Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 157 I was meeting with students from Clemson University concerning Pell Grant funding during the vote for the Lena Horne Recognition Act. I support recognizing the achievements of Ms. Horne and would have voted in favor of this Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, when President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the average nationwide price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. The 2012 March nationwide average has been $3.89 or higher, reflecting a 110 percent increase. Keep in mind that every penny increase in the price of gasoline costs the U.S. economy $1 billion and American consumers $4 million per day.

Now, last week, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, while testifying in front of a House committee, was asked to grade his performance on American gasoline prices. He graded himself an ``A''--an ``A,'' America--when the price at the pump for American families has gone up over 110 percent.

I'm sorry, Secretary Chu, America doesn't grade on a curve. We give your performance and the performance of the administration's handling of energy in America the grade of ``F.''

I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this issue.

I just got a text message a minute ago from my wife that said my youngest son, he's 11, hit an in-the-park home run, and I wasn't there. I wasn't there because we're here serving in the United States Congress to try to make America better for my 11-year-old and for children of this generation and future generations.

I believe that this particular legislation that was passed by the last Congress should be ruled unconstitutional--for a lot of different reasons. And I think my good friend from Florida (Mr. West) is going to talk momentarily about an article that he wrote, a great op-ed, in a Washington newspaper today. I thought it was spot-on, so I don't want to steal his thunder on that.

He talks in there about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, this committee of 15 members that Congress basically divested some of its power, gave some of its power over to a 15-member panel.

Now, America needs to realize that this 15-member panel will be making decisions, health care decisions for you and your family. If you're on Medicare, this 15-member panel, IPAB, will be making decisions on what they'll pay for, what treatment you can get, how long you can stay in a nursing facility for rehab, a lot of different things. We're divesting responsibility and decision-making to a panel.

This Congress just last week passed the repeal of that Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB, as it's known. We sent it to the abyss known as the United States Senate, because under that Democrat leadership under Harry Reid, they fail to take good, commonsense legislation up in the Senate for a vote.

But you know what? The last Congress that passed what's now known as ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, they gave some of their power away to this board, and anything that board does becomes law. And the only way Congress can overturn that law is with a majority vote or a supermajority vote in the United States Senate. That's 60 Members that have to vote against something that IPAB does.

When I read the United States Constitution, article I, section 1, it's at the very beginning, right after the preamble, this is what it says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a

Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a

Senate and House of Representatives.

I don't see in there an Independent Payment Advisory Board at all. I see a United States Congress made up of a House and a Senate. That's what the United States Supreme Court ought to rule automatically unconstitutional in this bill.

We can talk about a lot of other things, but that bill was wrong for

America. It's going to cost small businesses, it's going to stymie the economy, and we may never recover from what's coming with the full implementation of ObamaCare.

Will the gentleman yield?

That's an interesting point, because I'm on the Natural Resources Committee. We deal with the EPA and a number of other, what used to be known as the MMS, and now BOEMRE, that makes regulations regarding offshore drilling, and they can't do anything without some public comment period. They can't promulgate a regulation that isn't subject to a public comment period and an appeal process.

But from what I hear you saying is this 15-member board can pass something in the dark of the night, in the back room, without transparency, without public input, without public comment period, and it will have the force of law.

Americans, it's been 1,044 days since the United States Senate has passed a budget for America. Back in 2009, the average American family spent $173.80 a month on gasoline. In 2011, that number had risen to $368.09 a month on gasoline. What could you use that difference, $194, what could you use that money for?

I guarantee you, with the policies coming out of this administration, gasoline prices are going up. It will be more than $368 a month for gasoline unless we make changes to American energy policies and be energy independent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional group of students, teachers, and parents of the Bell Street Middle School Science Olympiad Team, which just won its 10th consecutive Science Olympiad State Championship. Let me repeat that: 10th consecutive Science Olympiad Championship.

The Science Olympiad program is one of the premiere science competitions in the Nation, providing rigorous standards-based challenges to nearly 6,200 teams in 50 States. Science Olympiad's continuously changing event lineup exposes students to a variety of career choices and gives them an opportunity to meet participating and practicing scientists, as well as the opportunity to have life-changing mentors.

Science Olympiad was founded in 1982, and Bell Street Middle School, there in Clinton, South Carolina, began competing in that in 1986. The Science Olympiad Team at Bell Street was formed by three very inspirational teachers: Rosemary Wicker; Dr. David O'Shields, who is a close personal friend; and Michael Mack. Mr. Mack and Dr. O'Shields still work in the school district in Clinton today. Michael Mack is a member of the science faculty at Clinton High School, and Dr. David O'Shields is currently the superintendent of Lawrence County School District 56. Both continue to be active event coaches for the incredibly successful Bell Street Science Olympiad Team. Many of the Bell Street Middle School's Science Olympiad alumni have gone on to become extremely successful in the areas of science and technology.

One examples is the gentleman Dedric Carter. Dedric was a former member of the Bell Street Middle School Science Olympiad Team who went on to enroll at MIT for college. He later became MIT's assistant dean for engineering and a lecturer in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. He is currently the senior adviser for strategic initiatives to the Director of the National Science Foundation.

Another one, Jarrett Campbell, is also an alum of Bell Street Middle School's Science Olympiad Team. After competing in the Science Olympiad teams in middle and high school, Jarrett went on to complete a doctorate degree in chemical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. Jarrett worked for Advanced Micro Devices, where he was awarded over 25 patents in the area of semiconductor technology. Today, Jarrett works as a global energy management specialist for a U.S. company in Paris, France. When he was asked about his experience with the Science Olympiad, Dr. Campbell said this:

Not only did the teacher, coaches, and parent volunteers

pique my interest in science and math, they continually

challenged me to expand my knowledge by competing in new

disciplines. Looking back, I see how important the

camaraderie, teamwork, and constant desire to excel, along

with the examples set by these role models leading the team,

was exceptional in setting the stage for my career in

engineering and energy management.

I believe this statement sums up how valuable this program is to our Nation's youth.

Finally, I would like to take time to congratulate all of the coaches and the members of this year's State championship Science Olympiad Team from District 56's Bell Street Middle School. This year's team included: Mike Beasley, Stephanie Braswell, Jalen Carter, Lawrence Coleman, Terry Craig, Andrew Gann, Karl Gustafson, Dalton Langston, Beth Meadors, Zack Ray, Jonathan Shiflet, Kyle Smith, Bowen Tiller, Nathan Vondergeest, Clay Wright, Triston Moon, Daniel Moore, Luke Ragin, Jacob Wesson, Audrey Atkinson, Chris Cannon, Justin Easter, Dawson Green, Jack Harkins, Tara Hiller, Ami Meadors, Jill Meadors, Olivia Moore, Brianna Motte, Jakob Pountain, Michael Richey, Justin Shockley, Dillon Snead, and Bailey Stephens. Those are the students, but the teachers and the parents that volunteer need to be singled out as well. I don't have them by name, but let them know that we certainly appreciate their efforts.

These are the future scientists. These are the new innovators coming along. I'm excited that at middle school they're challenging these students to be the best they can.

May God continue to bless those students, teachers, and parents. May God continue to bless Bell Street Middle School, and may God continue to bless America.

Well, let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for his dedicated service to not only the State of Colorado but to our Nation.

We have been coming to the floor talking about the increasing prices of energy across America. Since we came back in January, we have taken to this floor to talk about the very poor policies coming out of the administration.

And just to give you an example of that, on Inauguration Day of President Obama, AAA said the gasoline prices in America averaged $1.84 a gallon. Today, gasoline prices are averaging across this great land $3.73 a gallon. That is a 102 percent increase during the Obama administration. But yet he will claim, the administration will claim, that they have increased domestic energy production. They've increased onshore and offshore drilling, and apparently oil and natural gas are just bubbling up out of the ground and providing this. But, America, that's not the case. That's not the case. Gas prices are going up simply due to two factors--supply and demand. Those are the things that contribute to the price of a barrel of oil in the world. Supply and demand.

Now, I admit that world demand is up even while United States demand is lower than it was in 2008. World demand is up. So that's one factor. But the supply factor. Americans know that we are tremendously dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We've got the resources here in this country. If this administration will just get out of the way and allow us to harvest our natural resources, we would be energy independent.

But let me tell you what the administration apparently has as a policy goal, and this comes from the White House statement on the Keystone pipeline. The gentleman from Colorado has heard me say this--I think this is the fourth time--but America needs to hear it again because President Obama said this. He said:

Decisions here in Congress to force the decision on Keystone pipeline do ``not change my administration's commitment''--this is from the White House Web site, and I recommend you go look at it for yourself-- ``it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs''--and listen closely--``and reduces our dependence on oil.''

Now, at one time he was talking about these abundant supplies, this increased onshore and offshore drilling and production in this country. But yet his own words say ``commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.''

Now, when you first heard that, you thought, I agree with that. He wants to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and Middle Eastern oil, but no, no, no. That's not what he said. He said lessen our dependence on oil, period. Not foreign oil, not Middle Eastern oil, lessen our dependence on oil.

So you take that with his Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. Steven Chu, before he was appointed as Secretary of Energy in this country, said this: ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''

Now Europeans in England and Germany and France, they're paying $7, $8, $9 a gallon for gasoline. America, under these policies, that's where we're headed. Under the words of Steven Chu, the Energy Secretary, he said: ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''

It shouldn't surprise you that's what they want to do--lessen our dependence on oil, period. And that's propagating policies and giving money away to companies that supported him in his election campaign, companies like Solyndra, $535 million, gone, America, your tax dollars that I know you're working hard for every day.

In South Carolina, my constituents, they go to work every day. And they earn the hard-earned dollars. They go to work, and they're thinking when they're filling up their gas tank at $3.75 a gallon, $4 a gallon diesel fuel--I drive a diesel, so last week I couldn't fill my truck up, because I'm hurting just like other Americans, and how much I have to take out of my wallet to fill up my truck, and what I could use that money for in other ways, whether it's to take my family out to dinner or pay off some debt or do some things that we normally would do with that money, but now we're having to take more dollars out of our pockets to put fuel in our car to drive to work. And so Americans are thinking: How many hours of my workday on my job am I working just to pay for the gasoline I just paid to get to work and to get home?

Four dollars a gallon gasoline for diesel fuel, and America, think about this: Think about the farmers that are putting diesel fuel in their tractors to plant the food that you're going to buy

at the grocery store. Input cost. Input cost on the front end affects the price on the back end.

Mr. Chu, the Secretary of Energy, said this. He's calling for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over the next 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work. This European model where we'll all live close in town and we can walk to work or bicycle. That's the optimal thing in their eyes. We don't live that way here in America. We like our freedom. We like to get in our cars and drive ourselves to work. The policy of this administration is affecting what you pay at the pumps, and it's very clear using the President's own words about gasoline and about oil.

So we are seeing rising gasoline prices, and we've got the power to do something about that here in America. We have the capacity, the resources in this country that far exceed what's found in Saudi Arabia. Far exceed by hundreds of billions of barrels of oil more than what exists in the Saudi oil reserves here in this country. We've got them. We're buying a lot of oil from Canada. We talked about the Keystone pipeline. The gentleman from Colorado and I have talked about this numerous times. But instead of pursuing American energy independence, beyond that why can't we pursue maybe North American energy independence and buy from our largest and best trading partner, Canada, if our policies are going to keep us from drilling off our coast in South Carolina, or off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, places where there are proven reserves, and we've been pumping oil for a long time?

Or going onshore. North Dakota. North Dakota has an energy-driven economy. Their unemployment rate is 3 percent or less. They're pumping oil out of the Bakken oil fields there in North Dakota. President Obama is taking credit for increased oil production in North Dakota, but back up, because the oil that's being pumped out of the ground in North Dakota isn't on Federal land, and it isn't because of any policies of this administration. The permits were issued during the last administration and the one before that, and we're producing oil on State and private lands in North Dakota. It's not Federal lands; it's State lands. It's private lands. Unemployment is 3 percent. Good paying, long-term jobs, energy-driven economy in North Dakota.

But guess what? The Bakken oil field extends beyond the borders of North Dakota, and it goes into Montana and other States. Well, if you go across that artificial border between North Dakota and Montana into the same oil field known as Bakken, you're not going to find any energy production over in Montana. You know why? It's because it's on Federal land. And that Federal land has been off the table for energy production and energy exploration. But over where it's on State and private land, it's gangbusters. It's going gangbusters, 3 percent unemployment in North Dakota. That's a telling sign, America, on what you do when you go after your own resources and you produce American resources to meet our American energy needs.

I heard the gentleman from Colorado talk about an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and I've heard the President here at the State of the Union say the same thing. But, you know, in my opinion an all-of-the- above energy strategy says (a) first, we're going to take care of a proven technology of oil and natural gas to meet our immediate energy needs. And then we're going to continue to expand nuclear power in this country because it's proven, it's tried, and we can expand that.

I applaud the new permit in Georgia for a new reactor. We're going to have one very soon in my home State. It'll be the second in about 30 years where we've permitted a nuclear power plant to provide electricity to this country. But the President, he likes this global warming cap-and-trade scheme. And he says that under his plan of a cap- and-trade system, ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Electricity rates are going to skyrocket. Well, we've got the ability to build more nuclear power plants and permit those that are underway and provide good, stable electricity in this country. So all of the above includes oil and natural gas, energy exploration, offshore, onshore, where we have those resources, and expanding nuclear power plants in this country, looking at the things that are tried and true and allowing the free market, not your tax dollars, America, but the free market to determine the winners and losers with regard to green energy.

If it works, if it can be successful, I guarantee you, there are American investors and worldwide investors that would invest their own hard-earned dollars at their own personal choice to invest in that technology, and they will pick a winner because on the back side they're going to make a profit.

But that's not what's happening. This administration is taking your tax dollars, and they're making your investment decisions for you in companies like Solyndra. They're picking the winners. They're picking the losers. It's wrong. It's got to stop.

Gentleman from Colorado, that's a great example. I've never heard him talk about that. The administration talks about the exact opposite. They want us to pay for what Europeans pay for oil and natural gas. They want to see us move toward a green energy economy, and they want to create policies, tax policy and regulatory policies, that are going to force you, as Americans, to buy what they want you to buy, and that is an electric car.

If the gentleman will yield.

You're exactly right. These are about American jobs going overseas and American tax dollars going overseas, and American-earned income. Because, as I mentioned earlier, you're digging deeper into your wallet, taking out--instead of a $20 bill to fill up a gas tank, taking out a $100 bill. Americans know what they could do with the rest of that money, the difference there.

I get a little passionate about this issue, and I apologize to the ladies here in the Chamber that have to record what I say, but I'm not alone in this. America is passionate about this as well because they know we have the resources here and they know we can be energy independent and we wouldn't be giving money to Middle Eastern countries, who a lot of times don't like us maybe as well as the Canadians and other countries closer to home like us.

I spouted off some things about Federal land and State land and North Dakota and Montana a minute ago, so let me just tell you: in 2000, Federal oil production accounted for 32 percent of the total U.S. energy production. In 2010, after 2 years of the job-destroying Obama administration policies that I mentioned earlier, Federal production only accounts for 19 percent of the total U.S. oil production. That's an 11 percent decrease.

When I think about the year 2000, I think about some of our friends on the other side of the building, and John Kerry and some of these guys that said, you know what, if we decided to drill today and open up new lease areas and do energy exploration, whether it's the Outer Continental Shelf, it won't have any effect on the price at the pump for Americans because it takes about 10 years for that to come online and start producing oil. But, hey guys, that was 10 years ago. What impact would those policies of drilling in ANWR or off the Outer Continental Shelf or more onshore production, what impact would that have had on the price you pay at the pump today?

I think we've got to get serious about American energy exploration and production here. The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. We need to take that step today. I'll tell you, the House Republicans have done that with numerous job-creating, energy- production bills that have passed out of this Chamber that are languishing in the abyss known as the United States Senate--that's failed to pass a budget for our country in 1,036 days, that's failed to take up American energy-independence bills, job-creating bills that we passed out of this Chamber.

So energy production is down on Federal lands, and the Obama administration is taking credit for increased production and saying we've opened up new offshore areas. But the data I have says there's less offshore acreage open for energy exploration and production now than when President Obama took office when nearly 100 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf was opened up under the Bush administration. They lifted the moratorium for energy exploration, let alone production.

Listen, I served for 18 months on what was known then, under the Mineral Mining Services of the Department of the Interior, the OCS, or Outer Continental Shelf, 5-year Planning Subcommittee where we looked at the next 5-year plan for this country on what areas we were going to open up offshore. What areas were available for us to even talk about were small grid squares in the western Gulf of Mexico, nothing in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, nothing in the Atlantic Ocean, nothing off the coast of California, nothing off the coast of Alaska except for another small square.

This was prior to the latter years of the Bush administration when he decided, you know what, American energy independence means we need to open up the Outer Continental Shelf and really see what's out there and begin energy production. But the 5-year plan we looked at looked at these grid squares, and we were going to recommend a lease/sell, where we were going to offer leases to those areas, to the energy companies so they could go out there and explore and produce those resources.

Well, the Obama administration has taken a lot of that off the table. They haven't created a new 5-year plan. They're going to say they just came out with a new one, but I believe it's just all for looks.

The total onshore acreage--I was talking about offshore--but the total onshore acreage leased under the Obama administration in 2009 and 2010 is the lowest in over two decades. We're not talking about ultra- Deep Horizon accident-type offshore production.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Energy production might be up in this country, but it has nothing to do with the policies of this administration. It goes back to the previous administration that said, you know what, we're going to open up Bakken because the geological survey found a ton of oil reserves there. In your home State, the oil shale in the Rocky Mountains, Colorado, could be the next Saudi Arabia if we were to allow onshore production for oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. I know the gentleman from Colorado probably wants to talk about the oil shales of Colorado.

You're exactly right.

You know, we had a tragic accident. Nobody is running from the fact that Deepwater Horizon was very tragic in the Gulf of Mexico, and we'll learn from that. The oil companies, energy production companies will learn from that. But during that moratorium under the Obama administration--and then later he said he lifted the moratorium, but there was a de facto moratorium because they were failing to issue leases and permits for continued drilling out there.

For companies that already invested billions of dollars in purchasing the rights to those lease areas to explore for energy and produce energy, they were languishing out there, waiting on

the drilling permits to come back from Washington. The Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior were slow-walking these permits. And so at some point in time those energy companies said, you know what, we're going to drag those drilling platforms out of the Gulf of Mexico.

They towed them to the shore offshore of Brazil, to the seas offshore Brazil and the seas offshore of Africa. Today, they are drilling for energy in other countries. And we had them here in the Gulf of Mexico producing American energy to lower the price at the pump for American consumers. It's very expensive to get those drilling platforms back to the gulf.

And so, as tragic as Horizon was, we learned from it. The Obama administration issued a moratorium to stop that drilling. Then they said, well, we're going to end the moratorium. But then when they failed to issue the leases, it's really a moratorium, it's instituting their policies. And it's going to be very difficult for us to get that production level back in the Gulf of Mexico because it's expensive for those companies to bring those rigs back.

Before do you that, can I just remind you that Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along that same line, said, there can be no national security without energy security. There can be no national security without energy security. That's a wake-up call, America.

Will the gentleman yield?

I've gotten Facebook posts. I've gotten phone calls in our office encouraging just that, for the President to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to help lessen the price at the pump.

But let me just tell America that it was during the 1970s oil embargo that I remember, as a small child, that Congress created this huge 727 million-barrel reserve that was intended for national security emergencies.

Before President Obama tapped the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, back in June of 2011, the reserve had previously only been tapped once for war, the other to combat a natural disaster, and the third time, quite similarly, for political opportunism. And the examples are this:

President Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, the first Bush, used the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, during Operation Desert Storm because we were going to war over there and he was afraid that would disrupt Middle Eastern supplies, and so he tapped those reserves just to make sure Americans didn't suffer because of our actions over there in Operation Desert Storm.

And then in 2005 we had, down along the gulf coast, which is a tremendous energy production area, in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, we had a little thing called Hurricane Katrina that came through and really disrupted supplies in the Gulf States and did a lot of damage there. And President George W. Bush opened up the strategic reserves to lessen the price at the pump for Americans because we knew there was going to be some supply disruptions.

So we had a natural disaster, and we had a war.

But then in 2000, just another example, President Clinton opened up the supply under the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right before a campaign, right before the Bush-Gore campaign. There wasn't any natural disaster. There wasn't a hurricane bearing down on us. We were not going to war. He was trying to stabilize the market to help him in a political game.

And then we see President Obama, in June of 2011, do the same thing. Instead of focusing on American jobs and American energy production and a long-term energy policy, they're playing games with tapping the strategic reserves which have an intended purpose, and that intended purpose is not to bring the price down at the pump. It's to stabilize the American economy in case of war or in case of a natural disaster.

Now, we've got these reserves sitting there, and we've got a lot of middle eastern unrest with what's going on in Iran and Iran cutting England and Germany or England and France, one of the European countries, off from any oil. It's actually a reverse embargo, where Iran's not going to ship oil to some friendly countries in Europe. And

so we're seeing this volatility due to the unrest in Iran.

Shouldn't we, as America, keep that oil in reserve just in case there's a problem over there? Maybe--who knows, maybe there's further disruptions, Strait of Hormuz issue. Strategic reserves are there for a stated purpose, not for political gains.

That's too much common sense.

A Band-Aid, so to speak.

The gentleman from Colorado has been a stalwart and a leader in energy, American energy independence, as a leader of the House Energy Action Team. We call it HEAT, H-E-A-T.

Let me just tell America, if you want to find out some of these details, some of the facts that we've laid out for you in black and white, you can go to the Web site for House Energy Action Team, under the House GOP Web site, and find this data out. We're putting it out there for you. We're not shying away from it. We're not. We're providing this information for you Americans to make informed decisions to understand that these energy bills we pass through the House, they have merit and they would have results if we could get the Senate to take them up, and let's have a true comprehensive energy policy for this country that focuses on American energy independence, that does things right for you Americans to lessen the price that you're paying at the pump, to lessen the price that you're paying on your electricity bill every month.

House Energy Action Team is focused on this. The gentleman from Colorado is a leader on that. Our caucus and our conference is a leader on that.

Mr. Speaker, a year or two ago, some local bureaucrat in Oregon shut down a 7-year-old girl's lemonade stand because she had not paid the $120 required to get a restaurant license. The bureaucrat's supervisor defended the action because some government officials will never admit a mistake. Fortunately, elected officials got the action rescinded and let the little girl operate her lemonade stand.

I thought about this when I heard that Big Brother had struck once again

by not allowing a 4-year-old girl in North Carolina to eat the lunch she had brought to school from home because supposedly it did not meet Federal guidelines. The little girl had brought a very healthy lunch: a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, chips, and apple juice. Instead, she ate three chicken nuggets apparently okayed by the government, and the school sent a bill for the lunch to her mother.

This is the Big Government nanny state run amuck. This was not only ridiculous and excessive, it was cruel to tell a 4-year-old child the lunch her mother had sent was bad or not proper. Plus, the little girl went home hungry.

We seem to have, Mr. Speaker, a government of, by, and for the bureaucrats instead of one that is of, by, and for the people.

I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership on this issue, not only on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, but also as a leader on the House Energy Action Team, someone that understands that there is no national security without energy security. It's been said many times by not only Members of Congress but by leaders from all across the administration, this administration and past, and so it's something I firmly believe in.

Let me remind the American people that just recently the President of the United States decided that he was going to kill the Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline that would come from our friends to the north in Canada, where technology has allowed them to harvest the oil from the oil sands in Alberta and bring that crude oil down to refining capacity that we have here in this country. That's why the Keystone XL pipeline was so crucial. Not only would we be buying oil from a country that likes us, our largest and best trading partner, Canada, but we would also be bringing oil to the refineries in the Gulf States, the refineries in Oklahoma, the refineries in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas that have the capacity due to the policy of this administration creating a moratorium on expanded offshore drilling in the United States and the moratorium and poor policies that have kept us from harvesting American resources to meet American energy needs.

I believe in American energy security and American energy independence and lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil, lessening our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, a lot of times from countries that don't like us very much; but let me read you the President's own words when he decided that he was going to kill the Keystone XL pipeline, when he was going to kill the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would have been saved and created--true--not only shovel-ready jobs, Mr. Speaker, but jobs that exist today in the refineries in the Gulf Coast States; so not only kill those jobs, but hurt American energy independence.

Outside of having American energy independence, why not North American energy independence? Why not trade with Canada? But this is the President's own words. He said: I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Not reduces our dependence on foreign oil, not reduces our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, but listen clearly, the President said: lessen our dependence on oil. That is the policy of this administration, to end our dependence on oil and promote green energy; to throw your tax dollars at companies like Solyndra instead of relying on the free market to pick the winners and the losers, allowing what works to work and what doesn't to fall by the wayside and allow American ingenuity and American entrepreneurism to chase the things that work and throw their investment dollars, personal investment dollars, into the technologies that they believe in, the free market, the investors believe in.

Instead of doing that, he took your tax dollars, America. He decided that he was going to pick winners for you and he was going to invest those dollars in companies like Solyndra and many others. As the weeks unfold, we'll realize that your tax dollars were invested in companies that you wouldn't have invested in yourselves because you would have made smart decisions. America can make smart decisions. That's what makes us great. But his own words said that he wants to reduce our dependence on oil.

I go back to Secretary Chu, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, in his own words, that he thinks we ought to be paying the same for gasoline as those in Europe are paying, $8-, $9-a-gallon gasoline. And trust me, we're headed there. Last month was the most expensive January ever for retail gasoline as prices averaged out at $3.37 a gallon, according to the Oil Price Information Service in New Jersey. That's compared with the previous record average for the month of January that was $3.09\1/2\ cents a gallon, and that was set last year. In 2010, January gasoline prices averaged just $2.71 a gallon.

It's the policies of this administration and its moratorium on us harvesting American resources. We're not talking just about offshore oil in the deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Alaska. We're not talking about just ANWR and it being off limits. We're talking about the Bakken oil fields. We're talking about oil reserves on Federal lands that are currently off-limits from American energy development and American energy production.

But guess what? That same Bakken oil field spills over into North Dakota. That Bakken oil field is on State-owned and private-owned property. And you know what? North Dakota has a 3 percent or less unemployment rate. It's an energy economy that is booming because it's on State and Federal land. And they said, hey, come harvest our oil resources.

North Dakota is thriving on an energy economy, and you'll hear from the gentleman from Texas momentarily. They will show you in Texas and Oklahoma and other States that had energy that you're seeing an energy economy thrive.

But that's not the policies of this administration. The policy of this administration is to chase green energy jobs, to chase wind power and solar power and promote it in areas that really it shouldn't be promoted. So, let me just say one other thing, that President Obama is definitely being misleading when he's talking about that 75 percent of our offshore resources are open. The real number should be in acres.

Listen to this: of the 1.76 billion acres on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, only 38 million acres, or a mere 2.16 percent, is actually leased for energy development. North America possesses 1.79 trillion barrels in recoverable resources, enough oil to fuel every passenger car in the United States for 430 years; more than six times approved reserves in Saudi Arabia. In the last 30 years we produced over 150 percent of our approved resources.

But let me talk just quickly about jobs, because when the attack from the administration is on Big Oil and on the oil industry and natural gas industry that's trying to help with American energy independence, the attack's just not on big oil companies that are harvesting and exploring and producing oil offshore in the western Gulf of Mexico. That image may be conjured up as we talk about that.

But it's the attack on the jobs. If you think about an oil platform that's out there drilling for oil, you're thinking about an oil production platform that's out there producing the oil after the oil well's drilled. And we put a moratorium in place, and we say we're not going to do anymore of that; we're going to cancel all the lease sales, and keep in mind, it takes years to plan the next lease sale.

I was on the 5-year planning subcommittee that dealt with that, and I know that it's a multi-year process before the first lease sale happens; and when that lease sale happens, oil companies have to drag those rigs out there. They've got to first figure out where that oil might be on that grid square that they just leased, and then they've got to bring the drilling platform out there and they've got to drill that well, ofttimes going many miles down into the Earth's surface to find the oil, and to decide whether it's recoverable, whether there's enough resources there for them to plant a platform and start producing that oil. That's a multi-year process.

But set that aside a minute. When we have a moratorium on that process, here's what happens. It's not just Big Oil and the oil companies that are penalized in that. It's the guys that work on those drilling rigs out there in the Gulf of Mexico. It's also the guys that take them supplies, their diesel fuel to run their generators, their food, to transfer the men back and forth that are doing the work from on shore out there to those facilities. It's the companies that manufacture the pipe and the casing that support that industry.

And as Jeff Landry will tell you, Louisiana's economy is hurting. It's hurting not because of Big Oil hurting; it's hurting because of the little guys back home that don't get to supply that pipe. They don't get to thread that pipe and fit that pipe. They don't get to weld, and they don't get to service that industry. They don't get the opportunity to go out there and work on those rigs. They don't get to take that drilling mud out there.

You know, it takes a lot of effort to go out into the Gulf of Mexico and actually start harvesting those natural resources. And it's the little guy back home that is now bankrupt because his small company that provided the welding necessary for the piping, he doesn't have that work now.

And so the Gulf Coast States, due to the President's moratorium out there, not only lost the revenue that they would get from the royalties of offshore drilling that other States would benefit from as well. As a side note, if we allowed more drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf on the eastern coast and off the coast of Alaska. But it's the little guy. Louisiana is not getting the revenue.

And then the guys that are being put out of work that are providing the welding and the pipe fitting and the pipe itself and the offshore industries, they're not able to work either. And so they're drawing unemployment benefits, which further cramps the strained budgets of the Gulf Coast States. So they're drawing unemployment benefits. They're not paying taxes, so the State revenues in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas are strained because they're not receiving those tax revenues.

They're not receiving the corporate revenues from thriving energy- based companies that are providing jobs and payroll and paying into unemployment and providing corporate tax returns. It is a tremendous trickle-down effect when we stop harvesting resources. It's a tremendous trickle-down effect to those gulf states' economies.

But I will tell you, in South Carolina, when my constituents have to pay more and more of their hard-earned dollars to put fuel in their vehicles, whether it's gasoline or diesel fuel in their vehicle to go to work, and they've got to think about that first hour that they're working just went to pay the gas that it took them to get there; when they're digging deeper into that wallet to take out money to buy more and more gasoline just to go earn the money that they're going to turn around and use to buy the gasoline, it's a vicious cycle.

We've got the ability, gentleman from Colorado, we've got the ability to lower gas prices in this country. And I simply look at natural gas, and the prices have come down in natural gas because we found an abundance of it in this country. We found new technology that allows us to harvest those natural gas resources, as you'll hear from the gentleman from New York later, when he talks about the Marcellus gas shelf and harvesting natural gas in New York and Pennsylvania.

But we also talk about Oklahoma and natural gas there. We have an abundance of natural gas. We've seen the price go down. Even in an adverse regulatory climate, even in an adverse tax climate that we've got in this economy under this administration, natural gas prices have gone down because there's two factors that affect pricing of any commodity: supply and demand.

Now, world demand is down. World demand is down on a lot of things because we have a bad economy. But the number one driver for natural gas in this country is supply. The supply is going out the roof. We're an exporter of natural gas. America is sitting on the reserves to be energy independent and to provide other parts of the world with the natural resources that we've been blessed with here in this country.

So America needs to realize that the policies of this administration are keeping this country from harvesting its resources and being truly energy independent and providing the good-paying, long-term energy- sector jobs.

And if you're looking for a job, America, I recommend you go to one of these energy-producing States, whether it's Oklahoma or Texas or even to North Dakota, where the unemployment rate is 3 percent or less, where you can earn up to $70,000 a year driving a water truck, if that's any indication of the good-paying jobs that are out there.

Energy as a segue to job creation is the answer to get us out of this economy.

Madam Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 3581, which will bring better accountability and transparency to our budget process.

I would also note, Madam Chair, that many loan programs that are impacted by this legislation have an excellent history of loan repayment, most notably the Rural Utilities Service loans that electric co-ops like the ones in my district have used for years. Some of these loan programs have provided a positive return on the taxpayers investments, making more for the taxpayers than was at risk while allowing rural co-ops the ability to expand services in underserved areas. I hope that while we achieve much greater accountability and transparency for taxpayers as a result of this legislation, especially as it relates to Freddie and Fannie, we ensure that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water and hurt our rural utilities and their customers.

I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me to have a little time to talk about this.

Canada is our largest and best trading partner. A good friend of mine was an ambassador to Canada, and I had the opportunity up there to talk with him about this issue and why it's important to the United States. Why Keystone XL pipeline? How about the refining capacity we've got in the gulf? How about the refining jobs that would be provided in a very hard-hit, post-Horizon gulf State economy?

The gentleman from Texas was very clear. They understand in Texas, as they do in North Dakota, that energy is a segue to job creation. If you look at the unemployment rate in Texas or in North Dakota, North Dakota has 3 percent unemployment. If you're looking for a job in this country, America, go to North Dakota. There are good-paying energy jobs right there today, and if we can get Keystone XL pipeline to be a reality, we'll have good-paying, long-term jobs in the refineries in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and in all the places that we're going.

What I would like to talk about are the President's own words. He said in his statement--and this is from the White House's Web site-- that the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact.

Now, how long has this been going on that they've been doing the environmental impact assessment that you talked so brilliantly about? I came to Congress last year. This was going on well before I came here. A rushed assessment? Under the Obama administration, with an $800 billion stimulus package and an unprecedented growth in government, don't you think that we had the personnel in the Department of Energy to deal with this and to do the assessment in a timely manner in order to approve a pipeline that would provide, not only American energy independence, but North American energy independence? This would be buying oil and natural gas from our largest and best trading partner, our friends in Canada, and providing good-paying jobs in America.

I want America to listen to what the President also said in his own statement. He said that he was disappointed that Republicans focused on this decision. We should focus on this decision. This is about American energy independence, and it's about jobs. Yet he goes on to say, But it does not change my mind, and this administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs--and listen closely--and reduces our dependence on oil. Period. It's not reducing our dependence on foreign oil; it's not reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and on oil from countries that oftentimes don't like us very much. It's the lessening of our dependence on oil. Period.

That is the dynamic that is driving this administration's policies, and America needs to know that. These resources don't belong to President Obama. They belong to the American people, and it's time we step up to the plate and we use energy as a segue to job creation in this country. We trade with trading partners that like us, friendly trading partners within our own hemisphere. It's North American energy independence, and the Keystone XL pipeline is the answer to putting Americans back to work.

Mr. Speaker, all around the Hill today, you will see Members of Congress wearing a red button, ``1,000 Days,'' a reminder that it has been 1,000 days since the United States Senate has passed a budget for the United States of America; 1,000 days of acting irresponsibly.

I want to pause and tell you that last year on January 8, just 3 days after being sworn in as a new United States Congressman, we were informed of the tragic incident that happened in Arizona; and I want to let the gentlewoman from Arizona, Gabby Giffords, know that I'm going to be honored that she will be on the floor with us today. The prayers of my family and of the members of the South Carolina delegation and our State go out to her and her family and the folks in Arizona that she represents every day, and we will continue to do that long after her service to this country.

Mr. Speaker, this week is National School Choice Week. All across our country, students and families are rallying for National School Choice Week, a grassroots campaign dedicated to the idea that all students, regardless of background, should have the opportunity to choose the school that most effectively motivates them to learn. For too long, we have made increases in spending and new standards from Washington our focus, which have, sadly, strangled our parents' and teachers' ability to help our students succeed.

Now, with that, I want to give a shout-out to the Nation's teachers who have to deal every day with complying with the mandates that come from Washington, D.C., while they struggle to educate the children of our country. Instead of propelling them to success, the United States has fallen to 14th in

the world in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math, compared to other countries, according to the 2009 edition of the Program for International Student Assessment. Those numbers are astonishing.

As proud Americans, we will not accept the consequences of failure, of letting our children fall behind the rest of the world. Parents are demanding results in education for their children; and Washington should listen to their message, which is, simply: We know how to reform education in our States; get Washington out of the way and watch us succeed.

Education should be returned to the States, the local communities, and to parents, just where our Founding Fathers left it when they designed this great government.

This is the reality we face: Our country, the United States of America, stormed the beaches of Normandy. We raised the flag over Iwo Jima. We fought for and won the freedom of other nations all around the globe. We ventured into space and landed the human race on the Moon. We inspired the collapse of the Berlin Wall. But before all of this, we invented the lightbulb, the automobile, the television, the telephone, discovered the art and science of flying.

Our inventions, though, are not as much the reason for our greatness as they are the result of it, because at the very beginning, at our founding, we declared to the world this belief: ``that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.''

The truth in that Declaration reminds us that our people will succeed and prosper, and our students will learn and achieve when we preserve the liberty of every parent to choose the educational environment that's best for their children. And if we do so, imagine how our children will lead the world through another century marked by the rise of freedom and the innovation that freedom inspires.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to end by echoing the words of Mr. Jones from earlier when he said: May God bless the men and women in uniform, may God bless their families, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 98 denying this President the trillion-dollar draw on the Nation's line of credit. You know, just because you've got the credit limit that you've asked for doesn't mean you have to max out the credit card.

How dare this President come back for another increase in the Nation's debt after the failure of the supercommittee. How dare he. This President did everything he could and successfully stopped the committee from producing any kind of cut to the size and scope of government, and now he wants to kick the can further down the road yet again. Another year, another trillion dollars in debt, Mr. Speaker.

What has this administration done to stop the deficit spending that fuels the debt and brings about the need for an increase in the debt ceiling? Nothing. Mr. Speaker, this administration has done absolutely nothing to rein in this Federal Government.

This is the same President whose party controls the other body. And on Tuesday, the United States Senate will mark 1,000 days since they last passed a budget, the same day the President delivers his State of the Union address. What an embarrassment, to continuously ask for more debt without even pretending to know how you've budgeted. If this were a private business, it would be bankrupt.

This President and, sadly, this Congress continues to mortgage the futures of our children and grandchildren, drowning them in a sea of debt. After the failed policy of the President's stimulus package, we are swimming in deficit spending of this President's making.

Mr. Speaker, our country stands over $15 trillion in debt, and after this increase we'll be over $16 trillion in the red. Congratulations. We've now joined the club of nations whose national debt is larger than our annual national economic output. This is simply an unsustainable position, and the only way we will get our debt under control is to stop the insanity of trillion dollar a year deficit spending. This must stop, and we in this House must be the responsible adults in the room to stop it. Now is not the time to go get another increase in the limit. Now is the time for us to cut up the credit card and buckle down, like millions of American families are doing across this great land. In an economy this difficult, American families have had to tighten their belts, get back to basics, and cut things from their budget. Surely now is the time for the Federal Government to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the politics here. We'll thump our chests and we'll pass this resolution and we'll say we've done all we can to stop this increase. The other body, led by a party bent on destroying the American dream and taking us down the path of economic ruin to ever-greater government dependency, will table this. In the end, the President will get his increase. And we'll spend yet another trillion dollars that our children do not have. But the bill is coming due, Mr. Speaker, and sooner or later we're going to have to stop this debt train from derailing our country. God bless America.

There are but two points I want to bring up in support of the bill before us today.

Thomas Jefferson said this: ``A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.''

I believe that America works better when hardworking Americans keep

more of the money that they earn, keep more of their paycheck. That's why I support the payroll tax cut provision in this bill.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, is this: the administration can be for jobs, or the administration can support a radical environmentalist policy. Mr. Speaker, I believe that they are mutually exclusive and you cannot support both.

The Keystone pipeline is a segue to job creation in this Nation. You remember the jobs created in the 1970s with the Alaskan pipeline? I do. The Keystone pipeline will create both construction jobs and long-term jobs as our Nation refines the hydrocarbons into energy products here in American refineries. Failure not to do this means the possibility that this Canadian oil will be refined in and used by China.

Today, we can pursue North American energy independence by partnering with our closest ally and largest trading partner, Canada. Or we can continue the same failed policies of this administration which lead to higher prices at the pump for Americans and the continuation of sending dollars overseas for Middle Eastern oil.

This bill cuts taxes, it reduces spending, it ends the regulatory quagmire for American businesses and provides a path forward for American energy security.

I support its passage, and I ask that God will continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I joined millions of Americans in celebrating Thanksgiving with friends and family. As Americans, each of us has so much to be thankful for this holiday season.

America is the greatest, most free country in the history of the world. As a Nation, we can do anything we set out to accomplish. We have built the world's most free and successful Republic right here in America. We've used innovation to cure disease, fight hunger, and spread the message of freedom all across the globe.

We've changed the way societies interact by inventing things like the telephone, the automobile, and the airplane. We've built some of the finest schools and universities in the history of the planet. We've changed our world for the better, but none of it would have been possible without the grace and blessing of our Almighty God.

That's why I was both surprised and disappointed that President Obama failed to make a single reference to God during his Thanksgiving address to the Nation. Since the President has a history of doing this sort of thing, it's hard to believe that this was simply an oversight on his part. Perhaps this glaring omission was an attempt at being politically correct. But regardless of the intention, there is no excuse for once again leaving out the One on whom the foundation of our liberties rest.

What did our Founding Fathers say in the Declaration of Independence? Not that our rights come from governments, but rather that our rights come directly from God.

As the Apostle Paul said, ``In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.''

We should never pass up an opportunity to thank the Lord for the blessings he has bestowed upon our great Nation.

I know the specter of political correctness looms over our country more than ever before. There's a lot of pressure from elements within our society to censor public comments about faith in Jesus Christ. Groups like the ACLU seek to drive God out of our schools and our classrooms. Universities are discouraged from praying before graduation and athletic events.

Some shopping malls and radio stations would rather play Christmas music only about Santa Claus, and never mention the reason for the season, Jesus Christ. Seeking guidance from the Lord through prayer and thanking Him for the blessings He has given our Nation is something our country should do more of, not less.

Praying and giving thanks to God for all blessing was the example set for us by the first settlers who came to America for religious freedom. Times were tough for them. They endured bitterly cold winters, food shortages, and plagues. The early settlers faced insurmountable odds, but they kept the faith, persevered, and later thrived, leading to the formation of this great Nation.

General George Washington, who went on to become our first President, was known for frequently stopping whatever he was doing and getting down on one knee to seek guidance from the Lord, and to praise Him for the blessings that were given his troops.

Here in this building there's a chapel where Members of Congress can go to pray for our country. And in that chapel there is a beautiful stained glass window, depicting our first President, George Washington, in his colonial uniform, frozen, kneeling in prayer. That chapel should be a reminder for all of us that our country's faith should be nothing to hide, but rather something to embrace and protect. And that image of George Washington in prayer should be a reminder that our leaders need to seek wisdom of the Lord whenever possible.

For the past several weeks, former Heisman Trophy winner and current starting quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Tim Tebow, has come under fire for publicly professing his faith. Facing mounting criticism from the media, from sports commentators, and even some of his own teammates, Tim Tebow gave the following response to

reporters, a response that I believe perfectly explains how our country should recognize God.

Quarterback Tebow said this: ``If you're married and you really love your wife, is it good enough only to say to your wife 'I love her' the day you get married? Or should you tell her every single day when you wake up and every opportunity?

``My relationship with Jesus Christ is the most important thing in my life. So any time I get the opportunity to tell Him that I love Him, or given the opportunity to shout Him out on national TV, I'm going to take that opportunity. And so I look at it as a relationship that I have with Him that I want to give Him the honor and the glory any time I have the opportunity.''

Tim Tebow's brave comments are an excellent reminder that we need to look for every opportunity to thank the Lord for our blessings of liberty that He's bestowed upon this great country.

May God forgive this Nation of its sins, may He overlook the times we forget to thank Him for His gifts, may our people turn to Him for guidance and salvation, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

I simply ask: Are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago?

I say not.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to discuss the most important issue that we will take up this year, and that is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

For much too long, Congress has allowed mountains of debt to pile upon our children and our grandchildren. We are in debt to the tune of $15 trillion, and we continue to spend each year in excess of $1 trillion more than we are bringing in.

In the short time that I have been a Member of Congress, it is evident to me that Washington will never voluntarily make the significant cuts to spending. That's why we need to pass a balanced budget amendment, which would force Washington to do what families and small businesses do each and every year: live within their means and stop the spending insanity. It's common sense not spending more than you have; but maybe that's too simple for those who gain some sort of power by providing services that our Nation cannot afford and by spending money that we don't have.

A balanced budget amendment: the right bill at the right time for America to regain control of its finances.