Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as the price of crude oil again moves past $100 a barrel, it is another reminder of the high cost of our energy policy that increases our dependence on foreign countries, kills jobs, and raises energy costs. Every time the Federal Government imposes a moratorium or new regulations, as it did on drilling in the gulf and now the Keystone pipeline, it hurts the American people.

Despite 60 years of a spotless safety record, excellent State regulation and monitoring, approval for safety by the EPA and creation of inexpensive energy sources, hydrofracking for oil and natural gas is under attack by the Department of the Interior.

What is the expected outcome?

Look at what the administration has done to coal, offshore drilling and the Keystone pipeline, not to mention the fact that we have not built a nuclear energy plant or a new refinery for decades due to over- regulation.

Hydrofracking of oil and natural gas will inevitably be pushed into red tape, higher cost of production and lower yield, again, hurting America through high energy costs and fewer jobs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I've listened carefully to the debate today, and I've listened to the other side.

Mr. Speaker, this body is hopelessly addicted to excessive spending and budget deficits--hopelessly. On the other side, those who argue that we should not have a balanced budget

amendment are hopelessly in denial, just like drug addicts are in denial about their addictions. We have 535 Members, if you include the Senate, who compete with one another to see how much money we can spend, and we have an executive branch that does the same. Republican or Democrat--it doesn't matter--we all do the same thing. There is absolutely no control--or governor, if you will--on our excessive spending.

Let's put this in perspective.

In the 235 years since the founding of this great country, we have added $10.6 trillion to the national debt. In the 2\1/2\ years of this Presidency, we have increased that by 50 percent, an addition of $5 trillion. We just passed the $15 trillion debt level. At the current rate--and this is not just a projection; this is set in stone--by the end of the first term of President Obama's, we will have increased the national debt by 70 percent. This is just in that one term of 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot do this based on our willingness to balance the budget. We are incapable of doing that. We are addicted to spending. We are in denial about this, and it's time that we do something. I stand in support of H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Frankly, I would like to see a more restrictive form, a more severe form that controls the possibility of added taxes, but I will vote for this.

Just in closing, I would like to say that it does some wonderful things.

It prohibits a debt increase without a three-fourths vote, and it requires the President to submit a balanced budget each year. Our Senate over there has yet to pass a budget resolution in 3 years. It also provides for a waiver in a time of war.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I ask for regular order. This is ridiculous.

In conclusion, let me say, when I talk about our being addicted to spending, I'm talking about everyone in Congress and the executive branch. I am not pointing fingers at any one group of people. I will say that those who are unwilling to do something about it, by supporting a balanced budget amendment, are in a clear state of denial.

Mr. Speaker, since early 2009, there have consistently been at least 13.5 million Americans unemployed. Every month for more than 2\1/2\ years, millions of people have been looking for full-time jobs, and they have been waiting. They waited through months of debate over a health care bill that will cost jobs. They waited through a financial services bill that will cost jobs. They waited through bailouts and stimulus bills and debates over raising taxes, all of which will cost jobs. They waited while the House passed 15 big job- creating bills. Now the President says, We can't wait; I must go it alone.

Mr. Speaker, that's why Republicans have passed the many bills to help this country's job creators, bills to lessen the regulatory burden on businesses, to encourage domestic energy production, and to halt the spending spree in Washington that robs money from the job creators. Now the President and the Democrat-controlled Senate need to finally act on many of those bills that we have already passed and that will turn this economy around. We ask that you act immediately.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his work on this bill and his lifelong career in protecting life.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, would accomplish two important things: It would remove funding for abortion and abortion coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and it would extend the conscience protections to pro-life doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other health care facilities who object to destroying the lives of unborn children.

Madam Speaker, I've been a doctor for 36 years, father of four, grandfather of two, and I can tell you that the taking of innocent life is not health care. It is not health care. Having said that, this country is still divided on whether or not a woman should have the right to take an unborn infant. However, the country is not divided on the issue for who should pay for it--and that issue is taxpayers. Two to one, Americans say taxpayers should not be footing the bill. And that's what this is about, as well as the conscience clause.

This protection is critical for pro-life and religious health care providers and entities. EMTALA, which is part of the discussion here, requires that health care providers such as myself must take care of women and must take care of their infants, unborn or otherwise.

And so I say to you, Madam Speaker, today, this bill protects life and it does not require taxpayers to foot the bill for those who choose to take innocent life.

Madam Speaker, instead of President Obama's no-jobs plan, which is just more of the same, I'd like to give my 2 cents worth on what it takes to create jobs right here in America. Why? Because I know what it's like to take a risk and open a business, to hire someone and make a payroll.

Putting a moratorium on all new regulations would be a good start. Repealing the job-killing ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank financial reform laws--which are actually no reform at all and are already decimating our economy--and putting forth a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. If President Obama adopted these approaches, immediately capital would start flowing, which would then create jobs.

What we can no longer afford are the current, Big Government, socialist policies that will only put us further into debt and hurt job creation.

I have created hundreds of jobs in my district in Louisiana. How many jobs has the President created in his 2\1/2\

years? I would say net negative on that.

I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hail from Louisiana, which of course is a very big part of what this section 121 is about and certainly what the amendment is about. Just bringing everyone back, we had the Deepwater Horizon spill, which was a tragic situation which has hurt Louisiana in several ways, one being, of course, oil in the water. That's obvious. But then, of course, the many jobs that have been lost.

Going back over history, what we found is that in response to this the President brought together 10 experts to determine whether or not drilling should be stopped in deep water off the shores of Louisiana-- in the Gulf of Mexico, in fact. This board of experts came together and said, no, that should not happen. We should continue forward. We can solve this problem. We can prevent it from happening. Nonetheless, the President came out and said, no, let's shut down drilling.

Well, when that didn't work, the President and Secretary Salazar slapped a moratorium on drilling. Then there were lawsuits. Then we had a de facto moratorium. Then we had a permitorium after there was a stay placed by a judge. Today, we have what I would call a ``slowitorium'' on permits and leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.

So it's very clear what's going on is the fact that even though the administration can't get the courts to stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, even though the other side can't advance legislation, they're trying to do it administratively by slowing the process down. So all we ask, the people of Louisiana, is some transparency on this issue.

Section 121 does some very simple things. It just says the Secretary of the Interior shall log and track the specific reasons for BOEMRE returning to an applicant without approval any exploration plan, development and production plan, development operations, coordination document, or application, et cetera, et cetera.

We're getting reports continuously from drillers, from contractors who are out there trying to drill, that they put in applications. Weeks, months go by; they hear nothing. Finally, they get it back and an ``i'' was not dotted, so now they've got to start the process all over again.

So all we're asking is that integrity be brought back into this process, that there be accountability back into this process.

And the gentleman is absolutely right. We do want to get drilling back up in the Gulf of Mexico. We were at a peak of 1.7 million barrels a day before this incident. It has dropped now to 1.59 million barrels a day. And it's going to continue to drop because we have a process in which permits and leasing are still way off track. They're not back to the levels they were. And production is going to net down. As a result of that, we're going to continue to see oil and gas prices going up.

So despite what is coming out of the Secretary of the Interior, drilling and production is not up; it's down. And it's continuing down and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future until we get the permits and the leases back up.

I certainly suggest, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues and I should oppose this amendment. We do need to have transparency and accountability in BOEMRE when it comes to offshore drilling

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, I would just suggest that we're still well off pace. And accountability is not going to be a factor in that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

A little over a year ago, the GAO reported alarming findings at the ENERGY STAR program, a joint EPA and DOE program designed to save American consumers money on their utility bills. Although well intentioned, I have concerns that the ENERGY STAR program is leveraging hard-earned tax dollars and the trust of the American people for a program that lacks oversight, could still be subject to fraud and abuse, and one that would be better administered by the private sector.

I have the report here in my hand. In March 2010, the report indicates that the GAO released its report, documenting that the program was mainly a self-certification program without much oversight or accountability. In fact, according to the report, GAO created several fictitious companies without any relevant products on the market that easily became ENERGY STAR manufacturing partners. This new status granted these groups unlimited access to ENERGY STAR logos and promotional resources, and GAO was also able to obtain certification for 15 bogus products, including a gas-powered alarm clock and a ``room cleaner'' which was incredulously a feather duster taped to a space heater. Prior to approving these items, EPA failed to review any additional materials, including Web sites and self-incriminating pictures.

My amendment will simply reduce the Environmental Programs and Management account within EPA by $48,206,000, with the intent of removing the EPA's portion of funding for the ENERGY STAR program. The savings from my amendment will be added to the spending reduction account.

Mr. Chairman, the ENERGY STAR program, created in 1992, enables companies and manufacturers to voluntarily label qualifying and EPA- approved household products and goods such as air conditioners, refrigerators,

computers, and light bulbs, et cetera. ENERGY STAR also grants energy- efficient labeling for home improvements and businesses. ENERGY STAR labeling encourages consumers to purchase such products and make home improvements in order to be more energy efficient, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and save money on utility bills, all very good value- oriented ideas and concepts.

It is my belief that the Federal program should not be paying anything for the ENERGY STAR program, however. Rather, this program would be better served as a private entity, saving the taxpayers millions of dollars each year. There are several good examples of well- respected, well-run independent private sector initiatives, including the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, an internationally recognized green building certification system; Consumers Union, an expert independent nonprofit organization which publishes the widely acclaimed Consumer Reports; and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., UL, a global independent safety science company offering expertise in five areas, including product safety and environment.

These are just a few examples of nongovernment, nontaxpayer-funded entities that understand that if you don't do a good job, they will lose credibility. Not as much can be said for the ENERGY STAR program.

Americans rely heavily on this program and look to purchase household products with the ENERGY STAR label. Companies use the EPA-approved logo to market products. The Federal Government and several States offer tax credits to those who purchase ENERGY STAR products, and Federal agencies are required to use certain ENERGY STAR-approved products.

The ENERGY STAR program continues to receive millions of dollars, including approximately $300 million through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill, and $48 million in the underlying legislation. It's time for the Federal Government to allow the private sector to take over and to stop funding programs riddled with loopholes that investigators need to point out before the EPA institutes systematic changes.

So in summary, Mr. Chairman, we could well afford to save $48 million, and we have plenty of good models where private entities have been doing a much better job for a much longer time. I ask others to support this amendment. This is good for not only energy savings but is a money-saving idea. Let's turn it over to the private sector. They do a much better job.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I don't disagree with the gentleman's comments. It's a good program, although it has been a flawed program. Hopefully, it's been improved.

My point is that this could be better done in the private sector, a fee or whatever paid directly to whatever private entity out there that would be nonprofit for this. Why should the taxpayers have to subsidize it? That's really the issue here.

Will the gentleman yield?

There are plenty of private sector oversight organizations. And again, UL: No appliance ever goes to market now without a UL stamp, and again, that's done through a private entity. So, again, it's a great program. Don't get me wrong. I just don't see where taxpayers should be funding that. We can do much better through the private sector.

Offered by Mr. Fleming

Amendment No. 76: Page 65, line 19, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $48,206,000)''.

Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $48,206,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, but for the President of the United States who serves today and a Democrat-controlled Congress over the last 2 years, we wouldn't be here today debating this; $3.8 trillion added to our debt and continuing on that same glidepath.

Mr. Speaker, we're here today because people across America-- businesses, cities, States--all have to balance their budgets. The only game in this country, the only entity that doesn't have to balance its budget is the Federal Government, and that's what has ruined our economy.

So all we're asking for in this bill is simply to immediately cut $111 million in fiscal 2012; begin capping our spending rates, bringing it down to what's traditional, 18 percent; and then, finally, passing a balanced budget amendment that will finally put the restraints on this body, on the President of the United States, and certainly on the Senate, finally, so we will begin doing the people's work and allow this economy to flourish once again.

Mr. Speaker, just moments ago this body passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill. Today we stand at a crossroads that will define our Nation's financial security for generations. Republicans, we have a plan that cuts the Federal budget, caps Federal spending, and balances the Federal budget with a constitutional amendment so we do not have this problem in perpetuity.

Democrats, well, there is no plan, no plan to bring this country back to financial sanity. Yet my colleagues on the left continue to criticize the House Republican plan. In all the time my colleagues on the Democrat side have been attacking the House Republican plan, they could have come up with one of their own. Even the President talks about his plan; yet he has yet to produce one. This shows once again a complete failure of leadership by President Obama and congressional Democrats.

The American people spoke loudly and clearly in the 2010 elections: They want Federal spending cut. It's that simple. Let's follow through and not let the American people down.

Madam Speaker, I have three simple words for President Obama and congressional Democrats: cut, cap, and balance. Last week when our Campaigner in Chief held his news conference, he asked for a plan.

Well, Mr. President, cut, cap and balance is our plan. It's a plan that cuts Federal spending immediately, puts in place enforceable spending caps, and demands a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This plan cuts total spending by $111 billion in 2012 and around $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years, while not increasing taxes one single penny. We have too much debt because we spend too much, not because we haven't taxed you enough.

Mr. President, you asked for a plan and here it is. It's your turn to get serious and work with us to solve this problem--not against us. Stop demagoging this issue with cheap scare tactics and politics because the American people are tired of it and deserve much better.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 575 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Holt

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of two Louisiana soldiers from Fort Polk who recently died in Logar province, Afghanistan, during Operation Enduring Freedom. Staff Sergeant Michael Garcia of Bossier City and Sergeant Christopher Soderlund of Pineville, Louisiana, made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives in service to this Nation.

It is at this point that important decisions involving the defense of our Nation become most personal. Instead of thinking in abstract terms like casualties, weapons, equipment, we are confronted with the reality that these are not just soldiers; they are in fact our friends, our neighbors, our sons, fathers, brothers.

Staff Sergeant Garcia and Sergeant Soderlund represented the very best America has to offer. Their contribution serves as an enduring reminder to all Americans that the freedoms and liberties we hold so dear are afforded to us only by those who wear the uniform and the loved ones who support them.

Let us pause today to remember the sacrifice these brave soldiers made on behalf of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, enough with the backroom dealing on the debt ceiling. The debate has continued for months behind closed doors in the proverbial ``smoke-filled room'' with nothing to show for the effort. As a congressman, why should I be forced to peruse cable stations and blog sites for information on the discussions--and then be asked to vote for the deal when I have no input and no time to know even what's in it?

Let's pull back the shades and open the window. Let's put the sunlight and fresh air on this discussion. Should we cut spending? Should we reform entitlements? Should we have a balanced budget amendment?

Mr. Speaker, let Congress do its job and put the debate right here on the floor. Let's do this in the people's House for everyone to see. This will be the way the people and their choice come to fruition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Ohio, which would restore a modest 20 percent of over $1.1 billion in funding this bill cuts from the defense activities of the Department of Energy, which ensures the safety, security and reliability of our Nation's nuclear weapons.

The FY12 Energy and Water appropriations bill sharply reduces overall funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration from the President's budget request by more than 10 percent, or $1.1 billion, while increasing funding for Army Corps of Engineers water projects by 4 percent above the budget request. This is in addition to the $1 billion plus-up in emergency supplemental disaster relief added to the bill for the Mississippi River flooding.

As a Member who represents Louisiana, I can appreciate how critical funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is, but we have to consider those

priorities in light of the vital need to maintain our national security which since the end of World War II has rested on the strength of our strategic nuclear deterrent.

The reductions set forth in this measure would significantly impact NNSA's ability to implement the goals and policies established in the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and our Nation's nuclear modernization plans. Most concerning is a $498 million cut that this bill makes to the Weapons Activity account which provides the necessary technical support to ensure safety, security and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

This bill also places at risk the timely replacement of Cold War-era nuclear infrastructure, specifically the construction of the Nation's plutonium capability at Los Alamos--the Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Facility, which is cut by $100 million out of the $300 million necessary for the FY12 activities.

Mr. Chairman, at a time when major defense spending cuts are on the horizon, we can ill afford to undercut our Nation's last line of defense, which has always been our nuclear deterrent.

I strongly urge support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve to know the truth when it comes to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's involvement in crafting a defense of ObamaCare during her tenure as Solicitor General for President Obama. This is why I, along with 48 of my House colleagues, am calling for an investigation into the extent of Justice Kagan's involvement in defending ObamaCare and if it warrants her recusal from any and all ObamaCare cases that may come before the High Court.

It is imperative for Americans to have confidence in the impartiality of the Supreme Court. Americans have a legitimate right to know the truth about Elena Kagan's involvement in ObamaCare.

How can any reasonable person believe that she can be impartial when a case involving ObamaCare comes before the High Court? Furthermore, the U.S. Code, section 455, title 28, says she must recuse herself.