Tim Huelskamp

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. That is an excellent idea I guess we would expect from the administration, but, fundamentally, that is favoritism. That is picking who gets to believe what. And as previous colleagues talked about escaping, immigrants that came to this country came here for this particular reason, to avoid paying a fine for what they believed. That's exactly what we are being forced to do. Do we get permission from the President not to pay the fine? Do we get a waiver? Well, how do we accommodate religious freedom, Mr. President? How do we accommodate that, Secretary Sebelius? How do we balance? It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution we're going to balance what you want with our freedoms. The First Amendment is very clear. And the first part of the First Amendment is the freedom to believe in the God as we choose. And I appreciate and thank you for that. I'll do this. Let's ask for a waiver for everybody in America to actually get a waiver so we can believe what we want to believe. I would ask for that as well. So thank you, Congressman, for your leadership, and we will continue to join you in this effort.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act. The first step in treating an addiction is admitting you have a problem. An addict has to be honest with himself before he can overcome his dependence. In that same vein, Washington needs to be honest about its addiction to overspending, and this bill will force Washington to do just that. It will force Washington to be honest, not only with itself but, more importantly, with the American people. By bringing Fannie and Freddie on budget, Washington will be honest that these expensive programs have become the financial responsibility of the Federal Government. By requiring risk to be assessed and accounted for in loans or loan guarantees, Washington will be honest about the gains or losses taxpayers can anticipate. And by requiring every agency to post their budget requests online, Washington will have to be honest with the American taxpayers about where their money goes. A lot of honesty is needed now, Madam Chairman, but a little bit will go a long way in restoring the trust of the American people and the fiscal discipline of Washington. Can we restore the trust of the American people? Yes, we can. Can we restore fiscal discipline in Washington? Yes, we can. Yes, we will, with passage of this bill.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. Just yesterday, the Budget Committee had the opportunity to question the CBO Director about the impact of the President's stimulus on the economy. A few months earlier, his office and mine had a very public debate about the impact of government spending on the economy. When asked to identify a single program, one single program that positively impacted the economy, the CBO could not identify one program. Then, during the Budget Committee hearing, I asked the Director, is it fair to say that the massive spending of 2009 did not benefit the economy? He said, and I quote: ``The extra government spending from the Recovery Act in 2009 boosted the economy in the short term, but we believe, unless there are offsetting changes, the economy will be worse off.'' From the CBO. Legislation like the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act will require the CBO to undertake a full analysis of every major legislation, including impacts on the employment and labor supply. Had the previous Congress been able to review the long-term impacts and consequences of a $1 trillion stimulus boondoggle, perhaps our economy would be better off today. Perhaps the more than 20 million Americans--that's right, 20 million Americans--who are unemployed or underemployed would actually have a job. Those who care solely about the short-term concern themselves with political gain at the expense of the future. Today I ask my colleagues to support this legislation because they care about the long term, about the next generation, even if it means their short-term political gains cannot be realized.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the resolution offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Florida. The jaws of the people I represent drop when I inform them that 1,000 days have passed since the Senate actually passed a budget; 1,000 days since Democrat Harry Reid allowed a budget to actually be debated. They can't believe that such a failure of duty has occurred, yet alone that it can occur. Two weeks ago I hosted a town hall in Clay Center, Kansas, and a constituent asked: How is it possible for the Senate to not pass a budget? As the constituent correctly pointed out, you can't run a city, a State, or a business this way. Washington seems to be the only place in the world where reality doesn't apply. Perhaps it's fitting that the President traveled to the most magical place on earth--Disney World-- last week. He is complicit with allowing the Senate Democrats to live out a fairy tale in which fiscal policy is carried out on a whim. Not only do cities, States, and businesses not function without budgets, but American families cannot get ahead without them. Families who face mountains of debt, like Washington does, never erased the red ink without a plan to pay it down or a plan to stop adding to it. Families who want to save and invest for the future cannot do so without a budget. Families who want to leave a legacy for their children and grandchildren come up with a blueprint to do so. And in the same regard, we should be focused on the legacy Washington is leaving for our children and grandchildren, Mr. President and Mr. Reid. We cannot wait.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to raising the debt limit again and again and again. Last week, I traveled across the First Congressional District of Kansas to host seven town hall meetings. Kansans reiterated the same thing I heard in 70 town halls last year--overspending, over- regulation, and yes, overtaxing must end now. Kansans are not concerned about the next election, like most in Washington seem to be. They are worried about the next generation. Between the first day this President took office and today, debt has grown by $4.6 trillion. As a comparison, it took from George Washington to Bill Clinton to build up that much debt. And now the President wants another $1.2 trillion. But unfortunately, the real battle to prohibit this $1.2 trillion mortgage on our children's future was lost 5 months ago when the House passed the Budget Control Act. Since the Budget Control Act passed, the Congress has failed to produce any cuts from the supercommittee. We have failed to pass a balanced budget amendment. And Senator Reid not only refuses to pass but even to consider a budget. However, those recent failures don't paint the picture. The culture of overspending in Washington for the past half century has led us to where we are today. Every President has refused to balance the budget. Every Member of Congress who advocated for their pet projects, every bureaucrat who practiced a use-it-or-lose-it mentality, every special interest who came to us, everyone, they are all to blame for where we stand today. Our national debt is equal to our GDP. When this debt limit is reached, every man, woman, and child in America will have their own debt to pay to Washington of $50,000, and this doesn't take into account the mountains of debt we face for future runaway entitlement programs. I look around this body, this is not about us. This is about our children and grandchildren who will have to pay this back. Unless and until Washington can get its grip on reckless spending and borrowing, the future of our country will remain on the line.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, as I have traveled across the First District of Kansas to host more than 70 in-person town hall meetings during my first 10 months here in Congress, constituents have reaffirmed our shared belief that Washington cannot be everything to everybody and nor should it be. They have told me they can and want to do more with less. They know that the more Washington spends today, the more their children and grandchildren will have to pay back in the future, and likely to a foreign nation. And while they scale back their expectations, they want Washington to scale back what it asks them to do. The ever-tightening grip and imposition of the Federal bureaucracy's expensive, counterproductive, and unnecessary burdens are killing America's agriculture industry. Today, I will introduce the FARM Act of 2011--Freeing Agriculture to Reap More Act. I am unveiling it today in light of the pending ag discussions we hear are occurring in the supercommittee. The FARM Act reflects the conversations I have had with constituents and farm groups all across the First District and addresses their concerns about the economic impacts of overregulation. In essence, the FARM Act adds a regulatory title to the farm bill. Given the consequences of overregulation, it merits its own title amid others like trade, research, conservation, or farm credit. Farmers and ranchers arguably pay some of the largest costs for Washington's crushing burden of overregulation. Whether it is on youth involvement on family farms, pesticide application permits, greenhouse gases, farm dust, farm commercial vehicles, fuel hauling limitations for farm equipment, or livestock emissions taxes, the Federal Government continues to insist that it control the intricate, day-to- day affairs of America's agriculture community. The FARM Act prohibits this regulatory overreach. Kansas' family farms do not need Washington writing detailed instruction manuals for them on how much fuel they can or cannot put in their tractors. They do not need Washington prohibiting them from teaching their own children the value and importance of hard work by allowing them to work a few hours on the farm. And they most certainly do not need Washington imposing taxes on them for supposed greenhouse gases emitted by their livestock. No, they need Washington to let them run their operations in the safe and responsible, yet productive, ways they have done for generations. The FARM Act allows our family farms to continue the family tradition without fear of expensive and unnecessary regulations. Like the families that live and the farms that operate in rural America, small towns in the First District of Kansas also have no need for additional instruction from Washington. That is why the FARM Act prohibits funding for the newly established White House Rural Council. Rural communities are the embodiment of family and entrepreneurial freedom, and this council seeks to replace that freedom with centralized planning schemes. We simply cannot afford more of the President's failed approaches. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the FARM Act of 2011. It's time to stop the overregulation of America's farmers, ranchers, ag communities, and rural America. It's time to put an end to Washington's distrust of America's growers, ranchers, and producers, as well as all of rural America.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise today, as the father of four adopted children, to offer my strong support for the Protect Life Act. Opponents of this bill allege it is unconstitutional, and that is simply not true. While the Supreme Court has wrongfully decided abortion is a constitutional right, they have also clearly upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment and the language in this bill. Madam Speaker, this is not revolutionary, earth-shaking legislation we are considering. I would like to see Congress go much further in protecting life. We should not be funding the abortions in the District. We should be protecting conscience rights for health care providers. We should stop giving money to organizations like Planned Parenthood. We should be ending the practice of abortion in America. This bill is an important step, but more certainly needs to be done. I urge my colleagues to protect life and support this bill in honor of all adopted children, their birth families, and their adoptive families.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you on the floor today. Every day that goes by without these agreements is a missed opportunity. Hundreds of missed opportunities have passed because of years of delay, which is why we cannot afford to waste one more day. The fact is, today in South Korea, for example, beef costs nearly $24 a pound. Pork costs nearly $10 a pound. These facts can only work to the mutual benefit of both U.S. producers and Korean consumers. When America is starved for jobs and economic growth, agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea present an occasion for Washington to address these challenges. Up to a quarter million new jobs and a hundred billion-dollar boost to the country's GDP are glimmers of hope in what is otherwise a bleak economic outlook. And not a dime of taxpayer money has to be spent to create good American jobs. For America to be part of the 21st-century economy, it is not enough to simply buy American. We have to sell American. America's safe and efficient ag, energy, and manufacturing production makes the U.S. an attractive trading partner. Americans can compete, and we can win. When the Ambassador of Vietnam to the United States toured a hog farm in my district in August, he was both impressed and astonished by the safety and cleanliness of our facilities. That signaled to me that America, and Kansas in particular, has much to offer the world. In sum, these agreements are an opportunity for a nation seeking more affordable and safe goods and an opportunity for our Nation to benefit with jobs and economic growth. I urge my colleagues to move quickly and join me in supporting this rule and the underlying agreements. We need the jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky yielding to me on this very important legislation. At a time when 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, the last thing Washington needs to be doing is making it more difficult to grow the economy. But that seems to be the operating question of this administration. The question is this: They ask, how can we make it more challenging for America's job creators to hire? America's energy sector is under direct assault. Energy companies looking to meet the rapidly growing energy needs of our Nation are either being forced to put on hold their efforts or are self-imposing barricades on future construction or expansion as a result of new or anticipated regulatory requirements. It has been reported recently that 351 stalled energy projects cost the Nation $1.1 trillion in GDP and 1.9 million jobs, yes, jobs. On this list is the Sunflower Electric Power Plant in Holcomb, Kansas. Sunflower Electric is a rural co-op that with a needed expansion can provide many new jobs in western Kansas. Most importantly, this expansion will allow Kansas to have the energy it needs in order to prevent brownouts, which are a very real possibility and a threat to our part of the country. Not only do families, schools, and hospitals depend on this energy production but. So does our agriculture sector, which is a key and vital component of rural Kansas. Sunflower faces considerable, unnecessary, and excessive regulatory scrutiny, not only for its existing operations but for the planned expansion in Holcomb as well. Whether it is the cross-State pollution rule, the MACT rule or many others, each one of these has a major impact. But the bigger problem--and that is what the TRAIN Act wants to demonstrate--is that these rules will be devastating and expensive to America's energy industry and all Americans. The President came before this House a few weeks ago and talked about the need for America to improve its infrastructure. Power plants in America are the very type of infrastructure that our country needs, particularly when energy consumption is growing rapidly in our Nation. These private companies, private companies, are willing to add to the country's infrastructure and create jobs, all without the help of the Federal Government. In fact, all they need is for Washington to take a step back. A Kansas business leader summed up this administration's guilty- until-innocent approach to regulation. He said, ``We have a regulatory environment that assumes businesses are crooks, and government must catch them at it. This only raises the costs on business and makes it more difficult to operate.'' I think his analysis says it all.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding to me. I do support this resolution. Here in this Chamber--actually, here in America--we often talk about achievements in terms of metrics: the larger, the better. For a private company, it's impressive when it has a large budget, a large workforce, and a large profit and a large presence. The Federal Government, as an institution, should not talk this way, even though similar assertions would all be true. Washington spends too much, employs too many people, and is too intrusive in the lives of all Americans. The major difference is that private business makes investments that deliver returns, and failure to do so is the demise of the business. The Federal Government's spending, though, often fails to deliver real results. But the Federal Government does not meet its demise; rather, the all-too-often negative consequences fall on taxpayers and usually result in a new government program or one or dozens more. But if we were thinking like a businessperson, we would consider the results that have come from past investments before making another. Two-and-a-half years ago, the previous Congress and this current President implemented a stimulus that ultimately will cost Americans more than $1 trillion. This mega-investment was supposed to create 3.5 million jobs. This investment was supposed to bring an unemployment rate of 6.4 percent last month. But what has actually happened? The President is more than 6 million jobs short and unemployment stood at 9.1 percent last month. That's not even counting the millions of Americans who are underemployed. The Budget Control Act, which the President signed, was supposed to be about putting an end to Washington's business as usual: spend and borrow, spend and borrow some more. Yet when the President came before us here in this very room a week ago tomorrow, all we heard was a recycled idea: another stimulus, another $450 billion exercise in excessive spending that will underperform and underdeliver. Spend, spend, spend, raise taxes and borrow more to pay for that spending. Raise those taxes from the very individuals and businesses that can actually create jobs that will get the economy out of this rut and put millions of Americans to work. And along the way, let's demonize job creators. That's what happened in this Chamber. I believe the Federal Government should function as efficiently and as effectively as a private business; but it, by no means, should be able to brag about a large budget that fails to deliver and which only adds to the red ink each year. Before adding to the $15 trillion in debt this country already has or sustaining more years of trillion dollar annual deficits, we have no choice, and the American people expect no less, cut current spending and cap future spending obligations and pass a balanced budget amendment. I support this resolution.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

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

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Today I rise on behalf of the Republican Study Committee to offer an amendment to bring the Interior appropriations bill in line with the RSC budget. Mr. Chairman, credit rating agencies around the country are threatening to downgrade our debt, and not because we won't pass a debt ceiling increase but more so because we have not passed a credible plan to pay that debt back. Every child born in America today owes the Federal Government over $46,000, and that bill rises every day. The times we are in demand that we look at the effectiveness of every Federal dollar we spend, and that is why I offer this amendment today. This amendment makes cuts across the bill, but the biggest cuts come from the EPA. In my opinion, no agency in our Federal Government has done more to negatively impact our economy than the EPA. In my district in western Kansas, EPA foot-dragging and redtape is delaying the construction of a new power plant. The construction of the plant would create 1,900 construction jobs and 261 permanent jobs, yet they cannot even break ground. Region VII is asking for changes. Environmental groups continue to file lawsuits based on EPA rules, exacting a death-by-litigation strategy against the rural electric cooperative members seeking to build this plant. According to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 351 proposed solar, wind, wave, biofuel, coal, gas, nuclear and energy transmission projects have been delayed or canceled due to significant impediments, such as regulatory barriers, including inefficient review processes and the attendant lawsuits and threats of legal action. The study found that these projects would produce 1.9 million new jobs during construction and almost 800,000 jobs on an ongoing basis. These jobs are simply in limbo when our economy sorely needs them. In fact, not a week seems to go by without the EPA issuing a new rule or regulation that increases costs to businesses and consumers. BoilerMACT, water cooling intakes for power plants, interstate air quality, dust and other particulate matter, ozone, and the list goes on and on. These actions not only drive up costs but they create higher degrees of uncertainty in our fragile economy. And when the EPA isn't hampering our economy at home, they are sending our tax dollars abroad. Nearly $1.3 million was sent to China in grants over the past 2 years. Yes, that's right, these grants were sent to the China Coal Institute, the China University of Petroleum, the China Urban Construction Design and Research Academy, and the China Association of Rural Energy Industry. I guess the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt we owe them is not enough. The EPA has long given up sound scientific methods to ensure a clean environment for a left-wing agenda that heaps billions in costs on our economy in exchange for nearly immeasurable incremental changes in our water and air quality. Mr. Chairman, this amendment also zeroes out funding for the NEA and the NEH. Federal spending on the arts and humanities has long been controversial, not only for the nature of some of the grants but also for the fact that I believe the Federal Government should not play such a role in our society and certainly should not at a time when we are facing an impending debt crisis. If we cannot make relatively easy decisions to eliminate this funding, how can the American people expect us to make the harder decisions necessary to balance our Federal budget? Mr. Chairman, the amendment also ends funding for National Heritage Area grants. This provision was included as a result of the YouCut program where the American people could vote on a government program to cut, and this is the one they selected. Federal funding for heritage areas was supposed to be seed capital to get them up and running for the States, localities, and private sector who requested them. Many of the grants have exceeded their original 10-year limitation. Even the President recommended a 50 percent cut in his budget for them, which was included in the bill; but in this time of much needed Federal spending restraint, it is time to cut them altogether. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to pass this amendment and help put us on a track to balance our budget in the next decade. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. A day like today does not come often, Madam Speaker. In only a handful of instances in our Nation's history has our Constitution been amended. There can not be a better or more urgent time for this House and the Senate and the United States of America to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. In a matter of only 2 years, non-defense discretionary spending has increased 84 percent and annual deficits have exceeded a trillion dollars for 3 straight years. And our debt has grown by nearly $4 trillion since President Obama took office. Let us think about cut, cap, and balance in a larger context. Let's think about who is really impacted by the out-of-control spending this legislation seeks to end. In my home County of Meade County, Kansas, population 4,575, there was one birth announcement this week. On his birthday, that child received an IOU for nearly $46,000 to the Federal Government, and that's before this President adds more to the country's debt burden. Any request to increase the country's debt must be accompanied by a clear plan that will reduce the amount of money that a child born in Meade County, Kansas, owes to the politicians in Washington, D.C. Let's cut spending now, cap spending in the future, and pass a balanced budget amendment and make history for all America's children. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. A few hours ago, the President issued a veto threat to Cut, Cap, and Balance. While, of course, this was expected, it is still disappointing. It is disappointing because this legislation answers his demand that we on this side of the aisle offer a plan. It is also disappointing because he doesn't have a plan himself. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the last few years often called the Republicans the ``party of no,'' but this President who ran on ``hope'' has become President Nope. The President doesn't know what he's for, but he certainly knows what he's against. His opposition to Cut, Cap, and Balance includes opposition to a balanced budget amendment. He said it's not necessary, and that lawmakers should simply do their jobs. It's ironic that a President who is so insistent on tying the hands of the private sector with onerous regulations would oppose tying the hands of politicians when it comes to spending and borrowing. Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, the EPA--they all restrict what Americans can and cannot do. The President wants no such restrictions on either Congress or himself. No, the only restriction-free zone he wants is Washington, D.C. Cut, Cap, and Balance recognizes that Washington's solutions have to be long-term and permanent. Quick fixes are what got us into the position we find ourselves in; they are not what will get us out of it.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the citizens of Scott City, Kansas. In June 2011, the National Civic League recognized Scott City as an ``All-American City.'' Only ten communities across the country received this honor. Scott City presented to a panel of judges three projects involving community collaboration. First, community members shared information about how the town has been holding potluck dinners and fiestas to bridge gaps that exist among different cultures. These events have facilitated greater dialogue and understanding among the various populations of Scott City. Second, community members presented information about how town volunteers and First Baptist Church transformed a vacant storefront and warehouse into a community youth center. Known as ``Area 96,'' this site provides a safe and welcoming place for young people to spend their free time, as well as a site for other community groups to utilize. Third, Scott City residents shared how they have used the renovation and expansion of the Scott County Library as an opportunity to transform the role of the Library in the community from just a building to a community information center. Not only have they increased youth services and youth-driven programs, but they have also expanded their services and offerings for English language learners. The achievements of Scott City, Kansas demonstrate that the efforts of communities and individuals provide the true backbone of America. I congratulate Scott City for this remarkable and well-deserved honor.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I am very interested in learning what continues to happen every day in our other States, particularly our State to the south. Being from the State of Kansas, I would like to talk a little bit about the coal industry. You might say, Kansas and the coal industry, what does that have to do with Kansas? I am a farmer by trade, and we produce a lot of corn and wheat and soybeans and many other things. But in order to produce those, we need a lot of electricity. A number of decades ago we built a coal-fired electrical power plant in western Kansas. It generates electricity that covers six to seven States. About 5 or 6 or 7 years ago, we said we need more electricity. Our economy continues to grow, and we need more electricity. We began the process in western Kansas to expand our electrical production. We need more electricity. If the economy is going to grow--and I'm sorry to say, now the economy is not growing very quickly under this administration, and let me tell you why. It is called overregulation. It is called litigation. It is called the attempt by this administration and others outside that are working together with this administration to stop the generation of more electricity, more energy of various types. We need more energy. We need more American energy, and we can produce that. We are trying to do that right now in western Kansas. We are trying to produce more jobs. This administration and folks close to this administration--and this is hard to believe--they have said that you want 1,900 construction jobs. You want to create 1,900 jobs in western Kansas to grow your ability to produce American electricity. You know what the answer is from this administration? You know what the answer is from environmental groups? You know what the answer is? They said: No, we don't want your jobs. We don't want 1,900 jobs in western Kansas. We have rural communities all across western Kansas, and they depend on this power. Actually, if they don't have more electricity, we will begin to see brownouts in less than a decade in a rural area. We are trying to grow our production of energy, of coal-fired electrical power, and this administration says: No, we're going to sue you. And the EPA says: No, we're going to stop you with new regulations. Various outside groups are throwing lawsuits. It is death by litigation. And that is not only stopping our power plants. They are stopping power plants all across the country. Now, it is hard to understand. I talk to my constituents and they say: Why can't we have more electricity? Who is opposed to this? Who is opposed to jobs? Somebody in Washington is opposed to jobs. There are regulators all over this country, particularly in our Nation's capital, who say: No, I would rather you pay for $5 gasoline. No, I would rather you have higher electricity rates. If we don't generate more electricity in my State, in western Kansas, they anticipate a 40 to 50 percent increase in electricity rates. But by the time that would happen, 4 or 5 years from now, they'll say: Why didn't you do something about it? That is why I am here tonight. We have to do something about it now. Our competitors across the way in China, I believe they have figured it out. They recognize that you need more energy in whatever form. We need more energy. We need to produce more electricity. We need to produce more diesel fuel and more gasoline. We need an all-of-the-above strategy. But when you have an administration and a culture in Washington that is dedicated to eliminating access to energy, when you have an Energy Secretary that suggests that Americans need to pay $5 a gallon on gasoline, our Energy Secretary suggests that we need to pay $5 a gallon on our gasoline, what is going on? We need to pay more? No, we need to pay less. And the way we do that is not having a brand-new policy, a new program in Washington. No, we need to let American entrepreneurs continue to do what they have been doing for years, and that is producing a needed product called energy. And we can produce it in many ways in Kansas and all throughout the Midwest and all throughout the Nation. But when you have this narrow agenda of those in Washington that have dedicated their lives to make certain that our electrical prices go up, our energy prices in all forms go up, that is going to cost us more unless we can turn on the entrepreneurs. Actually, there was a report from our U.S. Chamber of Commerce--and there are folks in this town who get upset when you talk about people who create jobs because it is actually the private sector that creates jobs. It estimates there are 351 stalled energy projects across America, and the one in western Kansas, Sunflower Electric Cooperative, is just one of those, but there are 350 others. They estimate that if those stalled energy projects would move forward that they would create 2 million jobs in the short term just in construction, but in the long term, they would create affordable energy to allow us to compete across the world. Frankly, as our energy prices increase, our ability to compete and export and to compete with China and many other countries is incredibly diminished. So we need--we must--and are responsible here in this Chamber for freeing up entrepreneurs. We are responsible for forcing the U.S. Senate to come to the table and actually do what they talked about doing. I don't think there is a Member of Congress in the House or Senate who went home and said, Do you know what I like? I like high energy prices. Nobody said that. No. They went home, and said, We're doing everything we can. They're not doing everything they can. The U.S. Senate is not doing a single thing to help this along, and the administration is doing everything it can to make sure our energy prices go up. That's so frustrating to me because we do have an easy answer. Let's let American entrepreneurs, American energy companies--basically small businesses--move forward. In my district, we are heavily dependent on agriculture, but the second largest industry is the oil and gas industry, and we must continue to encourage them to move forward. I appreciate the opportunity to visit about this tonight. It's something I am very passionate about because the people in this House who are working for it cannot be blamed for high energy prices in the future, because we are doing what we can do today. Thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I rise this evening to ensure that America's military bases are not used to advance a narrow social agenda. Earlier this year, the Navy chief of chaplains announced that military chaplains who desire to perform same-sex marriages would be allowed to do so following the repeal of the policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The directive said that chaplains could perform same-sex ceremonies in such States where such marriages and unions are legal. Apparently, the Navy has recently backed away from such instruction, but tepidly and weakly, and in a way that leaves the door open to the reinstatement of this policy. This amendment I offer will prohibit the enforcement of the directive of allowing chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on Navy bases regardless of whatever a State's law is on gay marriage. In thinking about what has made our military successful, two things come to my mind: conformity and uniformity. Men and women who join our military are to conform to the military's standards, not the other way around. Regardless of where a ship is docked or where a plane is parked, our servicemembers know what to anticipate and how to behave. Rules and expectations are the same everywhere, but with a policy that is flexible and changes based on the State, the military doesn't embrace its one-size-fits-all mentality that has made it so accomplished, disciplined and orderly. As the Navy and other military branches prepare for the repeal of this 1993 law, hours upon hours of sensitivity training have been presented to men and women in uniform. Such instruction has included warning that the failure to embrace alternative lifestyles could result in penalties for servicemembers. What will happen to chaplains who decline to officiate over same-sex ceremonies? The directive states that chaplains ``may'' perform same- sex civil marriage ceremonies. I fear that chaplains who refuse to perform these ceremonies may find themselves under attack and their careers threatened. Madam Chair, we must ensure the religious liberty of all military members, particularly that of chaplains. In my family, I've had a military chaplain who has served for more than approximately 4 decades, so this is particularly important to me, personally. Regardless of how someone feels about the repeal of the policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I think we can all agree that instructing military chaplains that they can perform same-sex marriages goes above and beyond the instruction to repeal that particular law. In fact, this directive is not only an overreach of the repeal but is also a direct assault on the Defense of Marriage Act. It should be noted these two laws passed with bipartisan support and were signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell was supposed to be about allowing people in the military to serve openly, not about promoting same-sex marriage in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment in order to promote and ensure conformity and uniformity in the military culture, not the other way around; to promote the religious liberty of military chaplains; and to promote consistency with Federal laws on marriage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Yes, if the gentleman would restate his question.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, that is an excellent question. We tried to obtain a copy of that from the Department of Defense today and they refused to provide a copy. What I do have is an online three-page summary of the manual.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, on May 26th, I missed rollcall vote numbered 376 because I was travelling to Kansas for a family funeral. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Clearly, there is one clear issue before us in H.R. 3, and it is whether or not Americans shall be required to fund the taking of innocent human life. It has been indicated that this is controversial, and it certainly is; but without a doubt the American people demand they not be required to subsidize abortion. The second issue here, Madam Speaker, is the question that over and over we've heard from my colleagues that they would like to see abortion rare. That is what this bill does. With the subsidization of abortion, it expands. This bill will limit the payments and restrict and prohibit the use of Federal taxpayer dollars for the funding of abortion. That's what this bill does. Madam Speaker, again it is very clear, and, contrary to the claims of the opponents of this bill, it is very simple. Americans should not be required to pay for abortions. H.R. 3 accomplishes this objective. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the RSC budget because we cannot wait, as the other side seems to indicate, to get our fiscal house in order. And the RSC budget will put us on that path even faster. Mr. Chairman, the American people are tired of their tax dollars going to Washington, D.C., with nothing in return but empty promises and Federal strings. They are tired of adding to the National debt with none of the promised jobs. People across my State of Kansas, indeed all across the country, want their power back from Washington. Our Founding Fathers got this concept of federalism right, and it's time we return government power from Washington bureaucrats and politicians back to the American people. Block grants of Federal Medicaid dollars to the States will do just that by allowing States and those closest to the people to use their ingenuity and creativity to make Medicaid dollars work more effectively.