Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Why isn't this administration willing to actually do the right thing, do what's necessary to keep our economy afloat, to keep it from running on fumes and make sure that we can produce that energy in our own backyard, increase our opportunities to produce domestic energy?

Mr. GARDNER. Well, I absolutely do. In fact, not only talk about the oil shales of Colorado, but this entire country where we actually are home--the United States is home to six times Saudi Arabia's proven resources because of the potential for oil shale in this country--1.5 trillion barrels of potential oil shale. That's six times Saudi Arabia's proven resources. That's enough energy to power the United States for the next 200 years. The gentleman talked about legislation that we have passed to try to keep jobs. You talked about some of the comments that were made that, well, that won't impact our supply until sometime over the next 10 years. Let me just tell you about one bill that we passed last summer, H.R. 2021, passed with bipartisan support. That bill was focused on a particular project in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea north of Alaska. In the time that it has taken one company to get a permit for that energy development--an area that's already approved for energy development by this government--it's taken 6 years to get a permit. In the time that it's taken them to try to get that permit--they still don't have it completely done, by the way--but in the time that it took them to get this far, they've drilled over 400 wells around the world, creating jobs around the world, creating energy for other people, creating jobs and resources, economic development for other people, but certainly not in the United States.

Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from South Carolina, again, some of our colleagues would like to see energy production increase in Saudi Arabia. They'd, I guess, stand idly by while this administration nixes, vetoes, puts a fork in the Keystone XL pipeline; yet they'd rather see those jobs go overseas. They'd rather see that energy production occur overseas instead of doing it right here in our own backyard. I'm sure our colleagues mean well, I'm sure they're well-intentioned, but I certainly hope they would produce those jobs here, produce that energy here, develop an energy policy that is with American jobs for our security.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. Before he yields the floor, I wanted to ask him a quick question. I know you've done tremendous work with the Western Caucus. You're a cochair of the Western Caucus trying to make sure you are eliminating regulations to do what we can to improve the economy of the Western United States, and I just wanted to share with you a quote from our colleague in the Senate, Senator Schumer from New York. This was February 27, just 2 days ago, a quote from The Hill newspaper. He is talking about trying to find solutions to increasing gas prices. Here is what he had to say: To address the situation, I urged the State Department to work with the Government of Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production, as they are currently producing well under their capacity. So, apparently, many of our colleagues, some in the Senate, think that the solution to the way out that we have isn't here in the United States at all. In fact, it's creating more dependency on overseas oil instead of developing in areas like the Western United States. I know you've done tremendous work to open up access to energy in the Western U.S., and I don't know if you had seen that comment or had time to reflect on it.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and I know the gentleman from Arizona is going to be joining us in this debate, this conversation tonight. You mentioned some quotes, some statements made by Secretary Chu. You talked about the statement where the President had said under my plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. You talk about Secretary Chu talking about how he wants to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. Have you ever heard this President talk about expanding production in the United States or adding U.S. domestic capacity to actually decrease the cost of gasoline?

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I'm here tonight for one reason: to stand up for hardworking Americans who are spending far too much when they fill up at the pump, and I'm here for that same American who turns on the TV or reads the newspaper after a long day at work to see that Iran is threatening to cut off our oil supply out of the Middle East and to see continued inaction by this administration to discourage energy projects, energy production that would lower the price of gas here at home. These are Americans that are scared. They simply don't have the money in their pocket, in their budget to pay for these high prices, $60 to fill up a tank of gas, $80 to fill up the tank of gas. I find it increasingly more difficult to explain to my constituents from rural Colorado why this government isn't advancing policies that will bring down the prices at the pump. It pains me the look on people's faces when they tell me that they're making $10 an hour and are paying upwards of $4 for a gallon of gas. What are they supposed to do, Mr. Speaker, stop going to work because gas is so expensive? We are facing a significant crisis, and it's a travesty, it's a shame. My colleagues here tonight are here to say we will not stand for it. How do I go back home this weekend to explain to my constituents why gas prices have risen $1.80 per gallon since this President took office? How do I explain that this administration may be willing to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is only to be used when there is a severe energy supply disruption, instead of opening up more land for exploration, which brings me to my next point. Mr. Speaker, this administration alleges that it has opened up vast amounts of our lands for leasing. In fact, just a few days ago, on February 23, at the University of Miami, I quote: Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any other time in the last 8 years. This is simply false, a false telling of reality. While it may be true that new production is occurring on private lands where the President can't involve his anti-energy administration, Federal lands and offshore development is far below what it has been in previous years. Let me cite to you some very startling statistics. According to an article on E&D on Monday, just a few days ago, production of natural gas on public lands and waters in fiscal year 2011 dropped 11 percent from 2010. That's a drop of 11 percent on public lands and waters in fiscal year 2011. Oil production on Federal lands dropped 14 percent since last year, and this reduction was most significant in the gulf, which declined by 17 percent since 2010. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial from the other day, drilling plans have historically been approved 73 percent of the time. Since the beginning of 2012, the President has only approved 23 percent. Approval of an offshore drilling plant typically takes about 92 days right now. That's 31 days over average. In 2000, just 12 years ago, 32 percent of our oil was from Federal lands. Why? In 2010 that number shrank to 19 percent of total U.S. production. Let me say that again. In 2000, 32 percent of our oil was from Federal lands. In 2010 that number shrank to 19 percent of total U.S. production. We aren't opening up our Federal lands for development, and that's the reason for the significant drop. The total onshore acreage leased under this administration in 2009 and 2010 is the lowest in over 20 years. Mr. Speaker, the President has claimed that he is opening up new offshore areas for production and more land for leases. Again, this is false. Many of these lease sales were already scheduled to take place before he even took office. One was even cancelled for a year by the administration and is now being reinstated. His plan even closes the majority of the OCS to new energy production through the year 2017. In recent days and months, we have seen the President touting an all- of-the-above energy approach, but his actions speak louder than his words, and they do not promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy. This administration has blocked energy production on Federal lands and decreased overall domestic energy production across the board. And I want to share with you just a few of these examples. Tonight we are joined by the House Energy Action Team, a group of Members from across the country who are dedicated to sharing with their constituents in this country the policies that we have passed in this House with bipartisan support to encourage energy production to make sure that we are increasing and encouraging natural gas development, oil developments, all of our natural resources in a true all-of-the- above energy strategy. The HEAT action team, the House Energy Action Team, is once again sharing that strategy and contrasting ourselves with the strategy that this President has presented over the past 3 years of his administration. So the President can claim all he wants to be supportive of an all- of-the-above energy strategy--said it just a few months ago from this podium right behind me in the State of the Union address, supporting an all-of-the-above energy strategy--but let's actually talk, let's actually talk about what the President's policies have resulted in. On oil and gas, he's withdrawn oil leases from Utah, costing 3,000 jobs; withdrew oil and gas leases from Montana; issued a moratorium on gulf drilling, costing 12,000 jobs; reinstated a ban on drilling off the entire Pacific coast; announced he would regulate hydraulic fracturing. Again, the President claims to be a supporter of an all-of-the-above energy policy, but on coal he pulled a permit from a West Virginia mine, costing 250 jobs; announced the merger of BLM and OSM, which could move domestic coal one step closer to extinction in this country. When it comes to nuclear energy, this President has blocked uranium mining in Arizona for 2 years. He has personally abandoned the Yucca Mountain waste site, jeopardizing the future of nuclear energy in this country; imposed a 20-year ban on uranium mining, increasing our 90 percent already, our 90 percent dependency on foreign sources. Even on renewable energy and this President's green energy agenda, this President has closed all but 2 percent of Federal lands from renewable energy development. He's left open only 670,000 of 30 million acres of land for solar development. Again, the President claims he is for an all-of-the-above energy strategy, when, in fact, what we have seen is this President is actually for none of the above. This chart--I know it's impossible to read--details the inaction of this administration, in fact, some very harmful actions to our energy policy where he has stopped, delayed, repealed energy production in this country. Again, tonight, we are going to be hearing from many Members around the country to discuss how we can advance a strong energy policy, one that creates American jobs with American energy, building our energy security for future generations. There is one great way to power our economy, and that's to turn to our energy sector to create jobs and opportunity. With that, I yield to another great leader on energy issues, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. GARDNER. And I would point out to the gentleman, too, as he knows, we've seen gas prices increase dramatically around the country. In South Carolina, I think gas prices have increased 10 percent from just a year ago. The gentleman from Arizona who joins us now in the conversation is-- New Mexico--has seen tremendous price increases, as well. With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico, my neighbor to the south.

Mr. GARDNER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership, and this is the third time that we've done that this year already, come down and talk as a group about what we can do to get our energy prices down to relieve the pain at the pump, to make sure that we're restoring our energy independence. So we'll continue this effort. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the western slope of Colorado. The vast majority of the land there is owned by the Federal Government. They've seen rigs being sent away, shutdowns, and opportunities, though, of great success where there is a glimmer of hope for increasing development in the western slope of Colorado. In my district on the eastern plains of Colorado, one county has drilled over 2,100 wells just last year, putting thousands of their people to work, helping create economic opportunity, creating jobs, bringing opportunities to the county that they never would have had otherwise. So when I talk to people of western Colorado, eastern Colorado, they simply want to do what they do best. That's to run their businesses, to do it in a responsible manner, to do what's right for their children and their grandchildren, and to stop sending the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that we send each and every year overseas to get energy from them instead of using that money right here on our own families. Every year we send $331 billion to foreign nations. We can start using that money in our own backyard. The House Energy Action Team is committed to leading this country to a future of economic growth, economic opportunity, energy security, and energy independence. I thank my colleagues from South Carolina and New Mexico for joining me tonight. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. If supply is the answer, tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we should increase domestic production. We should increase opportunities in the Western United States, on our Outer Continental Shelf. We should utilize the energy that our neighbors to the north are willing to help us out with through the Keystone XL pipeline. Because if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is, indeed, about supply, the political fix to a supply problem----

Mr. GARDNER. Because, again, going back to a speech given recently by this administration, by this President, he said at the University of Miami that we have record oil production, that he's actually leading us out of this energy crisis.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GARDNER. I want to thank both of my colleagues from New York and Texas for joining us tonight. We are out of time, but I appreciate the opportunity to address the House with your expertise and your leadership and know that we are fighting for the American people, to do everything we can for American energy independence and American energy security. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank our colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee for his comments. I know you were in the Chamber during the State of the Union address when you heard not too far from where you stand the President discuss his desire for an all-of-the-above energy policy. Just recently, though, when he talks about an all-of-the-above energy policy, he forgets to talk about the fact that he nixed the Keystone XL pipeline and so many other challenges that his administration has put forward when it comes to energy development and our Federal resources. Thank you for your leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I look forward to our further discussions. Our colleague from Texas mentioned that there were a number of bills that the House of Representatives had passed that were stacking up in the United States Senate. We've got an incredible plan for America's job creators. There are 30-some odd bills that are awaiting action in the U.S. Senate. And I'll just give you a few more bills than the ones you mentioned that are all related to energy in some way or another: The Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny that would take a look at regulations that impact our economy; take a look at the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, H.R. 2273, something that, if it's not passed, we could lose a number of jobs throughout this country because of a regulatory process that has run amok. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, H.R. 2250. The Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act. This is something that takes a look at the impact of higher energy prices, rising energy prices, what will it mean to our Nation's manufacturers, and how much more it would cost our Nation's manufacturers. The North American-Made Energy Security Act; Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act; Jobs and Energy Permitting Act; Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act; Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act; the Energy Tax Prevention Act. These are all bills that have been introduced in the House and have passed, many with very strong bipartisan support; and they're awaiting action in the Senate. Somebody else in this Chamber, who has done a tremendous job of fighting for natural gas development, making sure that those jobs are created in his backyard, Mr. Reed from New York, the gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. GARDNER. And not only were you talking about millions and billions of dollars that were spent on trying to go forward to produce energy in an area that was already approved to produce energy, but they were blocked by the bureaucratic process. They went around the world. The number is staggering. It's around 400 wells that they've drilled around the world in the amount of time that it's taken this administration to approve the one permit that they are trying to get. So 400 wells around the world, thousands of jobs created overseas, thousands of barrels of oil being produced around the world, but not a drop right here. So that's the shame of it all when it comes to the bureaucratic mess that we're in.

Mr. GARDNER. That's true. And one of the biggest challenges we face, as you mentioned, is the possibility that we could lose out on one of this Nation's great works, the Trans Alaska Pipeline, if we don't properly take care of it and make sure that we are actually utilizing it to its fullest extent. So you are exactly correct.

Mr. GARDNER. Yes. We are taking nearly 1 million barrels of oil a day. That's almost enough to replace our imports from Saudi Arabia. So between the two, the Keystone pipeline and the Beaufort Chukchi Sea development, I mean, we're talking significant--as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day, significant resources for this country, made in our own backyard.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for his comments on our resources in Alaska and the little poster that you have there on drilling in ANWR. You can see that little tiny dot--it's almost difficult for me to see from here. It is just a little tiny pinpoint within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I've heard it described many times as having a footprint similar to a postage stamp on a football field, and that's the area that you're talking about that would be used to help revitalize our energy resources with American-made, American-produced energy. But you are exactly right. Earlier last year, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. It would help do a great deal to spur development of areas that have already been approved for resource development, areas like the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea areas. This isn't opening up new areas. This is actually an area that's already been approved for leasing, and leases have been sold. They've already said, Hey, this is an area where we can have the energy production take place. So we're just trying to make sure that that energy doesn't get stopped and bogged down by bureaucratic and regulatory processes. What we did in the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is pass a bill which had great bipartisan support on the floor of the House. It has now been introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan group of Senators who say that, look, you can't use an Environmental Appeals Board that was bureaucratically created to hang up a permit for 5 years, as in the case with one particular project in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea area of Alaska. The end result of this project could be as many as 1 million barrels of oil a day and nearly 50,000 jobs being created across the country. As witnesses said before the committee, it would help reduce the price at the pump. And I think when you are talking about energy prices that have risen $1.66 since President Obama took office, we've got to do everything we can to lower the price of gasoline and help American families make ends meet. I thank the gentleman from Texas for the opportunity and yield back to him for further comments.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. He talked a little bit about the Keystone pipeline. I would point out that the development of the Alberta oil sands for the State of Texas-- and this was a statement that was given to the Energy and Commerce Committee early last year by the Alberta representative in Washington. In the State of Texas, the development of the Alberta oil sands could mean as many as 27,000 jobs in 2011-2015, 27,000 jobs that could be created as a result of the development of the Alberta oil sands, and the Keystone Pipeline is a critical component of that. That's also not to mention the fact that there are numerous firms that do business with suppliers and the contractors that would be building the pipeline and the people who would be working throughout the Alberta oil sands as they develop it. So 170 firms in Texas would benefit from the development of the Alberta oil sands. With that, I would yield to another gentleman from Texas who serves with me on the Energy and Commerce Committee, a great colleague, somebody who has championed energy development and certainly has been a strong advocate for American energy security, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And he touched on a great point, the fact that it's not just energy creation itself, energy development itself that creates the jobs that this country so desperately needs. But it's all the indirect benefits. It's the economic cycle of energy production. If you have abundant, affordable, cheap energy, you're going to have a successful economy because people are able to afford their gas. They're able to use their natural gas in manufacturing at an affordable price. But it's also the businesses that benefit from the production itself. Our family, my dad owns a farm equipment dealership. I grew up working at the farm implement dealership, selling parts to farmers and ranchers. Over the past several years we've seen a boom in natural gas development. We see those same people coming in off the rigs into the dealership looking for hydraulic hose, looking for filters for their pickups, looking for work for their maintainers, the work they're doing on their road, the excavators, all of which benefits a rural economy, when they go into the car dealership, when they go into the restaurants. Talk about economic benefit and the ability to grow our economy. Energy production is key. Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, just a couple of quotes to hear it directly from President Obama and directly from Energy Secretary Steven Chu. These are just two quotes. If you want to know where they stand on energy policy, I think these two quotes really define where they have been over the past several years. President Obama in January of 2008: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, December of 2008, and I quote: Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. Now, that doesn't sound like a recipe for economic success to me. That sounds like a recipe for economic disaster. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores). I would just let the Chamber know and our colleagues know that Mr. Flores is someone who has great experience in job creation, putting people to work and certainly helping make America more energy secure.

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House tonight on American energy. Tonight's gathering again brings together people from across the country to talk about energy policies, rising energy costs, and what it means not only to American families but what it means to the American economy. Tonight's organization is brought to us by the House Energy Action Team. It's a group of people throughout the United States elected to Congress who are committed to doing everything that we can to solve our Nation's great energy crisis, to make sure that we are addressing the price of gas at the pump and to make sure that we are taking advantage of all of the great resources that this country has to offer, whether they are traditional energy resources, be it natural gas and coal, or whether it's renewable energy and the opportunities we have around this great country. This country faces a significant challenge. We all know the situation. Unemployment stands at over 8 percent, just as it has for the last 36 months in a row. Along with high unemployment, the American people have a new worry now: rising gas prices. The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline has risen to $3.45. That's up from 11 cents from just 1 month ago, 33 cents from 1 year, and up a full $1.66 since President Obama took office. We cannot allow these high gas prices and energy prices to continue to stymie our economic recovery, and the American people cannot afford to continue to pay these unnecessary costs. Just yesterday, in fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified in the Senate, ``a major disruption that sent oil prices up very substantially could stop the recovery.'' This is a serious matter we're facing. The Federal Reserve chairman has recognized that if gas prices, if energy prices escalate, if they spike, that disruption that sent oil prices up very substantially could stop the recovery that this Nation so desperately needs. The chairman went on to note that price spikes feed inflation and act as a tax on American consumers. The government can approach this problem in a very direct way. We can take steps to increase domestic oil production and refining. Unfortunately, fighting high gas prices doesn't seem to be a high priority for this administration. Offshore leasing has fallen behind previous projections. Other administration policies have also curtailed onshore production. In 2007, the United States Energy Information Administration projected the total 2010 U.S. oil production on Federal lands to be 850 million barrels. Actual production was 16 percent beneath that. About a year ago, the Energy and Commerce Committee had an opportunity to hear from Secretary Chu, the Department of Energy secretary. As he was testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I asked a very simple question: What is the administration's plan to address the rising price of gasoline to help relieve the pain at the pump for millions of Americans who are trying to get to work and help their families make ends meet? After a lot of hemming and hawing the answer was, well, in 10 years from now--and I stopped him, I interrupted, and I said, the administration's plan to address high gasoline prices is something that we can count on in 10 years from now? As we have seen with gas prices that have already risen $1.66 since the President took office, their plan is still not in effect. Permitting agencies across the Federal Government need to work to streamline, speed up, and improve the permitting process in order to close that production gap on Federal lands. Energy exploration can lower energy costs while driving the economic recovery. Economic recovery and job creation is the number one priority of this Congress, and it is time that the President and our friends in the Senate get on board. Creating jobs and getting people back to work is not a partisan issue. It is past time that we get some wins in the fight against high unemployment and economic stagnation. For instance, it's been 3 years since the application was filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would create a pipeline stretching from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, to the gulf coast, bringing significant oil supplies to the United States. The Alberta oil sands development would create 6,000 jobs in Colorado. It's estimated that it would create 6,000 jobs between 2011 and 2015. The Keystone pipeline is an important part of that development. These are good-paying, solid, reliable jobs--20,000 direct jobs, 100,000 indirect jobs--and yet this President has vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline. He has said ``no'' to jobs, ``no'' to North American energy. I'd just like to show a recent survey that was taken a couple of weeks ago. The American people support construction of the Keystone pipeline. You can see right here the number of Americans from across the political spectrum, Republicans and Democrats, a variety of income levels, a variety of age levels, all people, the majority of whom support the Keystone XL pipeline because they know in this economy we can't say ``no'' to jobs. We should be saying ``yes'' to jobs. They know that if we say ``no'' to the Keystone pipeline, we're saying ``yes'' to sending our jobs to China. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the American public wants China to win our energy race. I think they want to make sure that we are doing everything we can for energy security in our own backyards. We need pro-growth solutions to create jobs, but there's only so much that Congress can do to directly create those jobs. Real job creation comes from the private sector, from small businesses and private employers. Unfortunately, our government has a regulatory climate that makes it incredibly hard for businesses around this country to do what they do best: to innovate, to excel, to expand, and to hire. The EPA and other Federal agencies have been writing new job-killing regulations at record pace. These agencies are actively working against the number one priority of the American public, to create jobs--job creation. At a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee in April of last year, an EPA assistant administrator, Matthew Stanislaus, admitted to me that the agency doesn't directly consider job losses when analyzing a new rule, when coming forward with an economic analysis. Not only is that just unacceptable, it's shameful that an agency would create rules, issue rules without taking into account the impact, in an economic analysis, that regulation would have on jobs. Under this administration, the Obama EPA has proposed unnecessary and costly new rules on cement manufacturers, industrial boilers, farmers, power plants, energy providers, along with general ozone rules that will affect every sector to the economy with no thought as to what the consequence will be on the American job creator. To be clear, the regulatory killing field is not the only problem. In the financial sector, Federal regulators are forcing banks to hoard capital, prohibiting community banks from effectively working with their borrowers. Businesses are struggling to operate in the face of damaging overregulation, and the financial sector is not there to support them because of even more damaging regulations. It's no wonder that unemployment is still above 8 percent. It's no wonder this is the longest stretch of unemployment exceeding 8 percent since the Great Depression. We have government agencies saying they don't care about jobs, and we have an administration and a Senate that aren't doing anything about it. With that, I'm joined by my colleagues from around the country. I would yield to my good friend and colleague, somebody who has championed job creation, who has sponsored legislation to create jobs, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address the Chamber tonight to discuss a very important issue, the issue of job creation, the issue of energy independence, and what we are doing in the 112th Congress, the Republican majority, to make sure that we're creating jobs and opportunities for the American people. According to the Canadian government, Mr. Speaker, over 143,000 jobs in Colorado depend on our trade relationship with Canada. And whether people want to admit it or not, crude petroleum is Colorado's top import from Canada. But we're not unique in that aspect. Colorado is by no means unique. Many of our jobs and much of our energy depends on our good relationship with our friendly neighbor to the north. When it comes to the Keystone pipeline, though, it's been 3 years since an application was first filed. America knows the Keystone pipeline, a 1,700-mile energy project from our neighbors to the north to the Gulf of Mexico, one that could create as many as 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs. The United States as a whole would benefit both economically and from a national security standpoint if this country were to be able to move forward with the Keystone pipeline. And tonight, we have Members of Congress from across this country, and Members from the East and the West, the North and the South who will talk about the importance of energy security and the importance of creating jobs. So many of the debates we have heard on the Chamber floor, not only today but in the past few months, have been revolving around the notion of creating jobs and what we're going to do to get this economy turned around, an economy that already has over 14 million Americans unemployed and 46 million Americans living in poverty, a chance to get people to work and a chance to create jobs. I will frame this debate tonight with some information that we've just received. People across this country want the Keystone pipeline to be built. If you look at the numbers we have here, supporters of the Keystone pipeline, you can see the support. It's not just Republicans. It's not just the majority of Democrats. Every sector that we have talked about in this poll supports the Keystone pipeline overwhelmingly, 64 percent when you take into account the opinions of Republicans and Democrats. They know that this project will create opportunity, opportunity that hasn't existed for far too long. For over 36 months now, we've seen the unemployment rate in this Nation exceed 8 percent. It's unacceptable. And the fact that this administration has decided to punt on jobs is shameful. It's been said before, a year ago, 2 years ago when the President was talking about shovel-ready projects, well now apparently the only thing that the President is willing to use his shovel for is to bury jobs. And that's why tonight I'm excited for the discussion we will have with the American people. So at this time I would like to yield to some of my colleagues who have joined me on the floor for their take and perspective on the Keystone pipeline, beginning with my good friend from Alabama, Martha Roby.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for his time tonight, and again, as we wrap up our discussion, we will just highlight the support the Keystone pipeline has across this country. Again, you can see the people who believe that job creation, American energy security matters. It matters because we can create jobs now. We have an opportunity to develop our North American resources, to reduce our reliance on overseas oil. The question that these supporters ought to be asking tonight is whether or not they want to give up this project to China. I don't think they want China to win. And yet that's the decision this administration has made--100,000 jobs, American energy security. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Again, to the American people, we've heard asked often by Members of this body: Where are the jobs? I think we need to start asking: Why not these jobs? I thank the gentleman from Texas. With that, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, who has been very active in the fight for jobs in his home State and across this country.