Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment to H.R. 2017. My amendment simply cuts $600,000 from the Office of the Under Secretary in the Department of Homeland Security and places those funds in the deficit reduction account.

During this economic emergency, we must find cuts wherever we can, especially when a Department is not being a good steward of the funding that Congress provides it.

If you look at this bill, the Secretary is being allocated nearly $127 million, of which $6 million goes to the Office of Legislative Affairs. I think the American people would agree with me that $6 million is a lot of money for political appointees who refuse to do their job and participate in the oversight process.

On several occasions this year, Mr. Chairman, the Department has either refused to sit on the same panel as other witnesses or has outright refused to appear before various House committees and subcommittees. In fact, as chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, I held a hearing on behavioral science and security with the goal of understanding how science informed the development of TSA's SPOT program.

The Department refused my request for a witness from TSA for their own program, and I'm not the only chairman who has received such shabby and unacceptable treatment. This pattern of arrogance makes fulfilling our oversight responsibilities of the executive branch very difficult, if not impossible.

In the end, it's the American people, Mr. Chairman, who lose if its government cannot perform its most basic constitutional responsibilities. If the Department is not going to meet its obligations of appearing before Congress when requested, it is prudent to apply the funds rescinded in this, my amendment, to more constructive uses such as reducing our deficit.

If 10 percent is good enough for the Lord, I think the Office of Legislative Affairs can part with 10 percent of their funding to aid in our efforts of reducing the burden of debt on our children and grandchildren.

I can think of no higher priority than reducing the deficit and creating jobs in America. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $600,000)''.

Page 92, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $600,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, it is long past time that we stop rewarding irresponsibility. If we continue to give the Democrat administration everything that they ask for, they will never learn fiscal discipline or how to control their outrageous spending.

Taxpayers do not want to write the administration yet another blank check out of their own checkbooks, only to see it bounce and further worsen our economy, along with job creation. Americans have said loudly and clearly that they want serious spending cuts, and I will not support raising the debt ceiling unless this liberal administration begins to practice some self-control.

Madam Chairman, as record high gas prices are causing American families to suffer in their daily routines, like buying groceries at the grocery store and driving to work each morning, it is inexcusable that this liberal administration continues to turn its back on the problem. Just last month, Americans spent around $368 on average just to fill their tanks, about the same amount a family would spend on groceries for 2 weeks. Yet the Democrats' only solution to the pain at the pump is to raise taxes on domestic oil producers, and they've already admitted that it will not lower gas prices.

I fully support H.R. 1231, a real proposal which would lift the President's ban on offshore drilling and get the ball rolling on domestic energy production. I urge my Democrat colleagues to pass this bill because both our cars and our economy should be running on American resources, not on their empty promises. Pass this bill to create American jobs and a strong American economy.

Thank you, Mr. Pearce. I appreciate your yielding me some time. Let me go forward with what Mr. Thompson was just saying and what you were just commenting on about prosperity.

Just today, I had a businessman in my office relaying to me a conversation he had with one of the liberal Democrat Senators, and he was talking about the issues that concerned him and his business. She was arguing over and over again about how government needs to do all the regulatory constraints on business and how businesses need to be taxed higher, and it's not fair for businesses to be making money at the levels that they are. In fact, just today, we saw some of our Democratic colleagues talk about the oil companies and the kind of money that they have been making with increased prices of gasoline. Finally, in frustration, this Democrat Senator said to this businessman: All you're concerned about is profit. You just want to make a profit.

Well, that's what business does. It makes a profit for its shareholders. If it's a corporation, it makes a profit for small businesses.

The policies of this administration, the policies that we've seen from our Democratic colleagues when Nancy Pelosi was running the House, now with Harry Reid running the Senate, and certainly the Obama administration, they're trying to destroy profits. They're trying to destroy our economy, in my opinion.

In fact, the President, himself, has said that he doesn't mind seeing gasoline prices go up as long as they go up incrementally. He doesn't want to see the massive increases, but as long as they keep going up. His own Energy Secretary, Dr. Chu, fairly recently said somehow we have to find a way to make gasoline in the United States at the same price that it is in Europe, which is roughly $8 a gallon today. The policies of this administration are doing just exactly that.

Today, in the Science, Space and Technology Committee, we were talking about fracking. The EPA scientist that is studying fracking admitted that there has not been one single incident--not one--where fracking has been implicated in contaminating drinking water. Not one.

But I believe this administration is doing everything it can to try to destroy energy production in this country and to try to destroy the free enterprise system. In fact, the President, himself, said that if his policies go into effect, to use his own words, energy prices will ``necessarily skyrocket.''

Well, who's going to be hurt? Who's going to be hurt when fuel prices go up and food prices go up, not only gasoline and diesel fuel?

I was talking to a manager in a restaurant just last week in Athens, Georgia, and was asking him about his food prices in his restaurant and what is going on because of the high cost of gasoline. He said his suppliers are adding a fuel surcharge onto the cost of the foods that he's buying and selling in his restaurant. And it's the policies of this administration that are doing that.

Just yesterday, I had a constituent of mine who's an egg producer in Georgia come in and talk about some of the issues that he faces. I am from Georgia. I'm a good southerner, and I love my grits and cornbread. For folks who are not southerners, grits are made from corn. Cornbread, obviously, that's self-explanatory where that comes from. I think even Yankees will know that cornbread comes from corn, too. The thing is that I, as a good southerner, cannot see driving down the road, burning up my grits and cornbread in the fuel tank of my GMC Yukon that I used as my office, actually, when I was making house calls as a medical doctor.

I hear our Democratic colleagues talk about we need to remove the subsidies for the oil companies. Well, the American people need to know that those subsidies are actually tax credits. They're not true subsidies as such. In fact, Harry Reid was recently wanting a subsidy for gold mining in his own State of Nevada. He also wanted us to continue funding the cowboy poetry festival in his home State.

We've got to stop spending these outrageous funds that the Federal Government has been spending, and we need to start creating jobs in a strong economy. The best way to do that is to get rid of the policies of this administration that are destroying jobs, destroying our economy, increasing the cost of gas and diesel fuel for farmers and everybody in this country.

But back to my egg producer friend. I've got a chart here that we made up in our office, a dozen eggs in Georgia. We have the subsidies-- which are really not subsidies for the oil companies; they're just tax credits. But we have subsidies for ethanol production, which are true subsidies. Our administration has tried to pick winners and losers. One of the winners that they picked is the ethanol production.

That's been a total failure, and what that has done is increase the cost of gasoline. It's increased the cost of food across this country too. In fact, the major ingredient in feed for chickens is corn. Corn, when I when I was farming back a number of years ago, was $2.50 a bushel. Now it's approaching $8 a bushel. In 2005, before this ethanol subsidy, the total feed cost per dozen eggs--so when a consumer goes out and buys a dozen eggs--the food cost in that dozen eggs was 21 cents per dozen of eggs. Now, 2011, it's approximately 52 cents per dozen.

So who pays for that? Does the egg producer? No, it's the consumer. When

you go to the grocery store and buy a dozen eggs, you're paying more money for the failed policies of this administration, particularly when it has to do with energy.

If we start drilling for oil, tapping into our natural gas supplies, start producing coal, particularly doing the clean coal technology that we have, having an all-of-the-above energy policy, what's going to be the long-term outcome for the American consumer? For every single American, it's going to lower the cost of eggs and milk and bread because it's going to lower the cost of the production of all the foodstuffs. Every single good and service in this country is affected by these high costs of gasoline and fuel oil, diesel fuel, et cetera. The people who are going to be hurt the most are the poor people, those on limited incomes, our senior citizens.

I hear over and over again our Democrat colleagues say that Republicans are in the back pockets of Big Oil. Wrong. I would like to see us end all subsidies, all of them, but particularly the ethanol subsidy, which has not made any sense whatsoever. And let's start developing our own energy resources, which will create jobs here in America.

Just yesterday and today, we've been debating three bills that came out of our Natural Resources Committee. Those three bills will enable us to start tapping into the God-given energy resources that we have in this country, help us to be less dependent upon foreign sources for energy. If the President will ever sign those three bills into law, the short-term effect, I think it's been estimated, is that 200,000 new jobs are going to be created. So 200,000 new jobs will be created just with those three bills, just to be able to open up developing our own energy resources here in America that the President is blocking. Long term those three bills, it's estimated, will create 1.2 million new jobs here in the United States, American jobs, and help create a stronger economy.

The failed energy policies of this administration are hurting job creation. They are hurting our economy. They're raising the cost of gasoline. They're raising the cost of diesel fuel. They're raising the cost of fuel oil. They're going to hurt egg producers and thus egg consumers, consumers of all goods and services. Your food costs are going to go up. The cost of every good and service in this country is going to go up all because of the failed policies of this administration because we cannot develop our own energy resources, our God-given resources, that we have in this country. I submit if a nation is not energy independent, it's not a secure nation. And that's where we are today. We've got to become energy independent. And how is that going to happen?

Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen one time said when he feels the heat, he sees the light. The most powerful political force in America is embodied in the first three words of the U.S. Constitution: We the people. When we the people start contacting Members of Congress, particularly the Democrat Members of the House, and the Members of the U.S. Senate, and demand that we develop our own energy resources here in America, that we have an all-of-the-above energy policy that looks at everything--nuclear energy, alternative sources, clean coal, oil, gas--everything, which we must do, and that's what Republicans are fighting for, if enough people all over this country will contact their Senators and their Members of Congress and say, let's develop our own energy resources, let's develop American jobs, let's develop a strong economy here in America, then we can do so. But it's up to we the people to be able to demand that from your elected Representatives.

Thank you, Mr. Pearce, for yielding to me. I appreciate the great job you're doing as chairman of the Western Caucus, and I'm honored to be a part of that caucus.

Before I close, I encourage people to go on my Web site, broun.house.gov, and they can actually look at all the things on this chart. They can look at it in fine detail and understand how high energy costs are creating high prices for eggs in the grocery store.

Thank you, Mr. Pearce.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately in what has become a time-honored tradition, the President and my Democratic colleagues that are here in Congress find it more convenient and politically expedient to make targets of energy companies. These are companies who invest their own capital and resources to increase our country's energy supply and the security of our Nation. They want nothing more than to operate in a free market environment without excessive government regulations.

However, in a move to deflect the spotlight from this administration's own failings and the Democrat Party's own failings and their incompetent policies, this administration and many in Congress find it easier to attack the success of the energy companies than to actually confront the challenges that we face, often espousing policies to increase government interference in the marketplace that do more harm than good.

Recently, companies like Koch Industries, which employs more than 10,000 people in my home State of Georgia, contributing more than $700 million to our State's economy, along with tens of millions in community and environmental philanthropic efforts, have come under attack by several Democrats in this body and this administration just because Koch's work provides for an easy red meat target to throw to their radical environmental friends. It's also a sad state of affairs when other energy companies actually post a positive profit report, even though most of these profits go back into more energy exploration as well as clean energy development. I'm also sure that you won't hear many attacks on how those profits help boost the retirement accounts of millions of Americans and put more into our struggling economy than any government stimulus program has or could.

According to the new Washington Post/ABC News survey out today, more than seven in 10 Americans are suffering financial hardship from the skyrocketing gas prices. In fact, we've got a chart here tonight, the first one in a series. This is the gas price, the average retail price in America when Barack Obama took office. The average price at that time was $1.84 per gallon just as recently as January of 2009, a little over 2 years ago. Look what's happened. As of April 25 of this year, the average price per gallon was $3.88. The average price 2 years ago was $1.84; now it is $3.88, $2 higher, over twice. It's over double in just a 2-year period of time.

Gas prices don't just affect the price at the pump. I was talking to a Member just a few minutes ago. She was telling me that she just fueled her pickup truck, and it cost her over $100 to fill the gas tank of her pickup truck. She and her husband own a ranch. They are active ranchers out west. Never before has she had to pay $100 to fill the tank of her vehicle, and I filled the tank of mine, and it was almost $90 in my GMC Yukon that I've used to make house calls as a medical doctor. This is unsustainable.

Our gas prices impact our grocery bills, job opportunities, travel plans, and thousands of other decisions that businesses and families make. In fact, according to an analyst from Cameron Hanover, every penny increase in the price of gas costs consumers, American citizens, consumers, more than $4 million per day. A one-penny increase costs consumers over $4 million per day. And, folks, who are hurt the most by this? The people who are hurt the most are poor people and people who are on limited incomes, our senior citizens.

As the cost of fuel and gas and oil go up because of the misplaced policies of this administration, this winter, fuel prices are going to be out of the roof. In fact, the President said while we were talking about his cap-and-trade bill not long ago, he said that energy prices, to use the President's words, ``would necessarily skyrocket'' for his policies. ``Necessarily skyrocket.'' Under President Obama, the cost of energy has skyrocketed. That's what he has said in a national speech.

The national average price of gasoline, as I just mentioned, was $1.84 when President Obama took office. Today it is $3.96. Rising gasoline prices are hurting families and small businesses. They are costing jobs. In fact, I just talked to a manager of a restaurant in my hometown of Athens, Georgia, just this last weekend. He was telling me that when he orders food for his restaurant, his suppliers are adding a fuel surcharge, a fuel surcharge onto the cost of groceries, food for his restaurant. That's happening in all the grocery stores, and that's happening all across this country. It's threatening our economy and our economic recovery.

While the new House majority is taking steps to address gas prices and help create jobs with the American Energy Initiative, the Obama administration's anti-energy policies are driving up prices, and they are threatening our economy by blocking American energy production. We have had a 16 percent decrease in American energy production under this administration. It is 16 percent lower than it was projected to be. Future projections show continued decreases in domestic production and more and more reliance upon foreign imports for our energy sources, particularly for gas and oil. We're getting those energy resources from countries that hate us, that hate our American free enterprise system, that hate the liberty we have here in this country.

More than a 200,000-barrel-per-day decrease in Gulf Coast energy production, this is according to the Energy Information Administration's March 2011

short-term energy outlook. Production from the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 barrels per day in 2011 and a further 200,000 barrels per day in 2012. A reduction. And 27 billion barrels of oil are under lock and key in Alaska. According to a recent FOX News report, the EPA's refusal to grant permits for energy production in Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf has limited access to an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. With Alaskan oil production already decreasing by 7 percent annually, continued delays could force the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to shut down.

What's that going to do to our cost of gasoline, heating oil, natural gas and all of our other energy sources? What's that going to do to the cost of food? It's all going to skyrocket.

More than 40 American energy projects have been stalled by this administration. As the House Natural Resources Committee notes, 10 months after the Obama administration's official moratorium on American energy ended, over 40 projects remain stalled, and people are left without work. This administration's energy policy is killing jobs in the Gulf Coast, as well as all over this country. We're sending American jobs overseas. Twelve rigs have already left the Gulf.

Before we change, let me go to this quote here from Michael Bromwich, the Chief Regulator of U.S. offshore drilling. Even if we permitted the hell out of everything tomorrow, every pending permit, some permits that haven't even been filed yet, it would not have a material effect on gas prices, Bromwich said. That's the simple, clear reality.

The simple clear truth, the simple truth is Michael Bromwich is absolutely wrong. And, in fact, as soon as the first drill bit starts hitting dirt or ocean floor, you will see oil prices plummet in this country, in my opinion. Why? Because OPEC will get a message that we're going to produce our own energy resources here in America.

Mr. Speaker, I submit any country that is not energy independent, if it cannot produce its own energy resources, if it cannot produce its own food and its own clothing, is not a secure Nation. And the American people need to know that we are not a secure Nation today, and it's because of policies of this administration that are making us less secure. We need to go in the opposite direction of the direction we're going today, that this administration's taking us.

According to James W. Noe, Executive Director of the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition, at least 12 offshore rigs have already departed the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in a significant and precipitous reduction in domestic employment and energy production.

In January, the moratorium forced seven oil rigs to abandon the Gulf and head overseas, costing American jobs and forcing the U.S. to import more foreign oil. These rigs have left. You see where they've gone. Nigeria, Egypt, the Congo, Brazil, French Guyana. They won't be coming back. Thousands of American jobs left with them. In fact, as many as 12,000 American jobs have been lost, and more than 36,000 jobs are at risk.

I hear my Democrat colleagues talking about it's jobs, jobs, jobs. In fact, we heard that just today in the Science Committee. One of my Democratic colleagues talked about jobs are the number one issue. Well, she's absolutely right. But it's her party's policies that are running jobs overseas. It's this administration's policies that are making these rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico and go to Nigeria and Egypt and Congo and Brazil, French Guyana.

According to the study at Louisiana State University, monetary economist, Dr. Joseph Mason, the Obama administration's de facto ban, and it is a ban, he says he's lifted the moratorium but they're not putting out the permits. It's a de facto ban on American energy production, could cost as many as 24,532 jobs in the Gulf Coast and 36,137 jobs nationwide.

By the administration's own admission, the first 6 months of the official moratorium alone has resulted in as many as 12,000 American jobs have been lost. They're gone. They've left the Gulf Coast. They've gone to other areas. They've gone to produce energy, if you look at this chart, in the Middle East, in Africa, South America and Brazil.

In fact, the President just sent billions of dollars to Brazil for them to produce their energy and create Brazilian jobs at the cost of American energy and American jobs. It makes no sense, absolutely no sense.

Recently, in a trip to Brazil in March, President Obama pledged to help with technology and support to develop the Brazilian oil reserves so that America could become one of Brazil's, quoting Barack Obama himself, Brazil's best customers. He wants us to become Brazil's best customer.

How about those American jobs that he is killing and his administration is killing?

His Energy Secretary, Dr. Chu, a couple of years ago said, we have to find some way to make gasoline prices in America the same as they are in Europe. We'll talk about that in a bit, and remind the American people that the President himself said that energy prices under his policies that he's promoting would necessarily skyrocket. He wants Americans' energy prices to skyrocket, putting people out of jobs, costing all these thousands of jobs, costing our economy millions and millions and trillions of dollars in all probability eventually. Certainly billions.

He just gave a loan to Brazil, $2 billion to produce jobs and produce oil in Brazil instead of producing oil in the Gulf Coast and off Alaska. And his EPA just denied any production off Alaska. It makes no sense.

According to stories from the Gulf Coast residents shared at a recent Natural Resources Committee hearing, the President's policies already are helping make good on his pledge, with one offshore boat company employee reporting that his employer is sending 100 vessels overseas to Brazil to keep them working, Brazilians working. With those transfers go many American jobs.

This administration's policies are destroying jobs. The Democrat Party policies under the former Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, the Majority Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, are destroying jobs, destroying our economy. And they want more of the same. They want more stimulus, more government, less American jobs in the private sector, less American energy production.

Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know very clearly, they need to know the simple truth. They deserve the truth; that the policies created by this administration, the policies created under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are building a bigger government but destroying our energy. They're building a bigger government, even higher prices for housing in Washington, D.C. to destroy jobs in the private sector all across the country. And their energy policies are going to harm the most vulnerable Americans, poor people, people on limited incomes, our senior citizens.

Recently, President Obama and Washington Democrats trotted out two blame-shifting strategies that Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to use in the past to deflect blame for their failed anti-energy policies.

Just last month, Democrats recycled their so-called ``use it or lose it'' argument that has already been debunked as nothing more than a hoax. It is political fodder that they are utilizing. And I have heard it in our Natural Resources Committee. I have heard it on the floor of the House. American people are sick and tired of this kind of political dialogue.

Americans are demanding all over this country, not only in the 10th District in Georgia, my district, not only in the State of Georgia, but Americans all over the country deserve for this Nation to be energy independent. They are crying out for energy independence.

The Carter administration established the Energy Department to make us energy independent as a Nation. The Department of Energy has failed miserably, failed miserably in that task, and has failed miserably in that task under both Democrat as well as Republican administrations.

Now, President Obama is trying to shift blame to oil speculators just as he did back in 2008. And this is in spite of the fact that, as Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin notes: It is the administration's own policies that are contributing to yet another drain on the wallets of average Americans.

The Washington Post has not been a particularly conservative newspaper that has promoted conservative policies. That is what Jennifer Rubin said: The administration's own policies are contributing to yet another drain on the wallets of average Americans. And she is absolutely correct in that assessment, and I commend her for saying so.

Earlier this month, the House passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act, H.R. 910, to stop the Obama administration from imposing a backdoor national energy tax that will further drive up gas prices. President Obama says he is going to veto that legislation, proving that he won't let skyrocketing gas prices get in the way of his administration's job- crushing anti-energy agenda regardless of the cost to American families and small businesses.

I have got a small business in the timber industry in Lincoln County, Georgia, and the owner of that business recently told me he parked all of his trucks because he cannot afford to put fuel in those trucks, and that has cost several jobs in Lincoln County. Lincoln County has an unemployment rate that is way, way higher than the national average. In fact, the State of Georgia's unemployment rate I think just recently was reported to be over 10 percent.

This administration's anti-energy policies are crushing jobs, crushing small businesses, crushing family budgets, and it is anti- American. House Republicans are making strong efforts to create jobs and lower fuel prices in this country.

Recently, CNN did a poll. They found that seven in ten Americans support increased offshore drilling for oil and gas--seven in ten. I wonder about the other three in those ten. Forty-five percent strongly favor.

Here is the question. They asked how Americans feel about increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore U.S. borders, and here is how they responded: 45 percent said that they strongly favor us doing increased drilling for our own oil and gas in the gulf coast offshore, 24 percent mildly favor, 16 percent strongly oppose, and 15 percent mildly oppose.

Now, that 15 percent and 16 percent, I wonder if they have looked at their checkbook. I wonder if they have looked at the cost of bread and milk, cabbage and potatoes in their grocery store. Because the prices of those goods that we all depend upon when we go to the grocery store are markedly affected by the cost of gas and oil in this country.

Increasing American energy production will help create new jobs, and it addresses the rising gas prices. And Americans know it. The House is prepared to vote on legislation to boost offshore energy production.

As I said, seven in ten Americans support offshore drilling for our oil and natural gas. It belongs to us, it belongs to the American people, and we are being prohibited from tapping into that by this administration and the Democratic Party policy.

Implementing a comprehensive plan to build a more stable supply of petroleum from our own North American resources, along with reforms that end litigation, the endless litigation, and reveal policies that artificially inflate cost will provide immediate relief to the price of gasoline. The market knows that more energy means lower prices.

When President Bush removed the executive moratorium on offshore drilling in 2008, as a good example, crude oil futures by the speculators fell more than $9 almost immediately. It is not the speculators that are causing the rising cost of oil. It is not the speculators who are causing the rising cost to Americans when they go to fill their cars and pickup trucks. It is failed policies by the Obama administration, failed policies by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their cronies here in the House and in the Senate.

We can create good jobs. We can insulate the economy from energy price shocks by actively producing our own energy resources here in this country. And we can do that, we must do that, while we are good stewards of our environment, repealing Federal mandates and the prohibitions that artificially drive up the cost of gasoline and stopping the EPA's backdoor energy tax. They are trying to implement what I call tax-and-trade by EPA edict in a dictatorial manner when they could not pass that bill through Congress in the last Congress. And by halting the President's drilling permatorium, as some of us call it, it has been described, and unlocking our own energy resources that God has given us here in America both on- and offshore, all these will help alleviate the pain at the pump, the pain at the grocery store, the pain for every good and service, even the pain in the doctor's office and the pain of all the higher energy costs and the pain of all the increased costs of every good and service in this country.

Through the American Energy Initiative, House Republicans are actively working to increase American energy production in order to do a number of things: to lower the cost of gasoline, to create American jobs, to generate revenue to help reduce the debt and this deficit that's unsustainable, and to strengthen our national security by decreasing our dependence on foreign energy, particularly on foreign oil.

As I mentioned just a few minutes ago, I believe very firmly that, if a country is not energy independent, it is not a secure nation. We are not secure today. We must make America energy independent, and we do that by developing our own energy resources--all of our energy resources, not only oil and gas but coal. We need to develop clean coal technology. We need to look at alternative energy resources, such as wind and solar and waves, and all of those things. We need to have research and development on nuclear energy and on all of the things that are critical for us to be energy independent as a Nation.

Republican bills would create 250,000 jobs short term and 1.2 million jobs long term, according to Louisiana State University's Joseph Mason. We've got to create jobs, but the energy policies that this administration and our Democratic colleagues are promoting are killing jobs, not creating them. Republican policies want to create jobs.

Under the Republican bills that we have introduced, one of which is H.R. 1230, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, we would expand American energy production and create jobs by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico as well as offshore of Virginia that have been delayed and cancelled by the Obama administration.

H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, will end the Obama administration's de facto drilling moratorium in a safe, responsible and transparent manner, and it will put thousands of Americans back to work, increasing American energy production to help address the rise in gasoline prices that Americans are facing every single day. Every single day, we see gas prices jump.

H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act, will lift the President's ban on new offshore drilling by requiring the administration to move forward on American energy production in areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources.

Many organizations support the three bills I just mentioned: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Prosperity, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Limited Government, the National Federation of Independent Business, the 60 Plus Association, the American Trucking Association. I could go on and on and on. Gulf organizations are supporting the passage of the Outer Continental Shelf legislation, and I could list organization after organization.

I won't continue with those right now because I've been joined by a good friend who is stalwart on this issue and who, I think, has probably done as much or more than any other Republican Member of Congress to try to help make us energy independent as a Nation and to help us create jobs here in America.

My dear friend, John Shimkus, I yield to you.

Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. I appreciate it. And I appreciate your efforts over many Congresses since I have been here. I am in my third Congress, as you know. You have been a stalwart fighting this issue all along, and I appreciate the hard work you have done for the people in your district in Illinois and for this Nation. So thank you so much for what you have been doing.

I have also been joined tonight by another friend of mine who has been very active in this issue because he is from Louisiana. He has been on the floor many times talking about the moratorium and the permatorium that has been going on, as some have called it. This has cost people jobs in his home State of Louisiana.

I yield to my good friend Steve Scalise from New Orleans.

Mr. Speaker, the rules that were presented by Mr. Bishop from Utah from the Rules Committee are the two bills that Congressman Scalise was just talking about that will start forcing actually this administration to start letting out leases and helping us to develop our own energy resources here in America.

But I wanted to ask Mr. Scalise before he leaves, I am on three committees. I am on Natural Resources, I am on the House Homeland Security Committee, and I am also on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Just today in Science, Space, and Technology, I heard Democratic colleagues talk about the number one issue in America today. One lady said, it is jobs, jobs, jobs.

And I have heard it in my other two committees. I've heard that from Democrat after Democrat. I know the gentleman is on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the question I wanted to ask Mr. Scalise is, Have you heard in that committee, one of our eight committees--one of the most important committees dealing with energy production--have you heard that same mantra from our Democrats on Energy and Commerce? Has it been jobs that we need to be focusing upon?

Absolutely. In fact, I'm not a good lawyer--I'm not even a lawyer. I'm a medical doctor, as the gentleman knows. In law school they teach you not to ask a question if you don't know what the answer is. And I didn't know what your answer was going to be, but I felt sure you were going to answer the way you did, for the simple reason that we hear our colleagues on the other side, the Democrats, keep talking about wanting to create jobs. But their policies are destroying jobs--American jobs, private pay jobs. Their policies are developing bigger jobs, bigger government here in Washington, D.C., so much so that the only city in this country that real estate prices have not gone down is Washington, D.C. They've gone up.

Why? Because this administration, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their colleagues in the House and the Senate in the 111th Congress are creating bigger government, more regulations, more taxes, more attacks on jobs in the private sector, more attacks on small businesses, and it's creating a bigger government. Thus, higher real estate prices here in Washington because we've created government jobs. They claim about all the jobs created with the stimulus bill, et cetera, but it's government jobs is pretty much what we're creating.

We've got another problem. In fact, I introduced H.R. 1032, the RELIEF Act, because we have excessive and frivolous lawsuits against our own energy production and it has significantly delayed and in many cases prevented our

energy resources from reaching the American marketplace. H.R. 1032, the RELIEF Act, doesn't stop people from having their day in court. But what it would do is it would allow the environmental wackos that are trying to stop energy production here in this country from having this endless plethora of lawsuits that stop the permitting and stop the production.

What it would do is it would require that all lawsuits be filed within 60 days and that the courts would have to have a determination or solution to that case within 180 days, and that if the district court ruling was appealed, that it would go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court would have a ruling within another 180 days. It would also allow some relief from the frivolous lawsuits by allowing the prevailing party to be able to seek legal fees and other expenses under the Act. This is the kind of bill that we need to pass. I've been asking Members of Congress to cosponsor this because we need to pass this kind of legislation.

We hear from our colleagues, Let's stop the subsidies to the big oil companies with all their billions of dollars of profits. I would like to stop subsidies to everything, including ethanol, which has not made sense. I'm a good southern boy. I love my grits and cornbread. And it makes no sense to me to drive down the road burning up my grits and cornbread in my Yukon. It's destroying engines, it's destroying food prices, it's destroying jobs here in this country. We need to stop all of this. We need to start developing our own energy resources.

Mr. Speaker, what can the American people do? What American people can do is contact their Members of the Senate and the House and demand that we start producing American energy. America is not secure as a Nation because we're not energy secure. We've got to start developing our own energy resources here in America. All of them. We need to have an all-of-the-above energy policy. It's up to the American people to demand that from their Members of the House as well as the Senate.

Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen one time said when he feels the heat, he sees the light. The American people absolutely must contact their Senators and Congressmen to say: We need American energy. We've got to start developing our own energy resources--all of the American energy resources--coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear energy. Every single energy resource. It's absolutely critical. It's critical for us to lower the cost of American energy, lower the cost of groceries in the grocery store and in restaurants, lower the cost of all goods and services by lowering the cost of energy production, make us secure as a Nation. It's up to the American people to demand it from your Member of Congress, from both your U.S. Senators as well as U.S. House Member. If we get enough heat upon Members of Congress, particularly heat upon our Democratic colleagues in the House as well as our Democratic colleagues in the Senate, as well as the Obama administration, we can be a secure Nation, we can be energy independent. We must. And it's up to the American people to demand it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, America is facing some very perilous times because of the joblessness, because of the poor economy, because of the outrageous spending that's been going on for the last 2 years through the last Congress.

I come tonight, Mr. Speaker, to discuss something that I think is critically important for the American people to understand, because we've gotten away from what the Constitution says and what the original intent of the Constitution might be.

I've seen Member after Member, Mr. Speaker, hold up a copy of the Constitution. I carry a copy in my pocket. And they'll hold up a copy of the Constitution and talk about this being a living and breathing document. Nothing could be further from the truth in the philosophy of our Founding Fathers.

In fact, our Founding Fathers meant this to be a very solid foundation. The Declaration of Independence expresses the philosophy of liberty in America, and the Constitution is an embodiment of those principles into a governing document.

Mr. Speaker, if we don't have a solid foundation upon which to build all of our laws, all of our society, then we're building our society and laws on shifting sand. You can ask a 6-year-old, if you build a house or a building on shifting sand, what's going to happen? It's going to fall, it's going to fail. That's exactly what's happening in our country today, because we've gotten away from the original intent of the Constitution.

In Hosea 4:6, God says, ``My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.'' We have a tremendous lack of knowledge about the foundational principles, what our Founding Fathers meant for government to be. We have a tremendous lack of knowledge in this Nation even in Federal jurists, even in jurists sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, about the Constitution.

In fact, I was very shocked--as I got interested in politics, I started talking to lawyers who had gone to law schools all over this country. The majority of lawyers that I've spoken with--law schools, public and private all across this country, they all have a course called constitutional law. But the American public would be absolutely shocked to understand that lawyers, even when they take constitutional law--and in a lot of law schools it's an elective even--when they take constitutional law, they don't study the Constitution. All they study is case law, what the Federal court system has said about the Constitution.

And we've got Federal jurists all the way up to the Supreme Court, but in all levels, from Federal district courts to the appellate system all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, that bring down ruling after ruling that is not based upon the Constitution in its original intent. That philosophy leads to tyranny in all possibility.

Our Founding Fathers never meant this. In fact, if people would read the Constitution and read what our Founding Fathers said about the Constitution, they would understand that.

There's a great resource that talks about what our Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be. The architect of the Constitution, James Madison, John Jay, the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, and Alexander Hamilton, who was an ardent Federalist who believed in a strong Federal Government, wrote a series of essays. These essays were printed in the newspapers in New York State. They were written to tell New Yorkers about what government should be under the Constitution in its original intent.

They explained in minute detail what government should be not only then but 200, 400, 600 years later, because they knew very firmly, very strongly that if we didn't have that original intent and a strong, solid foundation of government, that we could lose our liberty. That's the reason they wanted us to stay with their intent in the Constitution.

They wrote these series of essays. Those essays have been bound together--this little booklet, ``The Federalist Papers,'' contains these essays. These essays were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay about the Constitution to explain the Constitution.

If people will get ``The Federalist Papers'' and read them, they will see how far off track we have gotten as a Nation. They will see that our Nation is being destroyed from within, being destroyed by a philosophy of big government, and this philosophy has been fostered upon us by Democrats and Republicans alike, by liberals and conservatives alike. We've got to change that.

Mr. Speaker, the only way that we're going to change governing here in the United States is not here in Washington, not here in the U.S. House of Representatives, not over across the way in the U.S. Senate, not down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. The only way we're going to change the philosophy of governance is if the grassroots, the good people across this Nation, start demanding a different kind of governance.

We've got to stop this outrageous spending. We've got to get our economy back on track. We've got to start creating jobs. What's made this country so rich, so powerful, so successful as a political experiment, the greatest political experiment in all of history, in all of mankind, is right here in the United States based on the Constitution of the United States in its original intent.

We have a tremendous lack of knowledge.

Now, ``The Federalist Papers'' in the old language, it's a bit difficult to read. Their style of writing, their style of English was a bit different from ours.

We've got another resource that I highly recommend, which is ``The Federalist Papers in Modern Language.'' A person can buy this off Amazon, they can get this in Barnes and Noble bookstores around the country. If they don't have it in stock, it can be ordered.

The editor, Mary Webster, got some folks to transliterate ``The Federalist Papers'' from old-style English into modern English. What ``transliterate'' means is to change one word in the old style to another word in the new style. This is not an editorialization of ``The Federalist Papers,'' it is not a commentary on ``The Federalist Papers.''

It's strictly a transliteration. In other words, it's changed from old- style English into new-style English. And that's all it's done.

People can go and read either ``The Federalist Papers'' in its original English form or ``The Federalist Papers in Modern Language,'' and can become knowledgeable.

We've got to light grassfires all across this country to demand a different kind of governance or we're going to destroy everything that our Founding Fathers have given us.

This Nation was built on personal responsibility and accountability. It was based on freedom and liberty. I use those words separately.

Let me explain ``liberty'' for you, give you a definition. I don't know if this is my original definition or not. I don't remember ever reading it anywhere. I haven't seen it when I've gone to look it up. I'm not claiming it as my own, though I don't know who wrote it, if someone did: Liberty. Liberty is freedom bridled by morality.

Liberty is freedom bridled by morality. You see, a wild bear is free. All the wild bear's constrained by is the instincts that our Creator put in a wild bear. It can go anywhere it wants to. A male wild bear will even kill its own cubs just to try to get to the sow, to breed her. He doesn't care about anybody else but himself. That sow will protect her cubs, but other than that she's free, and she chooses to do so by her instinct.

But absolute freedom is anarchy. It's anarchy. You see, if I am totally free, if I don't like somebody, I can just kill them. In fact, we see that by dictators around the world, historically as well as in present times. But you see, freedom bridled by morality, liberty, means that my freedom stops where another person's freedom starts. And we can come together and work in concert for the greater good, for the greater good of our families, our communities, our cities, our States, as well as our Nation.

This country was founded upon liberty, personal responsibility, and accountability. It's been so successful economically because it's been based on the free enterprise system. Free enterprise. Free enterprise is the engine that pulls along the train of economic prosperity here in America. But we're destroying that.

Our President has a philosophy that I believe is totally against free enterprise. A lot of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, believe the Federal Government ought to control virtually every aspect of our lives. George W. Bush was a big-spending, big-government President. He gave us No Child Left Behind, which has been a disaster. I call it Leave No Teacher Unshackled. We've got to get the shackles off teachers, let the local school boards run the education system, not by a Federal Department of Education, or I don't even think by a State Department of Education. But the States have the right to do that constitutionally.

The most powerful political force in America today is embodied in the first three words of the U.S. Constitution: ``We the people.'' And if we the people will become knowledgeable about the Constitution and about the Founding Fathers' philosophy of government, the philosophy of liberty and freedom, the philosophy of a free enterprise system, a philosophy of individual responsibility and individual accountability, then we can put this country back on the right course by the American people demanding their freedom back. We've lost a lot of it. A tremendous amount of freedom has been lost. We're losing our liberty, and we have a government that has taken away our freedoms.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.''

Tonight I am going to talk about one little phrase in this Preamble. It's also in another place in the Constitution. I'm going to talk about the general welfare clause. We'll come back on another night, and I am going to talk about the commerce clause. And then we'll talk also about the elastic clause, and the Bill of Rights, and other parts of the Constitution.

But three phrases out of the Constitution have been utilized to pervert the idea behind the Constitution, to destroy its original intent, to cause us to continue to lose liberty here in America. The general welfare clause is one of those. You see, Congress has strayed from the clear-cut path, the certainty and liberty that our Founding Fathers outlined in the most basic and fundamental document to ever exist, and that's our Constitution.

The single most important part of this revered document is embodied in those first three words, because we are supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Abraham Lincoln said. Our government's purpose is to protect and preserve freedom and liberties of we, the people. Government is supposed to be governing at the consent of the people, not the people being dealt with at the consent of the government.

Yet nowadays it seems as though the Federal Government has inserted itself into almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives, monitoring what kind of health care we can have, bailing out the automobile industry, and regulating the education standards. Just a few examples of the Federal Government's hand's overreach into things where it should not go.

Mr. Speaker, over time it's become the norm for the Federal Government to keep expanding in both size and scope by absorbing powers and rights that were intended for the States and the people. In fact, in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it says if a right is not specifically given to the Federal Government by the Constitution, in other words these things that are in article I, section 8, as well as a few others, but these are the things we can pass laws about, if it's not prohibited from the States, then those rights are reserved for the States and the people.

One of my primary goals while serving here in Washington is to send these powers back to the States and to the people and to ensure that, do everything that I can to ensure that the Constitution is applied as the Founding Fathers intended. I will work very hard to try to build those bridges, to send those powers back to the States and people. These are the powers created in article I, section 8.

The necessary and proper clause, the so-called elastic clause, allows Congress to pass laws about these other things; but this is all the Federal Government, all the House and the Senate is supposed to be passing laws about. Now, we have some say in the courts, we have some say with the executive branch, but these are the things that Congress is supposed to be passing laws about, and nothing else. Nothing else but these things.

Well, the general welfare clause is one of the most commonly abused and misapplied powers that the Federal Government has utilized to expand the size and scope of government and to destroy our liberty. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, clause 1: ``The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.'' This is the second place, I mentioned just a few minutes before, in the Preamble our Founding Fathers mentioned general welfare.

Here it is in article I, section 8, clause 1, the general welfare.

This clause generated the most debate during our Founding Fathers' period because the term ``general welfare'' is vague and leaves much room for interpretation. Now we hear judges talk about interpreting the Constitution. Judges shouldn't be interpreting the Constitution. Words make a difference. And when we use the word ``interpreting,'' that means somebody can apply their own bias what should and what should not be constitutional.

Well, you should be utilizing the word, apply the Constitution in its original intent. I am an original intent constitutionalist, as I just mentioned. I want to apply the Constitution as our Founding Fathers meant.

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison famously disagreed about the meaning of ``general welfare'' and the

limits to Congress' spending. Madison wanted the clause to be very, very narrowly interpreted, and Hamilton wanted a bit broader interpretation.

Now, if Alexander Hamilton were to walk into the doors of this U.S. House today, he would be absolutely shocked and chagrined at how much liberty we have lost, because he never, as a Federalist, envisioned the size and scope of government today. I think if he knew what was going on today, a little over 200 years since the Constitution was passed, ratified, he would be arguing just like I am today.

Yet the Founders, as they laid out in the Federalist Papers, neither Madison nor Hamilton would have agreed with the modern-day view that there are no limitations whatsoever on Congress' power to spend and that ``general welfare'' means whatever Congress, the President, and the Courts say that it means, even though a sort of Federalist would not agree that we have an open invitation to have whatever kind of government that we want to have.

Today, no project seems too local or too narrow, which is a big part of why this country is buried in so much debt--$14.5 trillion. And then if you look at the finance gap, it's over $200 trillion.

The powers of Congress are not unlimited, which is why we must get back to the basics of the Constitution, and we are going to talk tonight about that original intent of the general welfare clause and highlight just how far we have moved away from it.

James Madison, number 41, in the Federalist Papers, wrote this:

``Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution''--well, it sounds like that today, doesn't it--``on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power `to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States' ''--

We just showed you that. That is in article 1, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution.

As he goes on, ``amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections than their stooping to such a misconstruction.''

Now, that's that old kind of language. Basically, he was saying that it is inane to think that the general welfare clause, this clause, can allow the Congress to pass laws about anything, collect taxes, et cetera, collect anything. No stronger proof could be given.

Under the distress, that means under the problems that are going to arise, under which these writers labor, the Supreme Court today, the President today, the last President, Republican and Democratic Presidents for the last many decades, labor for objections, and they are stooping to such a misconstruction.

He was very, very clear. We do not have the power to do so. We don't have the power to do so.

James Madison, Federalist 45:

``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.'' They are defined. Article 1, section 8, other articles, strictly interpreted, strictly defined, strictly according to what it says, not of broadening of those powers, few and defined, ``to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.''

James Madison in Federalist 45 was saying basically right here what the primary purpose of the Federal Government is: It's national defense, national security, foreign affairs. And also in the Constitution we have the rights to postal roads, post offices, things like that, to establish a currency to make this one Nation.

But the principal purpose of the Federal Government and the original intent of the Constitution is national defense, national security, and foreign affairs. The American people need to understand that firmly. That's foreign commerce.

We see over and over again the Courts defining general welfare in a different manner, much different manner. In fact, the Courts have held that anything that has to do with anybody's welfare, an individual's welfare, is okay under the Constitution, but that's not the original intent. The original intent was the general welfare, the general welfare of the Nation, not welfare of individuals.

We have developed this big welfare system in this country. It all started in earnest with Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt just exploded the size and scope of government through his New Deal--both Progressives; both had socialist beliefs.

In fact, Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent his advisers, his closely held friends, his Cabinet people, to go visit with Stalin in Communist Russia to study what he was doing, what Stalin was doing there so that FDR could replicate it here in the United States, and he did everything that he possibly could to do so. He packed the Courts because the Courts originally said the welfare clause, commerce clause, could not be expanded to include all this size and scope of government.

Thomas Jefferson: ``Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.'' Back to article I, section 8.

When my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, vote for things that are not enumerated in the original intent, they are violating their oath of office. Every single one of us has stood up here and has taken an oath of office.

The first I time I did that was when I was sworn in the Marine Corps, 1964; when I came to Congress in a special election in 2007, and then again in 2009, and then again this year. I stood right here in this Chamber and I held up my hand, and I swore to uphold the Constitution against powers both foreign and domestic. One of the greatest domestic powers that is anti-Constitution resides right in this House, right in this House, because we are destroying our liberty.

We are destroying it by the philosophy of big government. Thomas Jefferson said, ``They are not to do anything they please.''

Seventy years ago, in a court case called United States v. Butler, we started moving into this loosey-goosey idea about the Constitution being anything that a court says that it is, anything that a President says that it is, and anything that the Congress says that it is. And we have seen just recently where Congress passed the McCain-Feingold law. President Bush said, we will let the Supreme Court tell us whether it is constitutional or not. Well, the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what is constitutional. Neither is the President. Neither is Congress. We all have something to say about that, certainly. So do the States.

We the people are actually the final arbiter. We the people need to demand original intent of the Constitution by becoming knowledgeable about it. The final arbiter of what is constitutional or not is what is in the Constitution and what our Founding Fathers said about it, not what some Supreme Court ruling has said about it, because most Supreme Court justices have no clue what the original intent is and don't care. They just don't care I don't think.

United States v. Butler 70 years ago dismissed Madison's and Jefferson's narrow view of the Constitution, the original intent of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court held that the power to tax and spend is an independent power, and the general welfare clause gives Congress the power it might not derive elsewhere.

In Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion, our own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the States into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold Federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.

Today, the Hamiltonian view predominates in the application of the general welfare clause, which has led to the expansion of the government to its $4.5 trillion debt. We spend up here without considering the repercussions. ObamaCare is a great example. ObamaCare is a destroyer. It's going to destroy jobs. It's going to destroy budgets, people's budgets, companies'

budgets, cities' budgets, States' budgets, and the Federal budget. And it's going to destroy the quality of health care. And we have no constitutional authority, as a judge in Florida upheld.

James Madison a little later on in his life wrote a letter to James Robertson in 1831. In this letter he said, ``With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.'' Connected with them. In other words, those things in article 1, section 8 and the rest of the Constitution as it was intended. ``To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.'' The creators of the Constitution are those folks who wrote it and those folks who ratified it.

This literal and unlimited interpretation is destroying America. It's destroying our economy. It's destroying everything that has been good in this Nation. We need to cut our outrageous spending for the well- being of our Nation and apply the general welfare clause as James Madison originally intended.

It's got to stop. Mr. Speaker, when I come to the floor to vote or when I write legislation, my staff and I write legislation, we have a four-way test that I apply to every vote I make and everything I do here. The first question is, ``is it right?'' By that question I mean, is it morally right? Does it follow the Judeo-Christian biblical principles that this Nation was founded upon? A lot of liberals across this country who are watching this will start blogging, and some of the liberal news media will say that I want to set up a theocracy here in America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Founding Fathers didn't want a theocracy either. Freedom of religion in the First Amendment is very dear to me. It's very dear to all of us. But we have freedom of religion in this country so that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, humanists, yes, even Christians, can make a personal choice of what their religion is and can celebrate and worship in their religion as long as it doesn't infringe upon somebody else's rights, because this Nation was founded upon biblical principles, the principles of freedom and liberty.

We have gotten away from it. I believe so much in these four questions that I have them printed up. If somebody comes to my office, they'll see them on the desk of all my legislative people in my offices. There's a copy on my desk. It's on the home page of both of my Web sites. I wish every Member of Congress would apply these four principles. Is it right? Is it constitutional in it original intent? Not this perverted idea of the Constitution that Presidents, Congresses, and the Federal court systems operate under. Is it necessary? And can we afford it? Four simple questions.

You see, we've gotten away from the original intent of the Constitution. We've created this huge Federal Government that has taken our freedom away. It's killing our liberty and our Nation. And it's because of a perverted idea of the general welfare clause, as well as the commerce clause and the elastic clause, that the courts have allowed this to happen, the Presidents and the Congresses have allowed it to happen.

Mr. Speaker, we the people need to stand up and say no to taking our liberty away. Our Founding Fathers over and over again during the original period would rush to the floor with this book in hand, the holy Bible, and they would come to the floor, the House and the Senate, go to the floor of the Constitutional Convention and say, look what I found, what our Creator says. Benjamin Franklin proposed prayer in the Constitutional Convention. We pray today every day that Congress opens because of that prayer that Benjamin Franklin recommended.

In his speech, and I encourage you to go read it, he said, if our Creator notices when a bird falls to the ground, how can we build a nation without the help of Providence, of our God, our Creator?

You see, the Constitution was written on biblical principles. In fact, our Founding Fathers quoted the holy Bible more than any other source. David Barton has a ministry in Aledo, Texas, called WallBuilders. He has more original source documents than probably anybody. He wrote a book called ``Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion.'' I highly recommend this, too. WallBuilders is a great resource of what the original intent is and what our Founding Fathers have said about the Constitution.

But, you see, back to something I mentioned earlier, God says in Hosea 4:6: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

I have heard that beginning line preached a number of times, but very seldom do I hear a pastor go past that line. The whole verse says, and remember, this is a promise from a holy, righteous God that can do nothing else but fulfill the promise. His promise is this when he spoke through Hosea to the Israelites, he speaks to us today, our Creator says: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for me. Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

And I get goose bumps and shivers every time I say that, literally, because it is a promise from a holy, righteous God that can do nothing else but fulfill that promise.

You see, the future of our Nation depends upon we the people, the most powerful political force in this Nation becoming knowledgeable, becoming knowledgeable about the Constitution, getting a copy, looking at it online. In my district, people can come by my office and get a copy. We give them away by the hundreds out of my office here in Washington. Get a copy of the ``Federalist Papers.'' Or if you don't want to read it in old-style English, get the ``Federalist Papers'' in modern language, this document.

Read what our Founding Fathers said about the Constitution. Read the anti-Federalist Papers. Those are the guys who did not want a strong Federal Government. But you will see in the ``Federalist Papers,'' those who argued for a strong central government, we have enumerated, very limited and defined powers as James Madison states, Thomas Jefferson states.

Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen once said when he feels the heat, he sees the light. Members of Congress in the House and the Senate, need to see the light by feeling the heat of we the people.

You see, in Psalms 11, God asked the question: If the foundations be destroyed, what are the righteous to do?

God has given us free will. He has given us freedom. He has given us liberty, unlike any society ever in history has seen, ever experienced; but we are losing it. And the only way we are going to put it back on the right course is for people to become knowledgeable about the foundational principles so that we can put this country back on a solid foundation so it is not built on shifting sand so that we can change the course of history.

The direction we are heading today is going to destroy everything that has been good about this country. It is going to destroy our liberty. We are not going to have the freedom that we have enjoyed, even in the past few decades, which is much less freedom than they experienced in this country 100 years ago.

Look at these questions. I think they are very reasonable. Is it right? Does it fit the Judeo-Christian principles the Nation was founded upon? Is it constitutional in its original intent, not this perverted idea that we are operating on today? Do we need it? And can we afford it? If we went to these questions, we wouldn't have $14.5 trillion of debt. We wouldn't have all of the unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government which are tremendous. We wouldn't have the loss of liberty and freedoms that we see going on here today. We wouldn't have a lot of the debates that we have here in Congress.

We the people need to start holding every single Member of Congress, every President, every public official, local, State, as well as Federal, because they all take that same oath, to defend the Constitution. The vast, vast majority are violating that oath; and the only way that we the people are going to change things, the only way we are going to put this country back on the right course is for we the people to demand it.

So please contact your neighbors, your friends, get them to read the Constitution. Read the ``Federalist Papers.'' Read what our Founding Fathers said about government. Understand how far we have gotten away from those original principles, how much we have lost our freedom, how much we have gotten away from liberty and how close we are to becoming a socialistic, communistic nation in this country. That is where we are headed.

The only way it is going to change is if the American people will stand up and demand something different, start throwing people out of office that violate their oath of office, and put people in office that are going to stand firm for freedom, for liberty.

I am going to stand firm for the Constitution as it was intended, and I am going to continue to fight for the Constitution as it was intended. There are precious few here in this body that will stand and even vote that way. The only way we are going to change it, the only way we are going to save America, is for we the people to stand up and demand it.

I believe we can; I believe we will. I believe we are at the beginning right now today of a new dawn in America, a dawn of liberty, a dawn of freedom, a dawn of limited government, a dawn of strong national defense and national security, a dawn where our children and grandchildren are going to grow up in an economically prosperous Nation where there are going to be jobs in the private sector, where people are going to be able to operate within their society without all of the constraints of government.

We have got to demand it. The future of this country depends upon it. Your children and your grandchildren depend upon it. Join in the fight.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced H.R. 1443, H.R. 1444, and H.R. 1445, which would protect our Second Amendment rights and expand hunting and fishing access for all Americans.

Over the past several years, our federal government, some states, anti-hunting, and anti-Second Amendment forces have made moves to ban lead hunting and fishing products. Unfortunately, the arbitrary desire to regulate lead hunting and fishing products is not based on a full and rigorous scientific analysis of exactly what--if any--hazards lead bullets, shot and sinkers may pose to wildlife populations, the environment, as well as hunters and anglers.

Banning lead ammunition and fishing products in favor of non-lead or non-toxic products would be much more expensive to produce and represents an unfair financial burden on hunters and anglers. The excise taxes on ammunition, firearms, and fishing tackle contribute billions of dollars each year for conservation projects throughout the country. Any actions to ban lead products will likely discourage people from hunting and fishing--especially in these difficult economic times and decrease revenue into the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds that are the keystone for financing state conservation efforts.

H.R. 1443, the Outdoor Sports Recreation Act, would prevent the Departments of Interior and Agriculture from prohibiting or limiting, based on material content, the use of any traditional hunting and fishing implement on federal public lands. This legislation would also deny any funding or revenue apportionment under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act or the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to any state or territory that prohibits or restricts, based on material content, the sale or use of any traditional hunting and fishing implement. In addition, it would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating, based on material composition, any type of firearm ammunition or fishing tackle.

H.R. 1445 only focuses on the EPA. It simply restricts the EPA from regulating, based on material composition, any type of firearm ammunition or fishing tackle.

Finally, H.R. 1444 expands hunting on our vast federal lands. Hunting is already permitted on most Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands. This legislation would simply require that hunting activities be considered as a land use in all management plans for federal land, to the extent that it is not clearly incompatible with the purposes for which the federal land is managed.

I believe these three bills can play an important role in protecting our Second Amendment rights and help expand hunting and fishing access for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again condemn my Democratic colleagues' attempts to shut down the Federal Government. Even with total control of spending, Democrats failed to pass a budget last year. In the meantime, we have been operating on short-term spending bills only so that they can use their ace in the hole now, the government shutdown card. This has been their game plan all along, to attempt to divide the Republican Party, back us into a corner, and to shut down the government for their own political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, our Democratic counterparts are gambling with the future of this Nation, and it's a bet I'm not willing to take. I implore my colleagues to pass a long-term bill that protects seniors, protects veterans, and funds our troops so we can move on to next year's budget and work to get it right this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for one reason--to expose the Democrats' carefully designed plan to shut down the Federal Government.

This Friday, the short-term continuing resolution expires, but the Democrats have yet to offer any real solutions for our budget mess. They just want to keep on spending, taxing, and borrowing. I believe they're dodging their responsibilities on purpose.

The Democratic leadership is trying to back us into a corner with only two ways out: keep spending money at their outrageous levels or shut down the government. We are in an economic emergency, and neither of these options will do anything for America's financial crisis. I believe they actually want to shut down the government for their own political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I implore my Democrat colleagues to do what is right for America--to get serious about cutting spending before we find ourselves so deeply mired in debt that digging out becomes impossible.

Boss Hogg.

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey.

Dr. Gingrey, I have taken a history and physical of ObamaCare. I have looked at all the laboratory results, I have looked at all the X-ray results, and I have got a diagnosis:

ObamaCare is a destroyer. It's going to destroy jobs in America. In fact, already, it has destroyed jobs. I have got a lady in my district that right now today has eight people in her employment. She desperately wants to expand her business, she would like to hire at least one or two people for her small business, but she is not going to do it because of the onerous effect of ObamaCare on her business.

So it is destroying at least one or two jobs in that one lady's business. I have got another businessman in my district that wants to make a $31 million expansion of his business. He has the cash in the bank. He doesn't even have to borrow it with all the regulations and all the problems that we are facing with the financial problems that the Dodd-Frank bill has placed on banks as well as small businesses. He wants to make a $31 million expansion of his business. But he is not going to do it because of ObamaCare and because of the increased taxes and also the increased burden that this is going to place on him. That is killing hundreds of jobs just in two businesses within my district.

So it's going to destroy jobs.

But it's also going to destroy budgets. It expands Medicaid. In fact, the State of Georgia has a balanced budget amendment to our State constitution, and our general assembly is just going through the process of trying to balance its budget with a $2 billion shortfall because of the downturn of the economy, the downturn of the economy that was created basically because of policy that was put in place by Democrats. Barney Frank was a big part of that, too.

But ObamaCare expands Medicaid markedly. In fact, the State of Georgia is going to have to add at least about half again as many people to the Medicaid rolls in Georgia, and the State budget is going to have to pick that up, and it's going to destroy the State of Georgia's budget. It's going to destroy every State budget in this country. And it's going to destroy our budget. It's certainly not affordable.

In fact, we see this administration has already, I think it is 1,168 waivers that they've already given to unions and businesses and different entities just because of the onerous financial effects it's going to cost all those people.

And it's going to destroy family budgets. I had a lady tell me about her 26-year-old son recently, that his insurance doubled from last year to this because of ObamaCare. He is paying for his insurance himself. He's self-employed. And he can't afford it.

So it's going to destroy budgets. It's going to destroy family budgets, it's going to destroy State budgets, and it's going to destroy the Federal budget. Not only is it going to destroy jobs and destroy budgets, but it's also going to destroy the quality of health care. In fact, Dr. Gingrey, we were told, and I'm sure you're going to bring this up, the American people were told by the President, if you like your insurance you can keep it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The American people need to understand it. The American people need to understand ObamaCare was designed to force everybody out of their private insurance into a single-payer, socialized health care system that the President himself said that he wanted just before ObamaCare was passed into law.

So my diagnosis is that it's a destroyer. It's going to destroy jobs, it's going to destroy budgets, and it's going to destroy the quality of health care. And also we need to have a plan of action. So I made the assessment, so we need to have a plan of action, and our plan of action, Dr. Gingrey, is--and the American people need to understand this--it's absolutely critical that we repeal ObamaCare and replace that law with something that makes sense, that truly lowers the cost of health care.

There have been numerous Republican bills introduced here in this Congress, in the last Congress, that would lower the cost of health care. I introduced two that would repeal ObamaCare and would replace it with something else. One is a comprehensive bill. I call it the Patient Option Act. It's 106 pages, not almost 3,000. And then I introduced another act that Democrat after Democrat colleagues told me, Paul, this makes sense, more so than ObamaCare. It's a good first step. The American people want us to do it in a step-by-step process. It would allow purchases for individuals and businesses across State lines. It would allow anybody in this country to buy insurance through an association. They would have multiple insurance products at a much lower cost. It would stimulate the States to set up high-risk pools. Several States have already done that. Mississippi, I talked to Governor Haley Barbour about his plan. Their high-risk pool that they have in Mississippi has been very successful. Colorado has done the same thing I understand.

And the fourth thing that it would do is it would allow everybody to deduct 100 percent of their health care costs off their income taxes. That would change the dynamics of health care. So, Dr. Gingrey, I have done that physical examination and history, history and physical, my subjective, objective assessment, and the plan. The plan is, we must, absolutely must, repeal ObamaCare and replace it with something else, a market-based system that literally lowers the cost of health care and keeps all decisions in the doctor-patient relationship.

ObamaCare does none of those. It's not affordable for the government nor individuals nor businesses. It's certainly not going to preserve the quality of care, because it is a destroyer. So I have made that diagnosis, Dr. Gingrey, and I would yield back to you for our further discussion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, when a patient is bleeding to death on an operating table, we as doctors do everything that we can to save that patient's life. We don't just walk away, and we certainly don't call it quits. Well, that's what the Democrats want to do. They want to call it quits on our spending crisis, and the worst part is that they're doing it for their own political gains.

Democrats in Congress are intentionally plotting this government shutdown, and they hatched their plan months ago, I believe. If they'd wanted to, Democrats could have passed a long-term continuing resolution during the lame duck session without making any spending cuts at all. Instead, they passed a short-term spending bill so that they could play the shutdown card right now.

The Democrats' political game of wedging conservatives between unacceptable cuts and a government shutdown is an insult to the gravity of the problem. It's an insult to American families who are struggling to make ends meet. It's an insult to all of the American people who are out of work, and it's an insult to us--to the Members of Congress who are serious about trying to put this country on a road to economic recovery.

It's pitiful that the Democrats have wasted so much time stalling over these minimal cuts in their own self-interest while our country is financially bleeding to death. We should be focused on trying to revive our economy rather than bickering about $61 billion when we already borrow almost $60 billion per week.

Madam Speaker, since the Democrats refuse to stop their political games and get to work, those over in the Senate particularly, I urge my colleagues to pass the Government Shutdown Prevention Act so that we can do our jobs and start trying to heal our economy and create jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Removing Excess Litigation Involving Energy on Federal Lands Act, RELIEF Act. This legislation would help streamline judicial procedures for causes and claims regarding the leasing of Federal lands for the exploration, development, production, processing, or transmission of oil, natural gas, or any other source or form of energy.

Excessive legal challenges have significantly delayed and in many cases prevented energy resources from reaching the American public. These oftentimes frivolous legal challenges have helped contribute to our nation's economic turmoil and skyrocketing energy costs.

The RELIEF Act would not take away anyone's ``day in court;'' instead, it will simply streamline the process for all parties involved. This legislation would require that all claims be filed within 60 days of an action or decision and that any proceeding be resolved within 180 days of the claim being filed and gives precedence over other court proceedings. In addition, it requires that all appeals from the District Court be reviewed by the Supreme Court and that any proceeding be resolved within 180 days of the claim being filed. To deter frivolous lawsuits, it also requires that any person seeking judicial review of any action under this Act shall pay the prevailing party's legal fees and other expenses, unless the Court finds that the position of the person was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.

As the economic downturn continues and energy prices soar, our nation must do everything in its power to access the abundant natural resources with which we have been blessed. I believe this legislation can play an important part in our nation's economic recovery by alleviating current energy costs, while also helping to ensure our energy future.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Indigent Funeral Expense Reimbursement Act of 2011. This common sense legislation would allow for up to a $3,000 federal tax credit for the providing of individual funeral services. Additionally, this legislation would not usurp existing state tax incentives for the funeral services of indigent individuals, but instead would supplement them.

Funeral homes respectfully and diligently provide the last measure of care for those in our society who have passed away. Oftentimes the family of the deceased or the deceased's estate takes care of the funeral expenses. However, in some cases, most especially in the case of indigent or unclaimed deceased individuals, the means to pay for these solemn services simply do not exist. Typically, cities, counties and states are left to cover the bill, and states often have tax credits or tax deductions available to funeral homes that provide services for indigent care. However, in these trying times, these state tax incentives are among the first cuts being made.

Across the country, because of an influx of the number of deceased individuals and their families now befitting indigent status, funeral homes and mortuaries are being forced to shoulder the financial burden of providing the last service of a person's life. This straightforward tax credit would simply remove the financial burden and allow funeral homes to provide the care and services that they are trained to provide.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a powerful and effective teacher, Mrs. Carole Kendrick Spivey Thomas, of Eatonton, Georgia.

Mrs. Thomas, married to David H. Thomas and a mother of four, graduated from Mercer University with a degree in English. After graduation, she began a teaching career at her alma mater, Putnam County High School. In 1971 she moved to Gatewood Schools, where she has continued as an excellent educator for the past 40 years. She earned a Specialist Degree and life teaching certificate in Library Education from the University of Georgia and has also served as the school librarian.

Since 1985, Mrs. Thomas has led the middle school trip to Washington, D.C., giving students the opportunity to explore the sights of our Nation's capital and learn about the representative democracy in the United States. She has made the trip a memorable experience for the students, providing them the opportunity to see firsthand the landmarks and places they previously had only read about in books.

In Mrs. Thomas' teaching career, more than half a century teaching career, she has consistently shown her students how much she cares about their education and self-improvement. Whether she is analyzing literature, reviewing projects for her students, or organizing literary competitions, Mrs. Thomas' dedication to her students and enthusiasm for her work are evident and to be highly commended.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Carole Thomas' service and dedication to the students of my district and congratulate her on celebrating over 50 years of teaching excellence.