Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, when people fraudulently vote, they infringe on the rights of lawful voters. One solution is to require valid photo IDs. The Supreme Court has upheld photo IDs to vote, but some object.

Attorney General Eric Holder is investigating Texas' photo voter ID laws even though such IDs will be free to those who need them. A person needs an ID to open a bank account, to use a credit card, to check into a hotel, to drive, to buy a lottery ticket, to buy alcohol, cash a check, board a plane, or even visit a public school. When Eric Holder spoke in Austin recently, it was reported that people had to present a valid photo ID to enter the building he was speaking in. Isn't that ironic.

A local D.C. paper printed an editorial claiming photo ID laws disenfranchised voters. But to enter the paper's facilities, a person must present a photo ID. Ironic again. It would seem the only ones who would be disenfranchised by voter photo ID laws would be unlawful voters.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, America's support for Israel is not new. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin both wanted the likeness of Moses leading the children of Israel to serve as the Great Seal of the newly independent United States of America. In fact, in the center of this Chamber, in the relief portrait that is directly in front of me looking down on this House, is the portrait of the great lawgiver Moses. John Adams wrote that he really wished the Jews had in Judea an independent nation.

So in 1948, when Israel finally became a modern, independent Jewish state, the United States recognized Israel in just 11 minutes. Today, our support for Israel cannot waiver, it cannot wane, and we cannot grow weary in proclaiming the absolute right of Israel to defend itself.

Israel's interests are America's interests. They are on the front lines against terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas. They are surrounded by nations that do not like them. And Israel is opposed to the tiny tyrant from the desert--Ahmadinejad--in his pursuit of nuclear destruction of Israel.

Our troops train together, and our cooperation in developing military technology has saved Israeli and American lives.

The United States has no greater ally in the Middle East than the nation of Israel. The United States must let the world know that Israel has the absolute right to be left alone.

So I support this suspension and urge its passage, and that's just the way it is.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my colleagues and I--Congressman Gowdy, Congressman King, Congressman Scalise, and Congressman Landry-- have introduced an amendment to prohibit funds from going to the Census Bureau to enforce a criminal penalty that is imposed upon people who choose not to complete the American Community Survey.

The American Community Survey is not the same as the decennial, or every-10-year, census that is required by the U.S. Constitution. The census, of course, is conducted every 10 years to account for the population and includes, basically, 10 questions. The

American Community Survey is a different survey handled by the Census Bureau that has 48 questions and is sent to 250,000 people every month, or 3 million Americans a year. The questions that it asks have nothing to do with national security, but it asks specific--in my opinion, intrusive--questions to determine Federal funding for certain areas. Plus, businesses use these answers to the questions to make business decisions on locating or not locating in certain parts of the United States.

I don't argue the benefit of the overall purpose of the American Community Survey. My concern is that it's intrusive. And does the Federal Government really have the right to ask certain questions? There are 48 questions. I'm not going to go through all of them. However, I would like to put into the Record the American Community Survey.

There are three questions I would like to mention, however. One of them is, Does your home have a flush toilet? Or, Do you or any member of your household have a second mortgage or a home equity loan? The third question that I wanted to mention is, Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?

Now, does the Federal Government really need this information? Should the Federal Government really obtain this intrusive information from citizens?

If Americans want to complete the American Community Survey, fill it out, give it to the Census Bureau, fine, but they shouldn't be required to do so with the threat of a fine.

I've heard from many people--not only in Texas but all over the country--that they are concerned when people come from the Census Bureau, or subcontractors, to have them fill out this questionnaire. These people from the Census Bureau, or those who are contracted by them, start with phone calls. First there's one a week, and then many times there's one every day. In one particular case, I had an individual who was a single mother with a young child who said the Census Bureau worker started coming to her house, sitting out in the front of her house waiting for her to come in. And then when she is in the residence, the worker is peeking through the window to see if she's in there, knocking on the door to have her come to the door to answer the American Community Survey.

Now, does that really need to take place in the United States just to get a 48-question survey filled out? I don't think so. The means to get this information does not justify the result. And if people don't want to complete the survey, they shouldn't be required, under our law, by the penalty of a fine, to do so.

I hope that we do, in this country, as the Canadians have done. They have made this type of information voluntary. They still obtain the information from people who want to voluntarily give the information. As smart as the Census Bureau is about collecting information, they can certainly do this without having to go door to door, 250,000 people every month, to do this. Figure out new innovative ways to obtain this information voluntarily. Maybe talk to some of the polling agencies that have specific information about all kinds of polls in the United States to obtain the information with the result to be for businesses to use and for Federal funding to be going into those areas.

So this amendment simply says, there will be no penalty for people who refuse to fill out the survey.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

To answer your question specifically, I am not arguing the point that this information is not valuable for businesses and for the Federal Government for funding in certain areas. My issue and the concern that has arisen since I have been in Congress is that people feel that they should not be forced to participate in the American Community Survey.

This is not the census. This is a different complete document. Sure, it's authorized by Congress. But maybe Congress needs to back up and say people should be allowed to opt out and not be required to fill out the survey.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, banks offer car loans at a 3.99 percent interest rate. Banks also offer 30-year fixed mortgages on homes with an interest rate of 3.8 percent. Student loans are currently at 3.4 percent, but if we don't do something, it's going to jump to 6.8 percent.

It seems to me Congress can handle this and do something about it. Recent reports show that 50 percent of recent graduates from college are unemployed or underemployed.

I received an email from a Kingwood Park High School student today named Derek encouraging Congress to do a commonsense thing: to put the student loan rate at 3.4 percent. Why don't we do that?

The student loan debt has reached a trillion dollars. Why would we want to strap students going into college with more debt by increasing the student loan rate in this current economic climate?

You can get a car loan rate very low. In fact, you can get some car loans with 0 percent, but not so with students. Why is that? We should maintain low interest rates for student loans.

Cars and homes are important, but students going to college are an investment in our future. Education is an important tool for our young people to be able to contribute to America's competitiveness worldwide. Also, the bill is paid for. Some of the money that's coming out of this unconstitutional health care mandate will go to deficit reduction.

We need to support our students and encourage young people to go to college, not discourage them by increasing their student loan rates because of politics. This is a commonsense idea. Extend the student loan low interest rate, and we should do it today.

Mr. Speaker, Popeye the sailor has advocated for 80 years that spinach gives energy. Now the EPA wants to use this food as green energy. But does that idea make any sense?

After the administration spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on other failed green initiatives, the EPA awarded $90,000 to a group of students who designed a solar panel that uses spinach to produce a very slight energy charge. A slight electrical charge is not enough to supply the United States with even a fraction of our energy needs, nor will it leave Bluto shaking in his boots.

Meanwhile, the shovels that were ready for the Keystone XL pipeline are idle, the Gulf of Mexico sits waiting for more oil and gas lease sales and permits, and the procedural hurdles in place have slowed drilling on public lands to a halt.

What we need are real solutions to bring down the price of gasoline and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. We don't need more taxpayer spinach subsidies. Leave spinach for Popeye and the supper table.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Anytime the government gets involved in data sharing and data storage, there is going to be the possibility for abuse.

I hear from my constituents in Texas and U.S. companies that they continue to lose information to cyberattacks from abroad. Most of these attacks come from none other than the organized crime syndicate of China, as I call it. They steal our intellectual property, and then they use the stolen information to compete against the United States.

We need a commonsense information-sharing system to combat the growing threat to this way of life that we have in America. However, we have to do it in such a way that protects our privacy and constitutional rights of citizens.

While I believe the intent of the base bill was never to allow the government to use information it obtained for any other purposes than cybersecurity, I believe that the clear and simple language in Mr. Goodlatte's amendment is necessary to make it 100 percent clear that this is strictly prohibited.

As we remember from the 2012 NDAA debate, it's important, especially when dealing with legislation that affects civil liberties and constitutional rights, Congress needs to be perfectly 100 percent clear. I believe the Goodlatte amendment does this. I urge all Members to support it.

Madam Speaker, in the quiet town of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, a 91-year-old memorial honoring hometown soldiers stands tall outside a local fire station. A stone bottom statue with a cross on top immortalizes the fallen heroes who sacrificed so much for our country. For decades, the memorial has stood in the shadows of the fire station with no complaints from local residents.

But a group of out-of-towners, not from Woonsocket, not even from Rhode Island, but from 1,000 miles away in Wisconsin, have self- righteously objected to the cross on top of the 91-year-old memorial. The antireligious hate group demands that the cross be removed. They also demand that the firefighters' prayer and angel from the Woonsocket Fire Department Web site be removed.

Madam Speaker, the firefighter prayer asks God to give them ``strength to save lives'' and to protect the families of the firefighters.

County officials will not succumb to the intimidation tactics of the bigoted group. The mayor has said he will not remove the cross under any circumstances because the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion whether this hate group likes it or not.

And that's just the way it is.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tonight, I and other Members of the House are going to talk about energy issues in the United States.

Probably a timely thing to start with are the recent comments by one of the individuals who works for the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. The more we learn about the EPA, the more we learn that they are hostile to real American energy for various reasons. Let me give you some historical perspective that makes this continuous assault on the oil and gas industry make sense to us now in 2012.

It seems that back in 2010, 2 years ago, EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz stood up on his bureaucratic pedestal of power and spelled out the true intentions that he had and the goals of the EPA. He declared that the EPA--and he declared this from his marble palace here in Washington, D.C.--that the EPA would target the oil and gas industry, calling it an ``enforcement priority'' as if, Madam Speaker, the oil and gas industry were made up of criminals.

He went on:

I was in a meeting once, and I gave an analogy to my staff

about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was

probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the

meeting, but I'll go ahead and tell you what I said.

And here is what he said, Madam Speaker:

It was kind of like how the Romans used to do--you know,

conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a

little Turkish town somewhere. They'd find the first five

guys they saw, and they'd crucify them.

That's right--they would crucify them--as if he is advocating crucifying the oil and gas industry. What a thing to say from somebody who works for the Federal Government.

He said he would make examples out of the people in the oil and gas industry. Probably unknown to him, his speech was all caught on videotape that recently surfaced. In fact, it was on the Internet YouTube last night; but today, mysteriously, it seems to have disappeared and is no longer on YouTube. That was in 2010.

These comments help us to understand the EPA's belligerent attitude against energy--American energy--against the oil and gas industry. What came after was one of the most aggressive assaults on the oil and gas industry we've ever seen. As a Wall Street Journal editorial once said, the EPA is at war with Texas. I think the EPA probably should change their name to the War Department because they are at war with America's energy. They certainly aren't concerned as much about the environment as they are about putting American energy out of business.

The oil and gas industry supports 9.2 million jobs in the United States. I wonder how many of those workers Mr. Armendariz wants to crucify all in the name of his political agenda.

Madam Speaker, we need a fair EPA, one that brings a balanced approach to the environment and to our energy industry. An attack on the energy industry is an attack, really, on the American people and American jobs. Mr. Armendariz seems to be at war with America. He does not want to really

help the oil and gas industry become environmentally safe. It seems to me he wants to kill it, and the effort will kill American jobs, kill our energy, and kill our national security.

The video also shows he is not concerned about real science, not about true environmental science or, really, the facts. He just hates the oil and gas industry. So, Madam Speaker, he needs to go. He needs to be replaced with someone who cares more about the environment than personal crusades against industry.

Madam Speaker, I would like to place in the Record the Forbes article that was published today regarding the EPA official that I just mentioned.

[From Forbes, Apr. 26, 2012]

EPA Official Not Only Touted `Crucifying' Oil Companies, He Tried It

Confirming what many in the industry long suspected, a

video surfaced Wednesday in which Al Armendariz, an official

at the Environmental Protection Agency, promotes the idea of

crucifying oil companies. Armendariz heads up the EPA's

region 6 office, which is based in Dallas and responsible for

oversight of Texas and surrounding states. The former

professor at Southern Methodist University was appointed by

President Obama in November 2009.

In a talk to colleagues about methods of EPA enforcement,

Armendariz can be seen saying, ``The Romans used to conquer

little villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little

Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they

saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town

was really easy to manage for the next few years.''

Range was among the first to discover the potential of the

Marcellus Shale gas field of Pennsylvania--the biggest gas

field in America and one of the biggest in the world.

Armendariz's office declared in an emergency order that

Range's drilling activity had contaminated groundwater in

Parker County, Texas. Armendariz's office insisted that

Range's hydraulic fracking activity had caused the pollution

and ordered Range to remediate the water. The EPA's case

against Range was catnip for the environmental fracktivists

who insist with religious zealotry that fracking is evil.

Range insisted from the beginning that there was no substance

to the allegations.

The Armendariz video (which appears to have been taken off

YouTube late last night) was shot around the same time he was

preparing the action against Range. Here's the highlights of

what he said.

The Romans used to conquer little villages in the

Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town

somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they

would crucify them. And then you know that town was really

easy to manage for the next few years.

And so you make examples out of people who are in this case

not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant

with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you

make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect

there. And, companies that are smart see that, they don't

want to play that game, and they decide at that point that

it's time to clean up.

And, that won't happen unless you have somebody out there

making examples of people. So you go out, you look at an

industry, you find people violating the law, you go

aggressively after them. And we do have some pretty effective

enforcement tools. Compliance can get very high, very, very

quickly.

That's what these companies respond to is both their public

image but also financial pressure. So you put some financial

pressure on a company, you get other people in that industry

to clean up very quickly.

The former professor at Southern Methodist University is a

diehard environmentalist, having grown up in El Paso near a

copper smelter that reportedly belched arsenic-laced clouds

into the air. (Here's a profile of him in the Dallas

Observer.) Texas Monthly called him one of the 25 most

powerful Texans, while the Houston Chronicle said he's ``the

most feared environmentalist in the state.''

Never mind that he couldn't prove jack against Range. For a

year and a half EPA bickered over the issue, both with Range

and with the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil

and gas drilling and did its own scientific study of Range's

wells and found no evidence that they polluted anything. In

recent months a federal judge slapped the EPA, decreeing that

the agency was required to actually do some scientific

investigation of wells before penalizing the companies that

drilled them. Finally in March the EPA withdrew its emergency

order and a federal court dismissed the EPA's case.

David Porter, a commissioner on the Texas Railroad

Commission, wasn't impressed. ``Today the EPA finally made a

decision based on science and fact versus playing politics

with the Texas economy. The EPA's withdrawal of the emergency

order against Range Resources upholds the Railroad Commission

Final Order that I signed concluding that Range is not

responsible for any water contamination in Parker County. Al

Armendariz and the EPA's Region Six office are guilty of fear

mongering, gross negligence and severe mishandling of this

case. I hope to see drastic changes made in the way the

regional office conducts business in the future--starting

with the termination of Al Armendariz.''

After an outcry emerged over the video on Wednesday,

Armendariz apologized for his statements Wednesday night,

reportedly saying: ``I apologize to those I have offended and

regret my poor choice of words. It was an offensive and

inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential

violations of our nation's environmental laws. I am and have

always been committed to fair and vigorous enforcement of

those laws.''

He ought to resign as well. His comments in the video are

proof that facts and science don't matter to him, that he's

already made up his mind that the industry he has regulatory

power over is evil. When you lose faith in the impartiality

of regulators every action they take is tainted. He's the boy

who cried wolf.

I want to continue my comments about America's energy by talking a little bit about gasoline and gasoline prices.

I ask Members, people back in Texas, in southeast Texas where I live, how rising gasoline prices have affected them personally, and I want to give the House the benefit of some of those statements made by American people about the high cost of gasoline and maybe some things that we can do about the high cost of gasoline.

Here's what they've said, and I'll take them one at a time.

One individual from southeast Texas says:

I spend more money on gasoline than I do on groceries.

Another:

Living in Texas requires driving greater distances to get

anything. We have no choice but to purchase gas, and it

definitely cuts into our food budget.

You see, Madam Speaker, west of the Mississippi there are vast places, as the Speaker knows, where people roam and live in the rural areas, and it takes them a long time to get from point A to point B, especially when they're going to work sometimes, whether they work on the ranch or whether they work in small towns in America.

So, because of that greater distance, a lot of Americans don't realize that the only mode of transportation for some Americans is to drive a vehicle. That's how they get to work. They don't drive subways. They don't ride bicycles. They don't have the opportunity to walk to work because they live in the vastness of the West.

I'll continue:

Seventy percent of all business requires people to have

discretionary income that's being siphoned off by higher gas,

taxes, fees, and it's only getting worse because of high

gasoline prices.

Another says:

As a retiree, high gasoline prices affects everything I do.

Travel, possible vacation plans are no longer being discussed

in our family. Anything I do is planned well so as to cut

down on how much I drive. What I buy, because it is priced so

high in the stores. The price in stores has tripled because

stores are having to pay higher fuel prices to get their

products to market.

Another one says:

I drive for a living, and it hurts.

Another Texan has written me and said:

I drive 175 miles round trip to work every day. I work for

the Corps of Engineers, and the government doesn't give me

one red cent for gasoline. It costs me $900 a month for

gasoline that I used to could use somewhere else.

Amazing number: $900. In some cases, that's how much people pay on the rent on their house or an apartment. Yet we have one American doing his job working for the people of this country spending that much money just on gasoline.

Another individual wrote me and he said:

I can't afford to commute. But by my long hours as a

businessowner, it makes it impossible to take mass transit or

a carpool. So I have no alternative since I have no carpool,

no mass transit, but I have to drive to get to work because

I'm a businessowner, and the gasoline is driving me out of

business.

Another one has said:

I drive 75 miles a day round trip for work, plus I pay $7

in tolls. Yeah, it's hurting. I love my job, but it's getting

to the point that what money I make is going straight back

into the gas tank.

Another citizen has said:

I drive a 2000 Ford F 150 as my work vehicle. It's draining

my wallet, but I need a full-size truck for my job.

Once again, in the West, a lot of folks drive pickup trucks. They don't only just drive them to work. That is their work vehicle. They use that in their job. It is their office. They don't have the luxury as some do to work in tall

skyscrapers and an office, as we consider an office. Their truck is their vehicle, and the F 150 is the standard-operating vehicle, at least in Texas and other parts of the country. By the way, it's the number one selling vehicle in the United States.

But Americans need to understand, and the government needs to understand, that's what Americans drive. That is their work vehicle in many cases. High gasoline prices affect their quality of life, and maybe we, as a body, ought to do something about gasoline that is now $4 a gallon.

Another citizen told me:

Last month I spent $600 on gas for my truck versus just

$300 a few years ago. Customers don't understand that the

materials are going up due to the rising costs and the

suppliers are raising the price to recoup the loss due to

fuel prices skyrocketing.

What we pay at the grocery store or at any store where we do business, for a product, part of the cost of that product is getting it to market so Americans can buy it. It's costing more to get goods and services to market because of gasoline prices, and, of course, gasoline prices affect the price of goods, and therefore that is passed on to the consumer, to people in America who live here.

Another one says:

Where do I begin? I hated it, but I had to go from a

4Runner to a Corolla to handle my commute to work every day.

Another one said:

Since 2010, my food bill has gone from $95 a week for a

full cart to $130 per week for half a cart of groceries. We

are making more but keeping less. High gasoline prices affect

my quality of life.

Another one says:

I have spent less on food so I could fill up three times a

week at approximately $75 to $80 a tank.

Another citizen wrote me his concerns:

I had to find another job closer to home because it's

getting ridiculous, the cost of gasoline.

An individual who uses his truck in his business said this:

I drive a hot-shot delivery truck, and I have to pay my own

fuel. We do get a fuel surcharge, but it does not even come

close to paying for the fuel. I spend $200 to $250 a week on

fuel over what the surcharge pays me, and it's killing me.

That's what Americans are saying about gasoline prices. These are people who work every day, support their families. Yet gasoline affects them in personal ways.

Another individual wrote me about his religion is being affected, his religious commitment is being affected by the cost of gasoline. Here's what he says:

Because the church my family and I attend is 30 minutes

away, we've chosen to attend Wednesday night church services

closer to home. Also, we've had to give up two church service

meetings during the week. It's upsetting for my fellow

members to ask me on Sundays if I've left the church. It's

also harder to maintain those close ties not seeing fellow

members but once a week, and it's all due to high gasoline

prices.

Another southeast Texan writes this comment to me:

We certainly have less ``disposable income,'' as the phrase

goes, and that means less money to spend in various

businesses in our city because of the high cost it costs my

family to buy gasoline.

Another one says this:

I've cut out everything extra, dine out less, fewer trips,

stay at home for entertainment, prices of food have tripled,

and I stretch leftovers as far as possible because of gas

prices.

Another citizen and neighbor says:

I only drive where I have to. I shop at Kroger to get extra

cents off of gas.

The Kroger grocery store gives people the deduction if they buy gasoline from Kroger, and they have the little Kroger card:

We just stay at home more than ever.

And a fisherman says this:

I am a commercial fisherman. Gas prices hurt at the pump

and it has in turn driven up the prices for supplies. It's

even driven up the price and cost of bait.

Another one lastly makes this comment:

It's just hard to make it these days.

So gasoline prices, which we're not talking a whole lot about now, some Americans have just accepted it as the new normal. I refuse to do that. I refuse to accept high gasoline prices.

I'm old enough to remember when gasoline cost--I don't want to shock the Speaker, because you're a whole lot younger than I am. I remember when I could fill up my Chevy II Super Sport in the early seventies for 26 cents a gallon. I know that shocks you, but gasoline prices have gone up. Of course in my generation, as Mr. Burton from Indiana knows, when gasoline hit 30 cents a gallon, we all were shocked about it. Now we're paying $4 a gallon.

We don't have to accept that. The reason we don't have to accept it is because sitting over here are America's natural resources, our God- given natural resources, just waiting to be developed. But as I mentioned earlier, we've got these bureaucrats down the street in their marble palaces called the EPA, and they regulate more than just light bulbs. They're regulating the oil and gas industry out of business, and I think it's a personal vendetta that they have for some reason.

There are things we should do, things we can do, and it's important that we discuss those. And we'll continue to discuss those tonight with my colleagues.

I do want to yield to my friend and colleague, Mr. Burton from Indiana, for as much time as he wishes to consume.

Thank you, Mr. Burton, for your comments. I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana.

Several comments about what you said are important. The administration, the government, says drilling is up in the United States. That is true. But drilling on Federal lands is not up.

The drilling is taking place on State-owned property or private property, but other lands other than Federal lands. If it wasn't for that, drilling would be down in the United States. If we go back to the Gulf of Mexico, the same situation we have in the Gulf of Mexico has been ever since the BP incident.

Permitting is taking too long. It takes a record amount of days, sometimes months, to issue a permit in the deep water and in the shallow water. The shallow water guys operate with a very small amount of capital. They can't stay and wait around for the government to make a decision on a permit or not, so they aren't able to drill. In the deep water, those deepwater wells, those rigs, they cost $100,000 a day whether they're operating or they're sitting there, and that's why some of them have left the Gulf of Mexico to never return. They've gone down to South America; they've gone to off the coast of Africa, to drill where countries are friendlier to the drilling safely off of their coast.

If the gentleman will yield, we're not only sending money down there to develop their oil industry, when they develop it, we're going to buy their oil back. So we're paying them twice.

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Now, I don't know and I don't really suspect that drilling would be the only answer for raising or lowering the gasoline prices, but it's one factor because of supply and demand. It's not the only factor, but it's one of those. It just seems to me that the United States is the only major power in the world that has an energy policy that is: We're not going to drill in the United States for all these reasons, but we want you to drill in your country your natural resources and we'll buy them from you. It seems a little bit arrogant on our part as a Nation.

If the gentleman will yield, as you mentioned about ANWR in Alaska, years ago we came up with this idea of a pipeline from Alaska bringing crude oil into the United States, and the same people that opposed that pipeline still exist today and are opposing the Keystone Pipeline. It took years for the vetting of the environmental lobby to finally be put to rest. They were concerned about the caribou. Of course, I think the caribou are doing quite well now. Finally, Congress decided not to wait on that administration and go ahead and make an approval. But Congress went ahead and approved the Alaska pipeline on its own, which became law in spite of the administration. It didn't wait for its approval. And now we know the rest of the story--it's a success 25 years later. And that's what Congress needs to do with the Keystone Pipeline.

No one has ever accused Canada of being environmentally insensitive. Their regulations are as tough as the EPA's--or even stronger. But yet they've developed a way that they can bring crude oil through a pipeline down to southeast Texas--Port Arthur, my district--in a safe, environmental way, and also one of the newest and finest pipelines. But the administration says, Not so fast. And it's unfortunate because the jobs will stay in America. Create that pipeline. Canada is not a Middle Eastern dictatorship. They're kind of a normal country.

We should approve that as soon as possible. I understand the concern in Nebraska. I'm glad to see the folks in Nebraska are working with TransCanada to reroute that 60 miles so there are no environmental issues and get this pipeline approved and start shipping that crude oil down to southeast Texas so we can use it in the United States.

It would seem to me that the United States should maybe think about this type of energy policy: we should drill safely in the United States for oil and natural gas. And I say ``safely'' because that is important. But we should also partner with the countries next to us-- the Canadians to the north, who have natural resources, and the Mexicans to the south, who have an abundance of natural resources--and the three of us work together on a North American OPEC-type philosophy and be energy independent. Not just energy independent, but it will help out our national security.

And if we do that, if we work with Canada, Mexico, drill in the United States, where it's safe, we can make the Middle East irrelevant. We can make that little fellow from the desert, Ahmadinejad, and his threats about closing the Strait of Hormuz, we can make him irrelevant. We don't care what he does. We don't need to continue to send our money to other nations over there that don't like us. So maybe that's something we need to do in the United States.

Lastly, and then I'll yield to the gentleman, because of American technology, because of those folks that know how to drill safely for oil and natural gas, the United States now suddenly is becoming an abundant Nation with natural gas. And we could, if we developed it the way that we can, the United States--primarily Texas, but other States-- we could become the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We could export natural gas, we have so much of it, and bring that money into the United States, rather than constantly sending money throughout the world, all because we don't take care of what we have and use what we have.

I thank the gentleman for his participation.

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the United States can make some decisions and solve some of our own problems. We can start with finding people in the EPA that do not have their own personal vendetta against the oil and gas industry, replace those individuals like Armendariz and get some fair and balanced bureaucrats to make sure we have a clean environment to work with our energy companies rather than against them, and stop the war against the energy companies in the U.S.

We can work and bring down the price of energy in the United States. One way, not the only way, is to make sure that we have a supply. A greater supply, as we all know, of anything, does help reduce the cost of energy, so that people in southeast Texas who have a hard time getting to work and who are paying more for products that they have to buy, just like Americans throughout our Nation are having tough times because of high gasoline prices, we owe it to them to do that, to take care of ourselves and to work with Canada and to work with Mexico so that the three countries can be a strong ally, not just politically, but that we can be strong allies with our energy economy.

With that, I'll yield back to the Chair.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Baluchistan is one of four provinces in Pakistan. It is the largest of the four provinces in terms of area (44 percent of the country's land area), but the smallest in terms of population (5 percent of the country's total). Within Baluchistan is the Baluch people group. They have their own language, culture, and history.

This distinct group of people, who once held autonomous status, was deprived of their freedom without consideration when the British Empire invaded the area. When the British took control over the area they divided the Baluchistan land into three separate parts, giving part of the land to Persia in 1896 while retaining the largest portion for India. The third and final division of the land by the British occurred in 1894 that gave part of Baluchistan to Afghanistan.

Once the British relinquished control and India and Pakistan separated, the majority of Baluchistan was forcefully annexed to Pakistan in 1948. The Baluch people never had any say--they were never asked if they wanted to be part of Pakistan.

Since then, the government of Pakistan has neglected them. Look at almost any indicator and the Baluch people are worse off than other Pakistanis. Life expectancy, school enrollment, and adult literacy are all particularly low amongst the Baluch people. This is ironic when you look at all the large reserves of gas, oil, gold, copper, silver, platinum, aluminum, and uranium it has. The Baluch people have the resources to take care of themselves, but the government of Pakistan takes the resources and either puts tight constraints on the profit that goes back to the Baluchs or gives the profit away to its friends. For example, the government has historically required Baluchistan to sell gas at a lower rate than the other provinces. Baluchistan receives a mere $0.29 per thousand cubic feet for its gas, while nearby Sindh gets $1.65 and Punjab receives $2.35. Pakistan gave the exploration rights to the Saindak copper mine to the Chinese, so the Chinese will get most of the profit and the Pakistan profit the rest.

It is not just neglect of the Baluch people but also outright persecution. Since 2005, Pakistani human rights organizations have recorded numerous serious human rights violations by security forces, including extrajudicial executions, torture, enforced disappearances, forced displacement, and excessive use of force. According to the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, violence in 2005 around Dera Bugti district alone displaced around 6,000 people and killed scores.

Over 2009 and 2010, Human Rights Watch detailed 45 cases of alleged forced disappearances.

Pakistan decided to respond to complaints over how they rule with brutal force. Instead, they should give the Baluch people a voice in how they will be governed. They should not only listen to their complaints, but answer them with positive steps. Should the government of Pakistan continue to not only neglect but persecute the Baluch people, it is hard to argue with Baluchs who demand self-determination. In the end, a government is only legitimate as long as it has the support of its people. The government of Pakistan is dangerously close to that line.

Apparently, the Baluch people have been reading Thomas Jefferson's comments when he said in the Declaration in the Independence, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.'' History recorded what happened to the British when they forgot these truths. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, on a fateful day in May 1943, bombardier Louis Zamperini and his fellow airmen were flying in a B 24 over the Pacific Ocean on a reconnaissance mission. The plane fell apart mid-flight, crashing into the middle of ocean and killing all but three of the 11-man crew.

In the midst of the catastrophe and chaos, Louis along with his pilot Russell Allen Phillips and tail gunner Francis McNamara, found a small rubber life raft. All three avoided sharks, dodged bullets from Japanese aircraft and devised ways to catch rainwater, fish and sometimes birds.

After 33 days on the raft, Francis McNamara died. The chance of rescue for the other two men seemed bleak, until day 47, when their raft finally made landfall in the Marshall Islands.

Once they reached the island, Louie and Russell were immediately captured by Japanese forces and put in a POW camp where they were imprisoned for over two years in several infamous camps, including Ofuna, Omori and Naoetsu. Thought dead by his family, Louis faced torture worse than death.

One particular brutal guard, nicknamed ``The Bird,'' planned to make an example of the famous Olympian. Louis would look away from The Bird's eyes and get punched for looking away; Louis would stare into The Bird's eyes and get punched for staring at his eyes. The Bird would then whip Louis with a 2-pound steel buckle across the face and head. The Bird would torture, starve and force Louis to perform demeaning acts every day. It seems unthinkable, but during the two years of abuse and torture, Louis never broke down. That is a resilient spirit.

Finally, almost 28 months after his plane crashed, Louis was brought home to California. Louis tried to balance the horrors of his imprisonment with his new found celebrity status in America. His life began to spin out of control. This is not where his story ends.

Louis attributes getting his life back on track to a young evangelist named Billy Graham who inside a revival tent changed Louis's life forever. After his reconfirmation to his God, Louis became a missionary to the same country that had held him captive. In Japan, he preached the good word of forgiveness to the guards that tortured him during the war.

Laura Hillenbrand tells the tale of the great American hero Louis Zamperini in the appropriately titled book ``Unbroken.'' Born in Olean, New York in 1917, Louis moved to Torrance, California with his Italian- American family in the 1920's. Like most rural American children of the era, he grew up poor in the Depression.

Louis's teenage years were far different from the life he leads today, but, they were a precursor to the spunk he still exhibits some 80 years later. In his younger years, he was in and out of trouble with the law, having established a reputation on the streets of Torrance as a fighter and a thief. It was here that his older brother, Pete, discovered Louis's talent for running.

In an effort to restore his street reputation, Louis joined the high school track team. Pete helped develop Louis's natural athletic speed by training him, first for the mile run. By his senior year, Louis set the world's high school record in the mile run. Soon after, he qualified to run in the 1936 Berlin Olympics where he was the top American finisher in the 5,000-meter run.

At the Berlin games, Louis's speed caught Adolf Hitler's attention, and Hitler sought him out for a congratulatory handshake. The dictatorship that Louis witnessed in Berlin would soon affect him personally.

After returning from the '36 Olympics, Louis enrolled at the University of Southern California where he earned a track scholarship. It was five years later that Louis enlisted in the U.S. Army. After Pearl Harbor, Louis was sent to Houston to train in the U.S. Air Corps bombardier school. From there, he served as a bombardier in the South Pacific during World War II.

Louis is now 94 years young. Louis has done more in his life than many can claim: he ran in the 1936 Berlin Olympics; fought in the Second World War; survived a plane crash into the ocean; and endured two years of torture at Japanese POW camps. Having lived for nearly a century, Louis still travels the country telling his story and inspiring generations to come. He still has the fight left in him-- don't let his age fool you.

Today, Louis still travels the world and tells his story of endurance and survival. His patriotic legacy of military service and plain old giving back is one of the best examples of our greatest generation in American history. Louis is that special warrior who never forsook his duty and never forsook his honor. He was unbroken.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the regulators are going after America's farms. Now they are considering prohibiting kids from working on farms. Growing up on a farm teaches kids valuable lessons and a strong work ethic.

Now the Federal Government is contemplating prohibiting kids from doing chores on their uncle's farm, including ``the storing, marketing, and transporting of farm product raw materials.''

According to the Department of Labor, ``prohibited places of employment would include county grain elevators, grain bins, feedlots, stockyards, and livestock exchanges.''

Anyone under 16 would not be allowed to drive any type of power equipment, including tractors. So if the farmer wants to hire a young boy to help him move some hay, it'd be a crime?

People who know nothing about farms are trying to stop educating our future farmers, because a lot of these

farm kids grow up to be farmers. Now we're faced with the problem that the average farmer in the United States is over 50.

If the regulators have their way, and young people are shut out, there will be a lost generation of American farmers. This ought not to be, but that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, when lawless drug dealers, child molesters, wife beaters, robbers, bandits, and other street terrorists threaten our communities, peace officers are always the first ones to track them down.

Peace officers are the last strand of wire in the fence against good and evil.

These men and women put themselves in danger every day in order to protect us and our families. Some put on the uniform and badge and do not return home after their shifts.

There has been an alarming 75 percent increase in police officer deaths since 2008. The year 2011 was the first time more officers died at the hands of street thugs than in car crashes. In many instances, the killers were repeat offenders who shouldn't have been roaming the streets in the first place.

As we approach Peace Officers Memorial Day in May, we have to support those that protect the homefront. They are what separate us from the outlaws and the anarchy of the lawless.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, it's a new day in Washington, and soon the unelected, unaccountable regulators will be sending out new rules to the people.

The fourth branch of government meddles in every aspect of our lives. In the name of saving us from ourselves, they regulate, regulate, regulate without regard to the consequences of these expensive government mandates. Sometimes they put businesses out of business. Susan, a small business owner in Texas, wrote me this:

Our small business has operated on a shoestring for several

years, and we started in 1978, but I fear we are at an end.

We manufacture 400 products, all made from the same

materials. The new product safety regulations require that we

certify every product to the tune of about $500 per product,

even though they're all made from the same materials. Do the

math: $175,000 or more just to get these products that we've

made since '78 certified. Add on the health care fines and

the rising cost of gasoline and the rising property and sales

and income taxes--well, you know the rest of the story.

Madam Speaker, the regulators close the doors of small businesses like Susan's, and that ought not to be.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, our small businesses are hurting.

In the past year, only one in five small businesses has hired.

This is a problem because if small businesses aren't hiring, we don't recover.

According to a survey from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they are not hiring because they don't know what Washington, DC is going to do to them next.

Four in five small-business owners said that the taxes, regulations and legislation coming from Washington made it more difficult for them to hire additional workers.

In other words, our government is getting in the way of economic recovery.

H.R. 9 will be a breath of fresh air to them.

For every $100 of income, small businesses will save $7 in federal taxes.

That's 7 percent they can put towards hiring a veteran back from Iraq or someone who hasn't been able to find a job for years.

Washington needs to get out of the way and let our small businesses do what they do best: hire new workers.

And that's just the way it is.