and they do not promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy. This administration has blocked energy production on Federal lands and decreased overall domestic energy production across the board. And I want to share with you just a few of these examples.

Tonight we are joined by the House Energy Action Team, a group of Members from across the country who are dedicated to sharing with their constituents in this country the policies that we have passed in this House with bipartisan support to encourage energy production to make sure that we are increasing and encouraging natural gas development, oil developments, all of our natural resources in a true all-of-the- above energy strategy. The HEAT action team, the House Energy Action Team, is once again sharing that strategy and contrasting ourselves with the strategy that this President has presented over the past 3 years of his administration.

So the President can claim all he wants to be supportive of an all- of-the-above energy strategy--said it just a few months ago from this podium right behind me in the State of the Union address, supporting an all-of-the-above energy strategy--but let's actually talk, let's actually talk about what the President's policies have resulted in.

On oil and gas, he's withdrawn oil leases from Utah, costing 3,000 jobs; withdrew oil and gas leases from Montana; issued a moratorium on gulf drilling, costing 12,000 jobs; reinstated a ban on drilling off the entire Pacific coast; announced he would regulate hydraulic fracturing.

Again, the President claims to be a supporter of an all-of-the-above energy policy, but on coal he pulled a permit from a West Virginia mine, costing 250 jobs; announced the merger of BLM and OSM, which could move domestic coal one step closer to extinction in this country.

When it comes to nuclear energy, this President has blocked uranium mining in Arizona for 2 years. He has personally abandoned the Yucca Mountain waste site, jeopardizing the future of nuclear energy in this country; imposed a 20-year ban on uranium mining, increasing our 90 percent already, our 90 percent dependency on foreign sources.

Even on renewable energy and this President's green energy agenda, this President has closed all but 2 percent of Federal lands from renewable energy development. He's left open only 670,000 of 30 million acres of land for solar development.

Again, the President claims he is for an all-of-the-above energy strategy, when, in fact, what we have seen is this President is actually for none of the above. This chart--I know it's impossible to read--details the inaction of this administration, in fact, some very harmful actions to our energy policy where he has stopped, delayed, repealed energy production in this country.

Again, tonight, we are going to be hearing from many Members around the country to discuss how we can advance a strong energy policy, one that creates American jobs with American energy, building our energy security for future generations. There is one great way to power our economy, and that's to turn to our energy sector to create jobs and opportunity.

With that, I yield to another great leader on energy issues, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and I know the gentleman from Arizona is going to be joining us in this debate, this conversation tonight.

You mentioned some quotes, some statements made by Secretary Chu. You talked about the statement where the President had said under my plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

You talk about Secretary Chu talking about how he wants to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. Have you ever heard this President talk about expanding production in the United States or adding U.S. domestic capacity to actually decrease the cost of gasoline?

And I would point out to the gentleman, too, as he knows, we've seen gas prices increase dramatically around the country. In South Carolina, I think gas prices have increased 10 percent from just a year ago.

The gentleman from Arizona who joins us now in the conversation is-- New Mexico--has seen tremendous price increases, as well.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico, my neighbor to the south.

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. Before he yields the floor, I wanted to ask him a quick question.

I know you've done tremendous work with the Western Caucus. You're a cochair of the Western Caucus trying to make sure you are eliminating regulations to do what we can to improve the economy of the Western United States, and I just wanted to share with you a quote from our colleague in the Senate, Senator Schumer from New York. This was February 27, just 2 days ago, a quote from The Hill newspaper. He is talking about trying to find solutions to increasing gas prices. Here is what he had to say:

To address the situation, I urged the State Department to work with the Government of Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production, as they are currently producing well under their capacity.

So, apparently, many of our colleagues, some in the Senate, think that the solution to the way out that we have isn't here in the United States at all. In fact, it's creating more dependency on overseas oil instead of developing in areas like the Western United States.

I know you've done tremendous work to open up access to energy in the Western U.S., and I don't know if you had seen that comment or had time to reflect on it.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from South Carolina, again, some of our colleagues would like to see energy production increase in Saudi Arabia. They'd, I guess, stand idly by while this administration nixes, vetoes, puts a fork in the Keystone XL pipeline; yet they'd rather see those jobs go overseas. They'd rather see that energy production occur overseas instead of doing it right here in our own backyard. I'm sure our colleagues mean well, I'm sure they're well-intentioned, but I certainly hope they would produce those jobs here, produce that energy here, develop an energy policy that is with American jobs for our security.

I yield to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Because, again, going back to a speech given recently by this administration, by this President, he said at the University of Miami that we have record oil production, that he's actually leading us out of this energy crisis.

Well, I absolutely do. In fact, not only talk about the oil shales of Colorado, but this entire country where we actually are home--the United States is home to six times Saudi Arabia's proven resources because of the potential for oil shale in this country--1.5 trillion barrels of potential oil shale. That's six times Saudi Arabia's proven resources. That's enough energy to power the United States for the next 200 years.

The gentleman talked about legislation that we have passed to try to keep jobs. You talked about some of the comments that were made that, well, that won't impact our supply until sometime over the next 10 years. Let me just tell you about one bill that we passed last summer, H.R. 2021, passed with bipartisan support.

That bill was focused on a particular project in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea north of Alaska. In the time that it has taken one company to get a permit for that energy development--an area that's already approved for energy development by this government--it's taken 6 years to get a permit. In the time that it's taken them to try to get that permit--they still don't have it completely done, by the way--but in the time that it took them to get this far, they've drilled over 400 wells around the world, creating jobs around the world, creating energy for other people, creating jobs and resources, economic development for other people, but certainly not in the United States.

I think as those rigs have left, as we've seen production occur elsewhere because of the roadblocks to domestic energy production, we see other countries--us becoming even more reliant on overseas energy.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that a major disruption in foreign oil supplies that sends prices skyward could thwart the economic recovery. So the Federal Reserve Chairman has recognized that the more dependent we become on somebody else, if there's a disruption in that supply, a disruption in that overseas energy source that we're relying on, it could thwart our economic recovery.

Let me just go to a chart next.

That's a great point on national security, because not only do we have economic objectives that we need to achieve with a national energy policy where we're relying on our own production, but we've got national security implications. And if we don't rise to the challenge, we're going to be risking our security because of our reliance on other nations.

To go to the point of energy prices, this chart just illustrates how much gas prices have increased, how high they've increased. $1.80 over the past several years. The average price of gasoline has increased 42 cents since February of 2011. That's just on average around the country.

The important thing to recognize is the impact that gas price increases have on the American consumer, on American families. All told, each penny increase in the cost of gasoline takes about $1 billion out of the economy. So as gas prices hit $3.17 in February, just a few weeks ago, $3.18, every penny was a billion dollars taken out of the American consumers' pockets, sent overseas. If a 50-cent jump in gasoline prices is sustained over the next year, $70 billion would be lost in the U.S. economy.

This chart says it all. Go back to January of 2009. The President takes office, $1.84. If you went and you filled up your car, $1.84 a gallon. As of February 23, just a few days ago, just a week ago, $3.61. Billions of dollars taken away from the American consumer, sent overseas, when we could be using that money right here to create American jobs, reducing the price at the pump.

By spring, perhaps sometime this spring, according to Barron's, gasoline may even reach $4.50 a gallon. These aren't scare tactics. This is reality that Americans are facing each and every day when they fill up at the pump. Trying to figure out how to make ends meet, trying to make sure they're able to meet their mortgages, pay their bills, put food on the table for their family, $60 a tank, $70 a tank to get to work.

What trade-offs are we forcing the American consumer to make, when we have the opportunity to create American energy right here, to build the Keystone XL pipeline, to develop our Federal resources and do it in a responsible manner, do it in a way that creates jobs, giving our own communities the benefit of that exploration, of that development of the tax revenue that they generate.

$3.61 a gallon, it's unacceptable, and yet we hear talk of increasing production in Saudi Arabia, instead of doing it here? We hear an administration that says, you know, they were against the Keystone pipeline and then they were for it and then they're for part of it. I heard the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who's been a leader on the XL pipeline, say that that's like a little bit like the rooster trying to take credit for the dawn.

We have an obligation to make sure we're developing our resources right here, right now. We hear others talk about tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In fact, just a few headlines in recent days: Secretary Tim Geithner says tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an option that's on the table for the administration.

An article in Politico on February 25: House Democrat leaders are urging President Obama to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Another article, that same day: Washington liberals call on President Obama to tap Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Absolutely.

I would just make the point that if this administration acknowledges that by tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve they can increase supplies and, therefore, have an impact on price, isn't it obvious what we ought to be doing as the policy of this country?

If supply is the answer, tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we should increase domestic production. We should increase opportunities in the Western United States, on our Outer Continental Shelf. We should utilize the energy that our neighbors to the north are willing to help us out with through the Keystone XL pipeline. Because if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is, indeed, about supply, the political fix to a supply problem----

Why isn't this administration willing to actually do the right thing, do what's necessary to keep our economy afloat, to keep it from running on fumes and make sure that we can produce that energy in our own backyard, increase our opportunities to produce domestic energy?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership, and this is the third time that we've done that this year already, come down and talk as a group about what we can do to get our energy prices down to relieve the pain at the pump, to make sure that we're restoring our energy independence. So we'll continue this effort.

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the western slope of Colorado. The vast majority of the land there is owned by the Federal Government. They've seen rigs being sent away, shutdowns, and opportunities, though, of great success where there is a glimmer of hope for increasing development in the western slope of Colorado.

In my district on the eastern plains of Colorado, one county has drilled over 2,100 wells just last year, putting thousands of their people to work, helping create economic opportunity, creating jobs, bringing opportunities to the county that they never would have had otherwise.

So when I talk to people of western Colorado, eastern Colorado, they simply want to do what they do best. That's to run their businesses, to do it in a responsible manner, to do what's right for their children and their grandchildren, and to stop sending the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that we send each and every year overseas to get energy from them instead of using that money right here on our own families. Every year we send $331 billion to foreign nations. We can start using that money in our own backyard.

The House Energy Action Team is committed to leading this country to a future of economic growth, economic opportunity, energy security, and energy independence.

I thank my colleagues from South Carolina and New Mexico for joining me tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 1, 2012, at 9 a.m.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House tonight on American energy. Tonight's gathering again brings together people from across the country to talk about energy policies, rising energy costs, and what it means not only to American families but what it means to the American economy.

Tonight's organization is brought to us by the House Energy Action Team. It's a group of people throughout the United States elected to Congress who are committed to doing everything that we can to solve our Nation's great energy crisis, to make sure that we are addressing the price of gas at the pump and to make sure that we are taking advantage of all of the great resources that this country has to offer, whether they are traditional energy resources, be it natural gas and coal, or whether it's renewable energy and the opportunities we have around this great country.

This country faces a significant challenge. We all know the situation. Unemployment stands at over 8 percent, just as it has for the last 36 months in a row. Along with high unemployment, the American people have a new worry now: rising gas prices. The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline has risen to $3.45. That's up from 11 cents from just 1 month ago, 33 cents from 1 year, and up a full $1.66 since President Obama took office.

We cannot allow these high gas prices and energy prices to continue to stymie our economic recovery, and the American people cannot afford to continue to pay these unnecessary costs. Just yesterday, in fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified in the Senate, ``a major disruption that sent oil prices up very substantially could stop the recovery.'' This is a serious matter we're facing. The Federal Reserve chairman has recognized that if gas prices, if energy prices escalate, if they spike, that disruption that sent oil prices up very substantially could stop the recovery that this Nation so desperately needs.

The chairman went on to note that price spikes feed inflation and act as a tax on American consumers. The government can approach this problem in a very direct way. We can take steps to increase domestic oil production and refining. Unfortunately, fighting high gas prices doesn't seem to be a high priority for this administration. Offshore leasing has fallen behind previous projections. Other administration policies have also curtailed onshore production.

In 2007, the United States Energy Information Administration projected the total 2010 U.S. oil production on Federal lands to be 850 million barrels. Actual production was 16 percent beneath that. About a year ago, the Energy and Commerce Committee had an opportunity to hear from Secretary Chu, the Department of Energy secretary. As he was testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I asked a very simple question: What is the administration's plan to address the rising price of gasoline to help relieve the pain at the pump for millions of Americans who are trying to get to work and help their families make ends meet? After a lot of hemming and hawing the answer was, well, in 10 years from now--and I stopped him, I interrupted, and I said, the administration's plan to address high gasoline prices is something that we can count on in 10 years from now? As we have seen with gas prices that have already risen $1.66 since the President took office, their plan is still not in effect.

Permitting agencies across the Federal Government need to work to

streamline, speed up, and improve the permitting process in order to close that production gap on Federal lands.

Energy exploration can lower energy costs while driving the economic recovery. Economic recovery and job creation is the number one priority of this Congress, and it is time that the President and our friends in the Senate get on board.

Creating jobs and getting people back to work is not a partisan issue. It is past time that we get some wins in the fight against high unemployment and economic stagnation. For instance, it's been 3 years since the application was filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would create a pipeline stretching from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, to the gulf coast, bringing significant oil supplies to the United States.

The Alberta oil sands development would create 6,000 jobs in Colorado. It's estimated that it would create 6,000 jobs between 2011 and 2015. The Keystone pipeline is an important part of that development. These are good-paying, solid, reliable jobs--20,000 direct jobs, 100,000 indirect jobs--and yet this President has vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline. He has said ``no'' to jobs, ``no'' to North American energy.

I'd just like to show a recent survey that was taken a couple of weeks ago. The American people support construction of the Keystone pipeline. You can see right here the number of Americans from across the political spectrum, Republicans and Democrats, a variety of income levels, a variety of age levels, all people, the majority of whom support the Keystone XL pipeline because they know in this economy we can't say ``no'' to jobs. We should be saying ``yes'' to jobs. They know that if we say ``no'' to the Keystone pipeline, we're saying ``yes'' to sending our jobs to China. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the American public wants China to win our energy race. I think they want to make sure that we are doing everything we can for energy security in our own backyards.

We need pro-growth solutions to create jobs, but there's only so much that Congress can do to directly create those jobs. Real job creation comes from the private sector, from small businesses and private employers. Unfortunately, our government has a regulatory climate that makes it incredibly hard for businesses around this country to do what they do best: to innovate, to excel, to expand, and to hire.

The EPA and other Federal agencies have been writing new job-killing regulations at record pace. These agencies are actively working against the number one priority of the American public, to create jobs--job creation.

At a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee in April of last year, an EPA assistant administrator, Matthew Stanislaus, admitted to me that the agency doesn't directly consider job losses when analyzing a new rule, when coming forward with an economic analysis. Not only is that just unacceptable, it's shameful that an agency would create rules, issue rules without taking into account the impact, in an economic analysis, that regulation would have on jobs.

Under this administration, the Obama EPA has proposed unnecessary and costly new rules on cement manufacturers, industrial boilers, farmers, power plants, energy providers, along with general ozone rules that will affect every sector to the economy with no thought as to what the consequence will be on the American job creator.

To be clear, the regulatory killing field is not the only problem. In the financial sector, Federal regulators are forcing banks to hoard capital, prohibiting community banks from effectively working with their borrowers. Businesses are struggling to operate in the face of damaging overregulation, and the financial sector is not there to support them because of even more damaging regulations. It's no wonder that unemployment is still above 8 percent. It's no wonder this is the longest stretch of unemployment exceeding 8 percent since the Great Depression.

We have government agencies saying they don't care about jobs, and we have an administration and a Senate that aren't doing anything about it.

With that, I'm joined by my colleagues from around the country. I would yield to my good friend and colleague, somebody who has championed job creation, who has sponsored legislation to create jobs, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

I thank the gentleman for his comments. And he touched on a great point, the fact that it's not just energy creation itself, energy development itself that creates

the jobs that this country so desperately needs. But it's all the indirect benefits. It's the economic cycle of energy production.

If you have abundant, affordable, cheap energy, you're going to have a successful economy because people are able to afford their gas. They're able to use their natural gas in manufacturing at an affordable price.

But it's also the businesses that benefit from the production itself. Our family, my dad owns a farm equipment dealership. I grew up working at the farm implement dealership, selling parts to farmers and ranchers. Over the past several years we've seen a boom in natural gas development. We see those same people coming in off the rigs into the dealership looking for hydraulic hose, looking for filters for their pickups, looking for work for their maintainers, the work they're doing on their road, the excavators, all of which benefits a rural economy, when they go into the car dealership, when they go into the restaurants. Talk about economic benefit and the ability to grow our economy. Energy production is key.

Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, just a couple of quotes to hear it directly from President Obama and directly from Energy Secretary Steven Chu. These are just two quotes. If you want to know where they stand on energy policy, I think these two quotes really define where they have been over the past several years.

President Obama in January of 2008: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, December of 2008, and I quote: Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.

Now, that doesn't sound like a recipe for economic success to me. That sounds like a recipe for economic disaster.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I would just let the Chamber know and our colleagues know that Mr. Flores is someone who has great experience in job creation, putting people to work and certainly helping make America more energy secure.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

He talked a little bit about the Keystone pipeline. I would point out that the development of the Alberta oil sands for the State of Texas-- and this was a statement that was given to the Energy and Commerce Committee early last year by the Alberta representative in Washington. In the State of Texas, the development of the Alberta oil sands could mean as many as 27,000 jobs in 2011-2015, 27,000 jobs that could be created as a result of the development of the Alberta oil sands, and the Keystone Pipeline is a critical component of that. That's also not to mention the fact that there are numerous firms that do business with suppliers and the contractors that would be building the pipeline and the people who would be working throughout the Alberta oil sands as they develop it. So 170 firms in Texas would benefit from the development of the Alberta oil sands.

With that, I would yield to another gentleman from Texas who serves with me on the Energy and Commerce Committee, a great colleague, somebody who has championed energy development and certainly has been a strong advocate for American energy security, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

I thank the gentleman for his comments on our resources in Alaska and the little poster that you have there on drilling in ANWR. You can see that little tiny dot--it's almost difficult for me to see from here. It is just a little tiny pinpoint within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I've heard it described many times as having a footprint similar to a postage stamp on a football field, and that's the area that you're talking about that would be used to help revitalize our energy resources with American-made, American-produced energy.

But you are exactly right. Earlier last year, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. It would help do a great deal to spur development of areas that have already been approved for resource development, areas like the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea areas. This isn't opening up new areas. This is actually an area that's already been approved for leasing, and leases have been sold. They've already said, Hey, this is an area where we can have the energy production take place. So we're just trying to make sure that that energy doesn't get stopped and bogged down by bureaucratic and regulatory processes.

What we did in the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is pass a bill which had great bipartisan support on the floor of the House. It has now been introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan group of Senators who say that, look, you can't use an Environmental Appeals Board that was bureaucratically created to hang up a permit for 5 years, as in the case with one particular project in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea area of Alaska. The end result of this project could be as many as 1 million barrels of oil a day and nearly 50,000 jobs being created across the country. As witnesses said before the committee, it would help reduce the price at the pump. And I think when you are talking about energy prices that have risen $1.66 since President Obama took office, we've got to do everything we can to lower the price of gasoline and help American families make ends meet.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for the opportunity and yield back to him for further comments.

Yes. We are taking nearly 1 million barrels of oil a day. That's almost enough to replace our imports from Saudi Arabia. So between the two, the Keystone pipeline and the Beaufort Chukchi Sea development, I mean, we're talking significant--as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day, significant resources for this country, made in our own backyard.

That's true. And one of the biggest challenges we face, as you mentioned, is the possibility that we could lose out on one of this Nation's great works, the Trans Alaska Pipeline, if we don't properly take care of it and make sure that we are actually utilizing it to its fullest extent. So you are exactly correct.

And not only were you talking about millions and billions of dollars that were spent on trying to go forward to produce energy in an area that was already approved to produce energy, but they were blocked by the bureaucratic process.

They went around the world. The number is staggering. It's around 400 wells that they've drilled around the world in the amount of time that it's taken this administration to approve the one permit that they are trying to get. So 400 wells around the world, thousands of jobs created overseas, thousands of barrels of oil being produced around the world, but not a drop right here. So that's the shame of it all when it comes to the bureaucratic mess that we're in.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I thank our colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee for his comments.

I know you were in the Chamber during the State of the Union address when you heard not too far from where you stand the President discuss his desire for an all-of-the-above energy policy. Just recently, though, when he talks about an all-of-the-above energy policy, he forgets to talk about the fact that he nixed the Keystone XL pipeline and so many other challenges that his administration has put forward when it comes to energy development and our Federal resources. Thank you for your leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I look forward to our further discussions.

Our colleague from Texas mentioned that there were a number of bills that the House of Representatives had passed that were stacking up in the United States Senate. We've got an incredible plan for America's job creators. There are 30-some odd bills that are awaiting action in the U.S. Senate.

And I'll just give you a few more bills than the ones you mentioned that are all related to energy in some way or another: The Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny that would take a look at regulations that impact our economy; take a look at the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, H.R. 2273, something that, if it's not passed, we could lose a number of jobs throughout this country because of a regulatory process that has run amok. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, H.R. 2250. The Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act. This is something that takes a look at the impact of higher energy prices, rising energy prices, what will it mean to our Nation's manufacturers, and how much more it would cost our Nation's manufacturers. The North American-Made Energy Security Act; Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act; Jobs and Energy Permitting Act; Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act; Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act; the Energy Tax Prevention Act. These are all bills that have been introduced in the House and have passed, many with very strong bipartisan support; and they're awaiting action in the Senate.

Somebody else in this Chamber, who has done a tremendous job of fighting for natural gas development, making sure that those jobs are created in his backyard, Mr. Reed from New York, the gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee.

I want to thank both of my colleagues from New York and Texas for joining us tonight. We are out of time, but I appreciate the opportunity to address the House with your expertise and your leadership and know that we are fighting for the American people, to do everything we can for American energy independence and American energy security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address the Chamber tonight to discuss a very important issue, the issue of job creation, the issue of energy independence, and what we are doing in the 112th Congress, the Republican majority, to make sure that we're creating jobs and opportunities for the American people.

According to the Canadian government, Mr. Speaker, over 143,000 jobs in Colorado depend on our trade relationship with Canada. And whether people want to admit it or not, crude petroleum is Colorado's top import from Canada. But we're not unique in that aspect. Colorado is by no means unique. Many of our jobs and much of our energy depends on our good relationship with our friendly neighbor to the north. When it comes to the Keystone pipeline, though, it's been 3 years since an application was first filed. America knows the Keystone pipeline, a 1,700-mile energy project from our neighbors to the north to the Gulf of Mexico, one that could create as many as 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs. The United States as a whole would benefit both economically and from a national security standpoint if this country were to be able to move forward with the Keystone pipeline.

And tonight, we have Members of Congress from across this country, and Members from the East and the West, the North and the South who will talk about the importance of energy security and the importance of creating jobs.

So many of the debates we have heard on the Chamber floor, not only today but in the past few months, have been revolving around the notion of creating jobs and what we're going to do to get this economy turned around, an economy that already has over 14 million Americans unemployed and 46 million Americans living in poverty, a chance to get people to work and a chance to create jobs.

I will frame this debate tonight with some information that we've just received. People across this country want the Keystone pipeline to be built. If you look at the numbers we have here, supporters of the Keystone pipeline, you can see the support. It's not just Republicans. It's not just the majority of Democrats. Every sector that we have talked about in this poll supports the Keystone pipeline overwhelmingly, 64 percent when you take into account the opinions of Republicans and Democrats. They know that this project will create opportunity, opportunity that hasn't existed for far too long.

For over 36 months now, we've seen the unemployment rate in this Nation exceed 8 percent. It's unacceptable. And the fact that this administration has decided to punt on jobs is shameful. It's been said before, a year ago, 2 years ago when the President was talking about shovel-ready projects, well now apparently the only thing that the President is willing to use his shovel for is to bury jobs. And that's why tonight I'm excited for the discussion we will have with the American people.

So at this time I would like to yield to some of my colleagues who have joined me on the floor for their take and perspective on the Keystone pipeline, beginning with my good friend from Alabama, Martha Roby.

I thank the gentlelady for being here tonight and discussing the impact on her district with the Keystone pipeline. She brings up a good point when it comes to the price of gas. Reports that we have say that the discovery of the Canadian oil sands has the potential to change the current gas-price dynamic. Bringing a massive amount of oil to market from a politically and economically secure source can restore market confidence and bring down gas prices.

With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

And I'm sure you'd be interested to know this--and I'm sure you already know this, in fact--that according to testimony that was given before the Energy and Commerce Committee hearing last year on energy issues, the impact of Alberta oil sands development on the U.S. State economy, in your great State of Ohio, 13,200 new jobs could be created between 2011 and 2015 as the development of the Alberta oil sands moves forward. And the Keystone pipeline is an important part of that. So, as I know there are many visits going on to Ohio by this President, perhaps he can explain to the people who may be unemployed in your district, 13,200 new jobs good to be created by the development of the Alberta oil sands, why the Keystone pipeline was vetoed.

So I thank the gentleman for being here today.

And with that, I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona for his perspective.

The gentleman from Arizona brings up a great point about Solyndra and the Keystone pipeline. And I think there is a real question about what kind of an economy we want in this country. Do we have a Solyndra economy that relies on government funding, government financing, and then rips off the American taxpayers? Or do we rely on a Keystone economy that creates private sector jobs, 100,000 private sector jobs?

The Arizona Republic said in an article, an editorial that they wrote on January 20 of this year, just a couple days ago:

A lack of urgency regarding energy independence is only one of the reasons President Obama is being shellacked this week by Republicans and Democrats alike for his disappointing decision regarding the Keystone XL transcontinental oil pipeline. The foot-dragging runs counter to the recommendations of the President's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. President Obama's choice is a bad one. He needs to reconsider.

That was an editorial, again, from The Arizona Republic.

And with that, I would yield to my colleague and good friend from the State of New York (Mr. Reed), somebody who has been very active in natural gas production and certainly a leader in the Ways and Means Committee.

I thank the gentleman from New York and, again, thank you for your constant leadership on our national energy security. And we do harken back to the time just a few weeks ago when the President gave his State of the Union address, addressed this Chamber, the joint session of Congress. And it reminded me when he said, I'm for an all- of-the-above energy policy, and then vetoed, basically with the stroke of a pen, as you said, the Keystone pipeline. It reminded me of something that Yogi Berra might say. Yogi Berra might say, I'm for all- of-the-above energy as long as it's not all of the above. That seems to be what we're hearing. And with the killing, with one single signing, of 100,000 jobs, I think it shows where the real intent in terms of job creation some people would have this Chamber try to follow.

You mentioned the Department of State. A week ago, last week, we had Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary of State from the Department of State, testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee and admitted that when it comes to the EIS, the no-pipeline alternative, there was an alternative considered under the EIS, the Environmental Impact Statement. One of the options they considered was no pipeline, no pipeline at all. In testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, it was admitted that that was not the preferable alternative. That was not the preferable alternative under the Environmental Impact Statement. So even the Department of State admits that the EIS on the pipeline envisions the construction of a pipeline. And yet the President said no.

And so I thank the gentleman from New York and the thousands of people

that could be employed by the development of the Alberta oil sands. And I know the next gentleman, Mr. Conaway from Texas, that will be addressing the Chamber, I don't know if he has this statistic right in front of him, but according to testimony, again, before committee, 170 firms supply the Canadian oil sands from Texas, 170 firms that supply the Canadian old sands.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I will show a map. Mr. Conaway, the gentleman from Texas, referred to a pipeline. The only reason we had the Department of State involved is because it crosses a national boundary. So you can see the pipeline right here where it extends. I already have some pipelines, and I know the gentleman, Pete Olson from Texas, will be addressing the Chamber shortly and share even more about this route and the different pipelines that we're dealing with.

But again, here it is. Right here. That's the only reason the State Department is involved. The only reason that they had a hook to get involved, and, as you can see, the hook was yanked and jobs were killed.

I would like to follow up as well with an editorial from The Detroit News, The Detroit News on the 20th of January. Detroit, Michigan, particularly hard hit by economic tough times over the past several years. This is the editorial:

President Barack Obama is willing to wait and wait and wait

for 20,000 desperately needed jobs. For someone whose

operating slogan is ``We can't wait,'' it's curious that

President Obama is willing to wait and wait and wait for the

Keystone XL pipeline project and the 20,000 desperately

needed jobs it promises. If the ``can't wait'' President

keeps dragging his feet, he will hand the Chinese yet one

more competitive advantage over the United States.

That's the Detroit News, January 20. Again, just a couple weeks ago.

I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) has been very involved in the Energy and Commerce Committee. He's been standing up for his State, energy security jobs that would be created. And I'm sure he knew this already, but in Texas alone, the development of the Alberta oil sands could create as many as 27,000 jobs over the next 4 years.

With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership tonight.

Before he leaves the Chamber and before I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, I think it's, again, important to talk about something that you mentioned in the very beginning of your comments. The only reason the State Department was involved is that it crossed the border. The only reason they were allowed to kill 100,000 American jobs is because it crossed the border.

If the pipeline were built from Fargo, North Dakota, to Houston, Texas, would they have been involved?

Again, to the American people, we've heard asked often by Members of this body: Where are the jobs? I think we need to start asking: Why not these jobs?

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, who has been very active in the fight for jobs in his home State and across this country.

Thank you, the gentleman from South Carolina, getting to the passion which so many Members have tonight throughout this fight to create American jobs.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) who has also been a leader when it comes to energy security and American energy production.

I thank the gentleman for his time tonight, and again, as we wrap up our discussion, we will just highlight the support the Keystone pipeline has across this country. Again, you can see the people who believe that job creation, American energy security matters. It matters because we can create jobs now. We have an opportunity to develop our North American resources, to reduce our reliance on overseas oil.

The question that these supporters ought to be asking tonight is whether or not they want to give up this project to China. I don't think they want China to win. And yet that's the decision this administration has made--100,000 jobs, American energy security.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Cleon Kimberling. Dr. Kimberling was recently honored by Colorado State University's Department of Animal Science as the livestock leader of the year.

Dr. Kimberling is now 81 years old and has dedicated his life to improving livestock health. He received a degree in veterinary medicine from Colorado State in 1959 and since that time has made significant contributions to the veterinary science field.

One of Dr. Kimberling's achievements includes developing tests that contributed to the eradication of brucellosis in the dairy industry. He has also successfully advocated for different nutrition standards for sheep, leading to an overall increase in the health of our sheep herds nationwide.

His dedication to animal health started at a very young age when an outbreak of disease occurred on his farm. Since that point, he has dedicated a lifetime to veterinary medicine, stopping disease outbreaks and advocating prevention.

Aside from his medical successes, he is also an avid cyclist. In fact, his business card states that he specializes in both sheep health and bicycling. At 65, Dr. Kimberling completed a bike trip from Oceanside, California, to Bar Harbor, Maine. This trip was over 3,500 miles long.

His support for agriculture has helped many farmers and ranchers prevent disease and improve our livestock industry. These stories highlight an amazing man, and I am proud to honor Dr. Cleon Kimberling from the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Government, over 143,000 jobs in Colorado depend on our trade relationship with Canada. Further, crude petroleum is Colorado's top import from our neighbor to the north. And Colorado's not unique. Many of the jobs and energy around the country come as a result of our relationship with Canada.

It's been 3 years since the application was filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would create a pipeline that extends from the oil sands in Alberta to the gulf coast, bringing significant oil supplies into the United States.

The United States as a whole, both economically and from a national security standpoint, will benefit immensely from the approval of this pipeline.

In my mind, it's a very simple question: Why import oil from countries that seek to do us harm when we can get it from our neighbor to the north? I'm continuously awed at how much energy potential we have in North America and how simple it would be to advance policies that would make us more energy independent. Isn't that what we're trying to accomplish?

But apparently there is an asterisk when it comes to job creation for this administration. Not these jobs, not these 100,000 jobs. Perhaps some others. This administration has done everything it can to stand in the way of a project that can help 100,000 Americans get back to work.

Mr. President, don't put a cork in our economy. Let's get this pipeline built.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House on the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline.

There are pipe dreams and pipelines out there that people talk about. Apparently, when it comes to jobs, maybe the pipeline is apparently a pipe dream.

We have an opportunity, in this country, to secure our energy future with North American energy, to create American jobs on a project that is a 1,700-mile-long pipeline.

You know, I hear all the time from constituents in Colorado about: Hey, what's the deal with this pipeline? Why can't we get forward moving creating jobs, American energy independence using North America's great resources to help our country create jobs and a more secure energy future? And the conversation then really revolves around commonsense ideas.

Here's a President who, the President has said in the past that we need to support shovel-ready projects, that the stimulus bill that passed in 2009 was all about shovel-ready projects. And if you go back to last summer, I believe the President had said, well, I guess shovel- ready wasn't as shovel-ready as we thought it was.

Well, here's a shovel-ready project. Here is a pipeline, a privately funded pipeline that's ready to be built, 1,700 miles, 20,000 American jobs. We could get started on that today.

It's been years since this pipeline was actually first--the permit process first started, and yet here we are waiting once again. This isn't a surprise to anybody. It shouldn't shock anybody that the issue of the pipeline came up.

The bill that we passed in December said you've got to make a decision. The President has said he would make a decision, and yet we still have no decision.

I find it difficult to understand what is really the tough part of this decision. We can create jobs right now with a truly shovel-ready project.

Earlier this year, back in February, actually, back in February of last year, we had testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee that talked about the development of the Alberta oil sands and what it would mean to jobs in the United States. Now, the Keystone pipeline is part of that. According to the testimony we received in that committee, between 2011 and 2015, 6,000 jobs could be created in Colorado, alone, because of the development of the Alberta oil sands.

The Fourth Congressional District of Colorado that I represent has two counties. When you look at the true unemployment rates, the unemployment rates that take into account people who have just given up work--who've given up looking for work, who have just decided that they can't find work so they've stopped looking, two counties in my district have over 19 percent unemployment when you look at it through the lens of people who have stopped looking for work.

A project like the Keystone pipeline, 20,000 direct jobs, 100,000 jobs indirectly created, development of the Alberta oil sands creating 6,000 jobs in Colorado over the next 3 years, next 4 years,

these are good-paying American jobs with North American energy that we could be putting to the benefit of this country.

We know there are willing partners out there. We know there are other people who have said: Go ahead, we'll take the business; we'll partner with you; we're not afraid. China has more than once said that this is something that they would look at.

Canada has made it very clear that they won't just stop if we say no. Shovel-ready projects. Here it is, our opportunity to create American jobs.

Three years ago the application was filed to build the pipeline. Most Americans at town meetings that I attend, they all know about this pipeline. They know where it's going. They know what's happening with it.

It's been our goal in this 112th Congress to look out for the economy, to advance projects that make sense when it comes to American energy and North American energy and American job creation.

That ought to be the goal of every single one of us in this Congress. Every action we take should be looked at through the same lens that we look at the Keystone pipeline--creating jobs.

I'm continuously awed at the energy resources that we have in North America and how simple it would be to advance policies that would make us more energy independent, and yet we still can't move forward because no decision has been made.

I'm baffled at how difficult this administration has made it when it comes to weaning ourselves off of overseas oil while at the same time creating more jobs right here at home.

The administration has done everything it can to stand in the way of a project that can help Americans get back to work, a $7 billion private sector infrastructure project, when construction jobs around Colorado, around this country have been some of the hardest hit by the recession. This project provides a lifeline to thousands of construction workers seeking ways to get back on their feet.

But the inaction of this administration has led us down a path of insecurity and dependence on other countries that have great animosity towards us. It's simply unacceptable. Not only do we have the resources in our own backyard in North America, but we have the ability to utilize friendly and willing neighbors like Canada to import that oil.

Mr. Speaker, our unemployment rate as a Nation has hovered around 9 percent for far too long. There's no reason that the Federal Government should not be supporting a private sector solution done with private capital at a time like this. With rising gas prices, the threat of the Strait of Hormuz being blocked, and unemployment hovering so high, we simply cannot afford not to act.

Mr. Speaker, the President has had plenty of time to make a decision. The studies have been submitted. The conversations have taken place. The debate has occurred. But what's winning this debate is the fact that the American people understand how many jobs would be created with the North American Energy Project.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time and thank you for the opportunity tonight.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time.

This argument seems a little bit confusing, I'm sure, to most people in America today. Several months ago House Republicans were accused of disagreeing with the President because, oh, gee, the idea was the President's, so we wanted to disagree with him. Well, here we are today agreeing with the President on a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday.

Let me read a quote from what the President said:

This Congress cannot and should not leave for vacation

until they have made sure that the tax increase doesn't

happen. Let me repeat that: Congress should not and cannot go

on vacation before they have made sure that working families

aren't seeing their taxes go up by $1,000 and those who are

out there looking for work don't see their unemployment

insurance expire.

We passed a bill. The House bill that we passed with bipartisan support would provide $1,000 a year. I've heard it many times on the House floor as people come and say this is a $1,000 tax relief to the middle class. Not under your plan. The plan that the Democrats have put forward in the Senate, the plan put forward in the House by our Democratic colleagues would provide $160 worth of tax relief--$160 worth of tax relief is what they are fighting about today.

So let's talk about real reform. Let's talk about real certainty that our economy needs.

We've argued for $1,000 worth of tax relief to America's working families. You're talking about $160 of tax relief. You're willing to risk unemployment insurance, willing to risk a payroll tax increase because you're insisting on a $160 tax break when we're sitting here saying let's provide a $1,000 tax holiday?

We can get our economy going again if we have the willingness to work with each other. And I would hope that after today there is willingness by our friends in the Senate to get the job done, to get our economy moving again, and to make sure that this country focuses on the real priorities: the men and women in this country looking for work, finding ways to make ends meet, and making sure that they're doing what's right for their families.

I urge this body to do what's right--appoint conferees and get to doing the business of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights serves to check the power of government and preserve the freedom of Americans. Our founding fathers realized that even well intentioned governments answerable to the will of the voters can grow to be tyrannical. They recognized that protections were needed to guard against government interference and so they enshrined those protections in the highest law of the land. The Bill of Rights is unique in that it is a document that outlines government power not by what the government can do but by what it CAN'T do. The spirit of our nation is in that distinction. We are a nation built on the idea that private individuals could create private industry with private interests and build a great society without an all knowing bureaucracy telling them how to do it. Times have changed since 1791. Our nation has grown, our government has grown, and today we inhabit a different world. There is no way that Madison and Jefferson and the rest of the founders who fought for a Bill of Rights could have envisioned the country we have become. Over the years we have fought many battles over the interpretation of these amendments and these principles have stood the test of time. The Bill of Rights is a fundamental feature of our country and a beacon to the rest of the world that freedom works, it is to be celebrated, and not repressed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 150th anniversary of Boulder County, Colorado.

Boulder County is one of 17 Colorado counties officially created in 1861 by the Territory Assembly.

In the mid-1800s, settlers began flocking to Boulder County because of the robust and profitable mining sector. Local businesses were created to support the growing number of new miners to the area.

The original founders of Boulder had more aspirations than to just be a simple Colorado mining town. Residents pushed strongly in the Territorial Assembly to have the State university located in the region.

In 1877, 1 year after Colorado was admitted to the United States, the University of Colorado--the State's first university--opened its doors. From its early status as a college town and mining community, Boulder County has expanded, with a population now reaching over 300,000 people. The picturesque scenery and outdoor lifestyle has allowed this county to grow significantly over the past 150 years.

Aside from the University of Colorado, Boulder County boasts an excellent technology sector, numerous small businesses, and countless microbreweries. One of my personal favorites is Oskar Blues Brewing Company in Longmont, Colorado. This region of Colorado continues to rate high in national polls for overall health and well-being, and is rated as one of the best places to raise a family in the country.

Boulder County is the gateway to the Rocky Mountains. It's known for its tremendous outdoor recreation. From skiing, hiking, fishing, hunting, and biking--just to name a few--Boulder is an outdoorsman's town. It is my honor to recognize the 150th anniversary of Boulder County on the House floor.