Bill Flores

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about options for American middle class jobs and American energy security. In this regard, I want to talk about two real-world examples that highlight the differences between President Obama's plan and the GOP plan for America's job creators. Option A is Obama's plan. Option B is the GOP plan. Here are the examples: Under option A, Solyndra. Under option B, the Keystone XL pipeline. How many part-time jobs were created under option A? One thousand. They have come and gone. Under the Keystone XL pipeline, there were over 20,000. How many full-time jobs from Solyndra? None. They're gone. How many full-time jobs from option B, the Keystone XL pipeline? Thousands. What did option A do for America's improved energy security? Nothing. How about for option B? Yes, we get improved American energy security. In reducing the demand for Middle Eastern oil, Solyndra provided none. The Keystone XL pipeline will offset Middle Eastern demand by 700,000 barrels per day. The cost to American taxpayers for Solyndra? Over $1.5 billion wasted. For the Keystone XL pipeline? Nothing. Nada. What was the taxpayer return on Solyndra? There was none. What is the taxpayer return on the Keystone XL pipeline? It's infinite. Who benefited from Solyndra? The President's political contributors. Who benefits from the Keystone XL pipeline? The American middle class. How do you get more information? Go to jobs.GOP.gov for more information about the GOP plan for America's job creators. Mr. Speaker, we can't wait for more middle class, Main Street jobs, so I urge my colleagues to vote for both the rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011, is just the answer that we need at this critical time. I also wish all Americans a very Merry Christmas.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Madam Speaker, there is a difference between President Obama's rhetoric and the reality for the American people. He says we can't wait for more U.S. manufacturing and construction jobs. He says we can't wait for more American middle class jobs. He says we can't wait to wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil. He says we can't wait to reduce our foreign trade deficits. He says we can't wait to reduce our Federal budget deficit. These are the things he says, but they aren't the things he's doing. By delaying the Keystone XL Pipeline project, he's putting the American people in continued jeopardy by doing the following: He is killing U.S. manufacturing construction job opportunities. He is keeping us hooked on Middle Eastern oil and sending billions of dollars each week to terrorist-friendly countries, hurting our security and our international trade deficit. He is eliminating one of the tools to reduce the Federal deficit. Instead, he keeps wasting billions of dollars of our children's and grandchildren's futures on failed Washington programs like Solyndra, Beacon, and building cars in Finland. If the President is serious about creating good, shovel-ready, American middle class jobs based on Main Street solutions and not Washington solutions, he would move forward with the Keystone XL project right now. We can't wait for Main Street job solutions.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Recycling Week. Recycling and the return of recycled materials to the manufacturing process plays an important role in the global competitiveness of U.S. industries. The use of recycled materials in manufacturing significantly reduces energy use and emissions levels, reducing the cost of producing goods. For example, in the glass industry, every 10 percent of recycled glass used to make new glass containers means a 2 to 4 percent drop in energy use and a 4 to 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Glass containers can be used multiple times to make new containers, but most used containers do not wind up back in the manufacturing process. Next week I plan to tour an Owens-Illinois glass plant in my district. Owens-Illinois has been a part of the Waco community since the 1940s and provides jobs to over 300 people. These are jobs we want to keep in America, but O-I needs more recycled glass to remain competitive. Unfortunately, glass and other containers have low recycling rates when they are collected through single-stream collection systems. Further, the lack of data on recovery rates is a barrier to finding effective ways to collect more recyclable materials that can be used in manufacturing. Congress should encourage all stakeholders to take steps to improve data collection related to the recovery of recycled materials, review ways to increase the collection of recycled materials, and increase the amount of recycled materials available for manufacturers. By improving the collection of recycled materials, we can make American manufacturers more competitive and protect and create highly skilled, high-paying jobs. This is another Main Street solution to grow American jobs under the House Republican Plan For America's Job Creators. I encourage all Americans to learn more about this plan at jobs.gop.gov.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, as part of the House Republicans Plan for America's Job Creators, we are working hard every day to fix the Obama economy. Last week the Senate stopped a bipartisan bill to permanently repeal the job-killing 3 percent withholding requirement for Federal payments to government contractors. This week, however, the House plans to eliminate this requirement, representing House Republicans' continuing commitment to remove barriers to job creation and eliminate excessive burdens on small businesses. These Main Street businesses are the backbones of our economy and American job creation. As a former job creator, I know firsthand about the negative impacts of burdensome taxes and overreaching regulations. Although this withholding requirement is not scheduled to go into effect for another 15 months, it is already causing uncertainty for small businesses' operations and hiring plans. For these reasons, Congress must act now. Permanently repealing this unreasonable withholding provision is another real world Main Street solution to provide more certainty for small businesses to grow and to create jobs again. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 674.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, job creators across a wide range of industry have sent urgent calls to Washington pleading for Congress to remove burdensome regulations that could destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with two of America's job creators, Karl Watson from Houston, Texas, who represents CEMEX, a global leader in the building materials industry, and Brad Slabaugh of Hilltop Basic Resources, a small building materials and ready-mixed concrete producer from Ohio. While these job creators may hail from different regions of the country, and one employs thousands of workers, versus the one that employs several hundred middle class Americans, they both face the same challenges under the Obama administration's oppressive regulatory regime. That is why Mr. Watson and Mr. Slabaugh came to Washington this week, to discuss their real world examples of how the Obama administration burdensome regulatory policy is devastating to the concrete production industry and to virtually all American employers and job creators. The worst offender that is inflicting this regulatory flaw under the Obama administration is the Environmental Protection Agency. This week the House is tackling some of the most economically dangerous regulations that the EPA has imposed on our Nation's creators, Boiler MACT and Cement MACT. These unwarranted and indefensible regulations are costing hundreds of thousands of much- needed American jobs at a time when unemployment stands at 9.1 percent and families and small businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Worse yet, both appear to be based upon ideology versus sound science and real word cost-benefit analyses. Both the Boiler MACT and Cement MACT could have a combined economic impact of more than 230,000 existing American jobs lost and $14.4 billion in projected compliance, according to the Council on Industrial Boilers. In my home State of Texas, which is home to 27 boiler facilities, the economic impact of the Boiler MACT rule on boiler and process heater owners and operators is well over $200 million, putting thousands of good-paying jobs at risk, and opening the door to further burdens, not only for large industrial boilers, but also important institutions such as hospitals and universities. This additional regulatory damage comes within 2 weeks of a large Texas power producer that has announced, due to the EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule, it will cause the loss of 500 middle class American jobs and the closure of five job sites in Texas. The Cement MACT regulations that CEMEX and Hilltop face are some of the harshest of seven proposed or recently finalized EPA regulations targeting an already weakened cement industry. The Portland Cement Association estimates that the Cement MACT would force the shutdown of up to 20 percent of the Nation's 100 existing cement plants, and that does not include the seven plants that have already announced, due to economic or other reasons, that they have faced permanent closure since 2008. Both CEMEX and Hilltop are experiencing depressed volume levels and are having to shed middle class jobs as they respond to increasing economic uncertainty being generated by unelected, unaccountable Washington bureaucrats. If the commonsense relief that we are currently considering does not pass, these companies will face the shutdown of up to 20 percent of their operations. Such a decrease in production capacity of the cement industry would have a ripple impact across the economy, impacting not only cement manufacturing jobs, but also industries that rely heavily on them, such as construction and building. Worse yet, for all Americans, these jobs and plants will be relocated to foreign countries, further damaging America's already declining industrial base and middle class job opportunities. The bipartisan legislation coming to the floor today will provide the EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new rules regarding the economically dangerous Boiler MACT and Cement MACT. Without this commonsense regulatory relief, the EPA's current rules endanger hundreds of thousands of American middle class jobs nationwide by forcing plant shutdowns and relocation of American manufacturing and jobs to foreign countries. Congress and this administration can and should encourage private sector job growth in this country, not hinder it with unreasonable regulations. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the Obama administration to join me in removing barriers to job creation and support both H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, and H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Madam Speaker, our country is facing record deficits, high unemployment, and stagnant economic growth. Yet President Obama is doubling down on the triple threat of taxation, regulation, and spending that is crushing job growth. This week, the President has been touting his so-called ``jobs plan.'' But his detrimental policies have forced a power generation company in Texas to close five facilities and sacrifice 500 middle class jobs. The impact of this EPA shutdown will reduce generating capacity in Texas by 1,300 megawatts, a move which the Electric Reliability Council of Texas says could spur future power outages. These regulations hurt middle class jobs and harm electric reliability in Texas with no scientific evidence that power generation in Texas is causing nonattainment of clear air standards in other States. Not only are this administration's disastrous policies preventing future job creation; they're destroying existing jobs. Instead of proposing the same failed idea that Washington can create jobs, we need to get Washington out of the way and rely on commonsense Main Street solutions that put Americans back to work.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act. This bipartisan legislation would increase access to more energy supplies by expediting the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline extension. We are all aware that every additional barrel that can be produced within North America is one fewer barrel that we need from the Middle East. This pipeline extension will help bring total capacity up to more than 1.2 million barrels per day into our markets. Also, as we look for opportunities to address our struggling economic recovery, this project will create an estimated 100,000 American jobs and help grow our economy. Canada's vast oil resources have also attracted interest from other energy-hungry nations. If we do not tap this valuable resource, the Chinese or other countries will. The Obama administration has already delayed the decision on this project for almost 3 years and it is time that they act and make a decision. The choice is clear. By passing this bill, we will increase our energy security with a more stable supply of efficient and affordable energy from our best international friend and trading partner, and we will lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Madam Speaker, on July 15, 2011, just 4 days ago, President Obama said, ``We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs.'' But the President clearly does. Let's go through the facts which the other side has conveniently forgotten. In the 30 months that he has been President, a short 30 months, he has added almost $4 trillion to our national debt. That is $133 billion a month, $3.1 million per minute, $51,000 per second. We have seen the destruction of Medicare through the enactment of ObamaCare, making Medicare insolvent by more than $60 trillion. You want to talk about Medicare destruction, you can look right over here and see Medicare destruction. We have almost 40 million Americans on food stamps, the most ever. We have spent $1 trillion on a stimulus plan, but we still have one out of every six working-age Americans either underemployed or unemployed. This is what Mr. Obama calls ``winning the future.'' That's what he threatened in his veto of Cut, Cap, and Balance. He wants to win the future. Mr. Obama, you're not winning the future. You're not winning anything. The Obama plan for our country is tax, spend, and regulate; not winning the future. More taxes mean fewer jobs. More spending and more debt: fewer jobs and less economic growth. More regulation: fewer jobs, less economic growth. And with the Obama plan, there's more. You get to have gasoline prices that are double what they were when he was inaugurated. But there is a real plan to correct this. Cut, Cap, and Balance takes away the blank check that this Congress has exercised for decades and that this President clearly seems to enjoy. It's time we stopped the blank check spending now and take the necessary steps to force Washington to act responsibly and live within its means just like my constituents in Texas do already. It's time for Cut, Cap, and Balance. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FLORES. When I was sworn in, my constituents gave me a stamp that said: Non-Sufficient Funds, Denied By Taxpayers. Mr. Obama, your plan is denied by taxpayers.

Mr. FLORES

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

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment, which would address another restrictive and misguided Federal regulation. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prevents Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of an alternative fuel unless its ``lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions'' are less than or equal to emissions from conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum resources. Simply put, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on Federal agencies funded by the Energy and Water appropriations bill. The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense Department's plan to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet fuels, based on the opinion of environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. I recently offered similar amendments to the MilCon-VA, Ag, and DOD appropriations bills, and each time those amendments passed this House by voice votes. My friend Mr. Conaway also had language added to the Defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this burdensome regulation. But section 526's ban on fuel choice applies to all Federal agencies, not just the Defense Department. That is why I am offering it again today. Federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel emissions when there is a simple fix, and that is not restricting their fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, and regulations like section 526. With increasing competition from other countries for energy and fuel resources, and the continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is more important than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop and produce our domestic energy resources. Placing restrictions on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent to set with regard to America's energy independence and its energy policy. Section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle East oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 will help American energy, improve the American economy, and create American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES. I want to respond to what my amendment really does, and let me read a letter from the Department of Defense general counsel to Senator Inhofe from July of 2008. I quote: ``It creates uncertainty about what fuels DOD can procure, and will discourage the development of new sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of energy supplies for the Armed Forces.'' Let me go on. Let me give you a practical, real world example as to what section 526 does. Our closest neighbor with stable energy supplies is Canada. We import 650,000-plus barrels a day of oil that is produced from oil sands in Canada. That oil makes its way throughout the refinery system throughout the United States and gets blended into jet fuels, gasoline, and diesel fuel. A literal interpretation of section 526 would say that the U.S. military, the United States Government, more broadly, cannot utilize any of those fuels. There is no technical or commercial way that the military of the United States Government can make sure it is not using any fuel source that came from that crude oil. Let me go on and wrap up like this. You are going to hear a lot of remarks from the other side of the aisle regarding the claims about section 526 or about my amendment. My amendment does nothing, nothing to remove the ability of the Federal Government to use alternative fuel sources. It can use whatever fuel source it wants to under my amendment. Section 526 increases our reliance on Middle East oil. It hurts our military readiness, and its national security and energy security. It prevents the increased use of safe, clean, and efficient North American oil and gas. It increases the cost of American food and energy, and it hurts American jobs and the American economy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES. It is from the Department of Defense to Senator Inhofe.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment, which would address another misguided Federal regulation. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prohibits Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of alternative fuels unless their lifecycle greenhouse gases emissions are less than or equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. Simply stated, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on the Department of Defense. The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquid jet fuels. This was based on the opinion of environmentalists that coal- based jet fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. I recently offered my similar amendment to both the MILCON VA and Ag appropriations bills, and they passed the House by voice vote each time. My friend Mr. Conaway of Texas also had similar language added to the Defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this burdensome regulation. We must ensure that our military becomes more energy independent and that it can effectively and efficiently rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. Our Nation's military should not be burdened with wasting its time studying fuel emissions when there is a simple fix, not restricting their fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, and regulations like section 526. In light of increasing competition with other countries for energy and fuel resources, and continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is more important than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop and produce our domestic energy resources. Placing limits on Federal agencies', particularly the Defense Department, fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent to set in regard to America's energy policy and independence. On July 9, 2008, the Pentagon, in a letter to Senator James Inhofe stated: ``Such a decision would cause significant harm to the readiness of the Armed Forces because these fuels may be widely used and particularly important in certain geographic areas.'' In summary, not only have extreme environmental views and policies created and burdened American families and businesses, but they also cause ``significant harm in readiness to the Armed Forces.'' Mr. Chairman, section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 would help us promote American energy, improve the American economy, and create American jobs. To everyone watching these proceedings today, I would say this: following my remarks, you will hear speakers from the other side of the aisle make several claims regarding the merits of section 526. When you hear these claims, please remember the following facts about section 526: it increases our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It hurts our military readiness and our national security. It prevents the use of safe, clean, and efficient North American oil and gas. It increases the cost of American food and energy. It hurts American jobs and the American economy. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES. Thank you for the chance to provide further weight to this amendment. It's important to know that much of the oil that we import from the oil sands in Canada winds up being blended in several refined fuels throughout the United States. So if you took a literal reading of section 526, theoretically the military would not be able to use any of those fuels since the oil sands as a source is considered to be banned by section 526. The oil from Canada from the oil sands is stable North American oil and gas. And it is in large part produced by Americans and creating American jobs. Section 526 would cut off this safe, friendly, stable source of fuel to this country. And my amendment does nothing to restrict the military from looking at all alternative sources of fuel. It allows them to go with biofuels, whatever alternative energy sources they need. It just takes away burdensome restrictions that are based on environmental views that aren't proven.

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

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Let me correct some of the comments made by my friend from California. First of all, this is a typical example of the way that the Federal Government operates, where the left hand does something that's entirely different from the right hand. On one hand, the left hand says, We want to have alternative fuel sources available for our economy. The right hand says, But we can do it for everybody, except the agencies of the Federal Government. Let me give you an example. Oil sands from Canada. Production of oil from oil sands in Canada could completely displace our use of Middle Eastern oil. And yet, we're trying to block in this bill the use of oil sands from Canada. Virtually all the fuel in the United States has oil from some oil sands in Canada blended in as fuel. That would mean all that fuel is off limits to the United States Government and, in particular with this bill, to the United States Department of Agriculture. We should reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, not increase our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And my amendment to eliminate the impact of section 526 reduces that dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Remember also, Madam Chairman, this amendment was passed by a voice vote for the MILCON-VA bill.

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

Mr. FLORES. I rise to offer my amendment, which would address another restrictive and misguided Federal regulation. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prohibits Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of an alternative fuel unless its ``lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions'' are less than or equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. Simply put, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing the ban on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and all other Federal agencies funded by the Ag appropriations bill. The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based, or coal-to-liquids, jet fuels, based on the opinion of environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. Earlier this week, I offered my similar amendment to the MILCON-VA approps bill, and it passed this House by a voice vote. My friend from Texas (Mr. Conaway) also had language added to the defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this burdensome regulation. We must ensure that our military becomes energy independent and can efficiently rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. But section 526's ban on fuel choice applies to all Federal agencies, not just the Defense Department. This is why I am offering this amendment again today. While we hope the USDA is not going to be fueling up any jets any time soon, the underlying bill does allow for the purchase of more than 400 new passenger vehicles. The Department of Agriculture's choice on fuel to power these vehicles to provide service to our Nation's farmers and agricultural producers will be limited without my amendment. The USDA should not be burdened with wasting its time studying fuel emissions when there's a simple fix, and that's not to restrict their fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, and regulations like section 526. Madam Chairman, section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. And stopping the impact of section 526 would help us promote American energy, improve the American economy, and create American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with another remarkable opportunity to recognize Texas A&M University. This past Saturday, an unprecedented third straight national championship was won in track by both the men's and women's teams. The Aggie men and women track teams both ran the 1600-meter relays to give them their third consecutive national titles at Drake Stadium in Des Moines, Iowa. This makes the Aggie track program the first in collegiate history to win both men's and women's team titles in three consecutive outdoor seasons. The amazing talent, depth, and teamwork displayed by these athletes helped the team overcome obstacles and a shaky start to finish strong with a phenomenal win. I commend Coach Pat Henry for his outstanding leadership in guiding the Aggies to victory, and for becoming the only coach to accomplish a triple double of NCAA championships. I also recognize Athletic Director Byrne for his second and third NCAA national championships at Texas A&M this year. I am honored both as an alumnus and as a Member of Congress to represent such an accomplished and well-deserving university. Congratulations and thank you to the hardworking men and women of the Aggie track teams, to Coach Henry, and to the loyal fans of Texas A&M University for making history. Gig 'em, and great job.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, most Americans remember 1 year ago tomorrow President Obama and Vice President Biden launched what the White House enthusiastically called the ``recovery summer.'' This was supposed to be a 6-week-long push to highlight what the Obama administration said would be jobs created last summer by a surge in Federal stimulus spending across the country. Senior Adviser to the President David Axelrod said, ``This summer will be the most active Recovery Act season yet, with thousands of highly visible road, bridge, water, and other infrastructure projects breaking ground across the country, giving the American people a firsthand look at the Recovery Act in their own backyards and making it crystal clear what the cost would have been of doing nothing.'' Yet, the only thing that is crystal clear to the majority of Americans is that there is nothing to show from the Democrats' failed economic policies that have set our country on a road to ruin. Since President Obama has taken office he has done absolutely nothing to promote American energy production. He has done nothing to reduce the regulatory burdens on small business owners. He has done nothing to fix the Tax Code to help job creators. He has done nothing to increase competitiveness for American manufacturers. And he has done nothing to pay down America's unsustainable debt burden and bring back confidence among investors and entrepreneurs by supporting long-term American economic growth. And now, President Obama is selling the sequel to last year's ``recovery summer'' sales pitch and kicking off this summer by trying to convince the American people that 28 consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent is just a bump in the road to recovery. In addition, a number of Democrats are calling for billions more in taxpayer dollars to be spent on yet another wasteful stimulus to create jobs, but Americans aren't buying it. Unemployment is nowhere near the 6.8 percent level at which the administration claimed it would be today if the stimulus was signed into law. When America's promise, prosperity, and security for future generations are at stake, this cannot be brushed off as just a bump in the road. It is a mountain of constraint put in place by a litany of failed Democrat policies and unfulfilled promises. And what's worse is that President Obama recently laughed off the fact that his stimulus projects, which are costing taxpayers trillions of dollars, have failed to live up to their promise to create new jobs. Democrats promised this would be the summer of recovery, but their conflicting assessment of the economy and their double-talk has left American families wondering: Is this a joke? Well, most economists and the American people are not laughing. Their concern is growing, and confidence in President Obama's economic policies is plunging more and more every day, and the idea of another stimulus bill is dead on arrival in the House. In the face of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, this administration and the Democrats in Congress are choosing to play politics with economic recovery and continue with another round of empty rhetoric and unfulfilled promises in their desperate sales pitch again this summer. House Republicans are serious about creating real American jobs, and we're making it our mission to put Americans back to work. We know that what we need are commonsense policies that will create jobs in this country immediately. We cannot let this administration have another frivolous shot at the wasteful spending of taxpayer's hard-earned dollars, or be given more regulatory power or allowed to spin its way out of the catastrophic economy the Democrats have created with empty phrases like ``recovery summer.'' House Republicans have produced a pro-growth, pro-job creation budget, as well as a real plan for America's job creators. Both plans will put the Nation on a fiscally sustainable path to restore confidence, lower tax rates, and allow America to remain competitive in the global economy. We want to take the burden of regulation off of our job creators and produce more American energy so that Americans can start receiving the paychecks that they need and deserve. And we want to reduce the hostility of the Federal Government's regulators toward American business, both small and large. We cannot allow this out-of-touch administration to continue with their failed experiments and silly punchlines. We cannot allow Washington Democrats to tax and spend away the futures of our children and our grandchildren. We cannot continue down the road to ruin, Mr. Speaker. Coming from the private sector to Congress, I know that America can and will become prosperous beyond imagination and millions of new private sector jobs will be created if we would just get back to our founding free market principles and end big government and wasteful spending. It is time we take a different road this summer, Mr. Speaker. We cannot continue on the misguided and irresponsible path endorsed by the other side of the aisle of higher taxes, reckless spending, bigger government, explosive debt, crippling regulation, higher deficits, and unacceptably high unemployment. Eighty-one percent of Americans know somebody without a job. As a matter of fact, if you'd look at the unemployment rate that includes underemployed and unemployed, almost one out of every five Americans is unemployed or underemployed today. Under President Obama's watch, almost 40,000 jobs have been lost every 2 weeks. President Obama's so- called stimulus was signed into law 28 months ago, and there are nearly 2 million fewer Americans with jobs today. They have had their chance to make things right last summer, and it has not worked. Now it is our turn. These are undoubtedly tough times, and I want to continue the great American legacy of leaving our children better off than we ourselves are. It pains me to know that only 17 percent of the mothers in this country believe that their children will be better off in the future. It doesn't have to be this way. There has not been a more important time in our Nation's history to realign our principles and policies in light of current economic reality. As the son of a hardworking rancher in the Texas Panhandle, I always reflect back to those tough decisions and sacrifices that my family made around the kitchen table. We had no choice but to live within our means. Every day I remember these life lessons whether I'm balancing my family budget, or making important decisions for my constituents. I must represent the best in terms of taking care of our country's fiscal health. We must make tough decisions on spending, on tax reform, and on reducing our Nation's debt, and we must remain committed to spurring economic growth and job creation. We must do this, most importantly, because we owe it to our children and our grandchildren so that they're afforded the same American promise and prosperity and security that we were when we were born. Mr. Speaker, about 3 months ago, my wife and I had our first granddaughter. We want that girl when she grows up to have the same opportunities to live the American dream that we had when we were born. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I'd like to ask our American people to remember our country in their prayers during these difficult times and also to remember to pray for our military men and women who protect it daily. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is quite simple. During the 110th Congress there was a section added to the Energy Independence and Security Act that bans Federal agencies from entering into contracts for procurement of alternative fuel sources unless the ``lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions'' are less than or equal to such emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. This amendment would simply prohibit the government from enforcing this ban on Federal agencies funded by the underlying bill. I was not yet in Congress when the Energy Independence and Security Act was considered, but section 526 raises concerns over national security, economic security, and it creates bureaucratic uncertainty. Section 526 was added to this bill to stifle the Defense Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based--or ``coal-to-liquids''--jet fuels. Environmentalists allege that this coal-based fuel will ultimately produce more greenhouse emissions than would traditional petroleum resources. This allegation is uncertain at best and does not account for ongoing improvements in carbon-capture technologies in association with CTL technology. My amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to enforce section 526. Section 526 makes it more difficult for our Defense Department to become energy independent and to rely on more domestic and more stable sources of fuel instead of sources located in more unstable, volatile parts of the world. This is very problematic for our Defense Department by creating uncertainty about what fuels DOD can procure, and it discourages development of new sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of energy supplies for the Armed Forces. Section 526 opens DOD up to court or administrative challenges for every fuel purchase it makes. Per a July 9, 2008, letter to Senator James Inhofe from the Pentagon, ``Such a decision could cause significant harm to the readiness of the Armed Forces because these fuels may be widely used and particularly important in certain geographical areas.'' Not only have extreme environmental views, policies, and regulations like section 526 burdened American families, hurt job creation, and hurt American businesses, but they are now potentially causing significant harm to the readiness of the Armed Forces. The Defense Department should not be wasting its time studying fuel emissions and should not have to be stifled by the arguments over how to interpret a small section of an energy law. This is an unacceptable burden to continue to place on our Nation's military, and it is an unacceptable precedent set in regard to America's energy policy. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. As many of you know, this week is National Police Week, a time to give special recognition to law enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty for the safety and protection of others. I come before you today to honor one of my constituents who did just that. On April 23, 2011, Johnson County Deputy Sheriff Clifton Taylor was first to the scene of a reported domestic disturbance in Venus, Texas. An anonymous caller had reported a man was threatening people with a weapon. Upon arriving at the scene, Deputy Taylor, two other Johnson County deputies, and an officer from the Venus Police Department were informed that an armed man had fled to another building on the property. Deputy Taylor and the three other officers approached the building, but the gunman immediately opened fire. Deputy Taylor was shot three times by the gunman and later died. He was 31 years old. His death marks the first time since 1971 that an officer in Johnson County died in the line of duty, and he is the 31st law enforcement officer to be killed by gunfire in the line of duty this year. Deputy Taylor had been with the department a little more than 3 years. He was deeply committed to serving and protecting his community as a law enforcement officer and will always be remembered as one who placed honor and duty above his own personal interests and safety. I am deeply humbled by his service and dedication as a Texas law enforcement officer to keeping others safe that he would lay down his life not only for his fellow officers but for the community that he took an oath to protect. His sacrifice exemplifies that set forth in John 15:13: Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.