Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents any taxpayer funds from being used to implement the Department of Agriculture's new rule and regulation titled Policy Statement on Climate Change Adaptation. Mr. Chairman, we've had this debate on cap-and-trade in the last Congress. In fact, there was a bipartisan coalition of Members that voted and ultimately defeated the cap-and-trade proposal by President Obama brought in the last Congress. And yet here we now have a new regulation that was just issued by the Department of Agriculture less than 2 weeks ago to implement, in essence, a back-door attempt to put a cap-and-trade program in place in the Department of Agriculture. And if you'll look at some of the details laid out in this policy statement, this is a regulation that was just implemented by the Department of Agriculture. It gives new powers to the Department to go into areas where right now we, as a Congress, have said we don't want the administration to be going. In fact, if you'll look at what agencies like the EPA are doing in trying to implement other forms of cap-and-trade, global warming, carbon emission-type programs, we've been rolling those agencies back. We've been having hearings that have showed how this is not only bad policy but this will kill jobs in America. And so if you look at some of the provisions in this, the policy establishes a USDA-wide directive to integrate climate change adaptation planning into USDA programs, policies, and operations. Mr. Chairman, it further goes on, it actually gives new powers to the agency. It says every single office shall identify for USDA's Office of the General Counsel areas where legal analysis is needed to carry out actions identified under this Department regulation. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you just look at what these types of policies and regulations are being used to do at EPA, what it does is give the authority for USDA lawyers to go and issue findings that can then be used against our farmers, findings that will cost our farmers jobs, increase the price of food. And don't just look at what this policy does. Look at what's happening in some of the other agencies where they're already trying to carry this out, and Congress has been trying to roll them back. And so at a time when we're broke--42 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed money--this new regulation creates and references all of these new offices, the Climate Change Program Office. It says they've got to develop a USDA climate change adaptation plan. It references the USDA's global change task force. In fact, if you look, after they released this new regulation, they issued $7.4 million to implement a bunch of new grants that are being used to do things like study carbon credits. Well, again, that was all brought up in cap-and-trade and rejected by Congress. And yet here they come with a de facto, back-door attempt at another cap-and-trade-type of program. We've got to stop this attack on our job creators. We've got to stop, in this case, the attack that's being proposed on our farmers. They actually are now spending millions of dollars, the USDA is, to study how farmers can grow crops in 2050, based on what they think the climate will be under these new regulations. Look, our local weatherman can't tell us what the weather's going to be this Saturday, within a 50 percent margin of error. And yet the Department's spending millions of dollars to tell us what the climate's going to be in 39 years to determine how our farmers should be growing crops. This is ludicrous. We rejected it here in Congress. We shouldn't be allowing these kinds of regulations to be implemented. And hopefully this amendment will get adopted. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, just today we got the bad news again that the jobless numbers have gone up, that our unemployment numbers have gone up and that much smaller job increases were created than were expected. I think, as we continue to see unemployment going up over 9 percent-- 9.1 percent now according to the latest numbers--it is very clear that the President's spending and borrowing agenda has been a dismal failure. Yet the President continues to go down that path. It is time for the President to start working with the House Republicans, who have sent jobs bill after jobs bill over to the Senate. For whatever reason, the President and the liberals in the Senate don't want to address the ability that we have presented to create jobs. One real clear example is in our State of Louisiana where we have lost over 13,000 jobs because of the President's policies, where they won't let our people get back to the work of drilling safely for energy in America. We don't want to get our energy from Brazil or from the Middle Eastern countries, many of whom don't like us and who use the billions we send to them to do us harm. We could keep that money here. We could keep those jobs here. There is a plan to do it. Plan after plan has been sent to the Senate, and for whatever reason, the Senate and the President continue to ignore them. Let's finally get our economy back on track.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCALISE. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCALISE. The reason I used the term ``mandate'' is because the practical implementation of this, when you look at how the Department has implemented----

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

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, the amendment I bring forward right now in this bill is really directed at addressing a bureaucratic red tape inefficiency that is causing over 1 million American workers to make multiple trips to get a document that they are required to have, the Federal Government requires them to have. It's a transportation worker identification credential, and it's an important document to have. But it was created back in 2007, and it has a 5-year limitation and it has to be renewed. And a worker has to go into a registered TWIC office, and they have to go and get their fingerprint taken. They've got to get their picture taken and present credentials to get the card. The problem with the implementation is that the Department has been requiring these workers to go back multiple times to get the card when, in fact, if you look at how a passport, for example, is issued, you can go in and you can fill out the paperwork and then they send you the passport. It works that way for most forms of identification, but for whatever reason, in this TWIC program, the Department has been requiring multiple trips. The reason that this is a big issue for all of these workers is there are 1.8 million Americans who are required to have a TWIC card in order to do their jobs. And so under these current rules, they have to go and make multiple trips. And in some cases, this isn't an office right down the street; this is an office over 100 miles away. I have a letter from the Passenger Vessel Association in support of this amendment, and they point out frequently that the TWIC enrollment center is hundreds of miles away from a mariner's home, necessitating two round trips of many hours in duration. It is not uncommon for the mariner to be forced to stay overnight during each round trip. And, of course, the employee has to pay for these round trips, has to pay for the overnight, has to be away from their job, and for no valid reason. In fact, the Department hasn't even implemented rules to properly utilize these TWIC cards; yet they're still making the employees go and have these multiple trips. If you imagine a State like Alaska where you might have to spend days to go get the card, and you have to first go spend days to go file for the card, then you have to go spend days to go get the card, this is unnecessary. It's an incredible burden on our workforce, and it's something that we can address by preventing the funds from being used for implementing this policy. It still gives them broad discretion to implement a successful TWIC program, but again, just like passports or other forms of identification, our over 1.8 million American workers shouldn't be forced to jump through all of these bureaucratic red tape hoops that are actually costing them money that they should be able to spend on their families. I ask for support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding because, as I said earlier, the language and, as you know, you are correct in reading the language of the executive order, the problem we have had is that the White House political appointees are requiring PLAs.

Mr. SCALISE. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCALISE. Yes. They would still have to go to the center and have to apply. In fact, in the language of the amendment, it refers to an approved transportation worker identification credential. So they would have to actually go and be approved. Because even if they went and let's say they were rejected, then they wouldn't be able to get the card. But if they went to the center and got approved, then they shouldn't have to go back again to get the card. So it does require that they would have to still go in person, take the photo ID, and implement the biometric data, but it just makes sure that they don't have to go through these continuous bureaucratic hurdles to go and get the card.

Mr. SCALISE. I rise in support of the Clarke amendment. In fact, I have a similar amendment filed at the desk that I won't need to bring forward because this amendment accomplishes the same thing. What the amendment says is that all of those cities, the 54 cities that were arbitrarily removed from eligibility, should have that same opportunity to compete for these Homeland Security grants. It doesn't increase funding at all but says: Why are we limiting our threat assessment cities to 10 cities when, in fact, many other cities have exposure to risks? And if we just look at what we found so far from the raid of Osama bin Laden's compound, they looked through and found some of the things that these terrorist cells may be going after. And, in fact, some of the very terrorist threats were targeting areas that are included in some of these cities that have arbitrarily been removed from eligibility for these Homeland Security grants. So all we're saying is, in cities like New Orleans, and if you just look at the corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge--and both cities, both New Orleans and Baton Rouge were arbitrarily removed from eligibility. Between the Port of New Orleans and all the shipping transport that's done there, as well as all of the oil and gas infrastructure for our country that's located in that region, all of the chemical plants that are located in that region, they are part of that terrorist assessment that were determined in the data that we've retrieved from Osama bin Laden's compound, including the threat to oil tankers and ships, some of the very commerce that moves through the Port of New Orleans, and yet the Port of New Orleans is removed from eligibility. So this amendment doesn't guarantee that they will get any of these-- any access to these grants, but what it does say is they've got the ability to compete if the terrorist threat is determined to be high enough to where they should be able to get the funding from those grants, because our terrorist threats change from day to day, from year to year. We get more information, just as we've recently gotten a treasure trove of new information on where those threats are. Why should we arbitrarily remove some of the very cities that may rise to the top of that list? So this gives the flexibility back to the Department of Homeland Security to allow those other cities to compete where there are real terrorist threats. So that's what this amendment does. I support the amendment, and hopefully we will be able to get this language added back in.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I bring the amendment because what we are trying to do is prevent the Department from implementing or using taxpayer money to implement Executive Order No. 13502. And the effect of that executive order has been to mandate project labor agreements on projects that are worth $25 million or more. What we are talking about here is a requirement that is increasing the cost dramatically of projects similar to the debate we had a little earlier. If you look at--there have been a number of studies done. There was a 2009 Beacon Hill study that looked at the impact that if this type of policy was in effect in 2008, which fortunately it wasn't, but if this executive order was being implemented in 2008, all of the projects that were done that had a value of $25 million or more, it would have increased the cost to the Federal taxpayer by between $1.6 billion and $2.6 billion. That's billions more that would be spent to carry out a project rather than having a just pure and open competition. We should be allowing free and open competition on projects and not artificially increasing the cost to taxpayers to carry out public projects. If you look at The Wall Street Journal, they specifically address the executive order that we are trying to prevent funds from being spent to carry out. The Wall Street Journal actually criticized the executive order and called these handouts ``a raw display of political favoritism at the expense of an industry experiencing 27 percent unemployment,'' and they also called this a rotten deal for taxpayers. We should be trying to save every dollar we can. We should be trying to promote fair and open competition. That's why the Associated Builders and Contractors support this amendment. To go further on, there was an investigation done by the Washington Examiner regarding a project labor agreement on a Federal building here in Washington, DC. that one project, one project, because of the PLA requirement, the taxpayers ended up having to foot an additional $3.3 million for that one project, the building here in Washington, DC. And I just want to go on a little bit further regarding the number of studies that have been done regarding PLAs. But they showed that it increases construction costs by 12 to 18 percent. So ultimately what we are saying is, look, if a PLA wins the day, wins the bid, that's their prerogative; but you shouldn't be mandating these increased costs. You shouldn't be shutting out those open shop companies. And, by the way, the open shop companies represent about 87 percent of the U.S. construction workforce. So why would we be shutting out 87 percent of the people out there who want to compete for these jobs, for these construction projects, and why should we be adding over a billion dollars to $2 billion in increased costs to the American taxpayer? We can stop it, we can save that taxpayer money and do a much better job of stewarding for the American people and allow more people to go back to work in a fair and open way. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are here today, not talking about something as the other side would contend is a joke. This is a very serious issue, and I rise in opposition to an increase in the debt ceiling that would just give the President another couple of trillion dollars to keep spending the way he has been spending for the last 2 years. I think Americans across the country recognize that this wild spending spree the President has been on the last 2 years has to come to an end, and it's going to start here on this House floor where we are going to finally invoke fiscal discipline. And, of course, over 100 Members of the other side have asked for a clean vote. They want another trillion to keep going along, maybe 2 trillion, to keep spending money that we don't have.

Mr. SCALISE. Maybe the gentleman on the other side might want to, and I'm sure during your time you'll have the opportunity to address that, but, frankly, what we've got to do is start installing fiscal discipline back in this House, and we're going to start doing it now. It means no more blank checks and no more unbridled spending. The President is going to have an opportunity to join us in that debate. But, frankly, it starts tonight, and we say we're not going to keep giving that credit card limit to the President without real reforms.

Mr. SCALISE. We are going to put spending controls in place. Frankly, it would be irresponsible to increase the debt ceiling without reforms that actually start cutting spending and putting our country back on a path to a balanced budget. Now maybe some on the other side don't want to see us get to a balanced budget, which is why they've dramatically increased spending over the last 4 years up until when Speaker Pelosi was fired. But, frankly, the American people have said, enough is enough, stop the spending binge, enough of giving the President this uncontrolled use of the American credit card. Let's start reining in spending. Let's put those controls in place. Let's get our country back on a path of fiscal sanity so we don't have these groups like S&P saying that they will downgrade the bond rating of the United States of America. That's not something we can tolerate.

Mr. SCALISE. In fact, if you look at their plan, their plan not only will double the national debt in 5 years, which I guess they are okay with, but it also allows Medicare to go bankrupt. We are not going to sit by and let Medicare go bankrupt. We are not going to sit by and let them keep spending money that we don't have. We are finally going to say enough is enough.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Pastor Gene Mills, for opening us up in prayer today. I have had the privilege of working with Gene Mills for years now in his role as the head of the Louisiana Family Forum, which has been a beacon of light defending family values throughout our State and working with ministers all across the country to spread the good word of the Lord Jesus Christ. I also want to commend Pastor Mills for the work that he did after Katrina, organizing faith-based groups all around the State and all around the country to go in and do the Lord's work. When government couldn't even get there to help people, the pastors and the faith-based organizations around this country came together and they got that work done. So I want to thank Gene Mills for being with us here today and for leading us in prayer.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding to talk about this important legislation; because, Mr. Chairman, as I just got back home from New Orleans over the weekend, of course people all throughout the gulf coast, people all throughout the country are frustrated and angry about the high gas prices we are paying at the pump. In south Louisiana you don't need to look any further than the area that I represent to see the devastating impact of this administration's policies, not only on high gas prices but also on jobs. We have lost over 13,000 jobs in south Louisiana just because of this administration's refusal to let our people go back to work, people that were drilling safely, exploring for energy in America, that are literally on the verge of being put out of business because this administration won't let them go back to work where there are known barrels of oil, billions of barrels in some of these areas in the Outer Continental Shelf that are closed off because of this administration. They say there is no moratorium anymore, but we call it a permitorium, because they don't allow companies to go back to work, hiring people, creating jobs, allowing our country to become energy independent. If you look at the results of their policies, not only has it yielded higher gas prices at the pump, but for anybody on the other side that suggests that cutting off the supply has nothing to do with the price of oil, they need to go back and take a basic economics course. I don't think OPEC could have developed a better policy than what they have got right now, because they are saying basically we are not allowing our people to go back to work in the United States, but the President wants to encourage drilling in Brazil. He asked the Saudis to produce more energy. We have got billions of barrels in America, and our people can't even go back to work. So this legislation at least says, enough of this delay, enough of the foolishness and the games and blaming everybody else while gas prices continue to skyrocket. Prices have more than doubled at the pump since President Obama took the oath of office, and it is his policies that are causing this. So I am glad that this leadership is bringing legislation to the floor here in the House to finally say we are going to do something about it; we are not going to look the other way. Our plan isn't to raise billions more in taxes so people pay even more at the pump and so we are even more dependent on foreign oil. We are actually going to make America energy independent by saying let's let our people go back to work.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying this: If you go throughout south Louisiana and you see the 13,000 jobs that we have lost; you talk to families who are hanging on by a vine; you talk to small business owners who barely can make ends meet and they are just struggling to hold on to their business, and all they want to do is go back to work, and this administration is saying ``no.'' But, no, they want to drill in Brazil. They want our people across the country to pay higher gas prices. There is a better way. There is an answer. There is a solution, and that is in this legislation being brought forward. I urge that my colleagues from across the country vote to lower gas prices and pass this bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Now more oil is going to be coming in from Saudi Arabia because of their policies. We have got to reverse this radical approach and actually create jobs in America, create energy in America and bring down the skyrocketing price of gasoline at the pump, and it can all be accomplished with this legislation here today that I strongly support.

Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't disagree more with the comments that were made by the minority leader from California. What we are talking about here are high gas prices that people are paying at the pump today and why we are in this situation. We are in this situation because of this administration's policies that have shut off the American energy supply. This is supply and demand. Why do prices go up? Well, gee-whiz, if the President of the United States says by policy we are going to close off billions of barrels of known reserves in America, what do you think that does to prices? Do you think that actually lowers prices? Of course, as you are seeing prices skyrocket at the pump, it is because of these policies. That is why we have seen the price of gasoline more than double since Barack Obama has been in office. So, Mr. Speaker, what we are bringing today and what this rule addresses is the ability to start opening up some of those known areas here in America, because, again, our demand continues to increase for oil here in this country, and while the President is out tilting at windmills, the prices at the pump continue to skyrocket because the President is saying run those jobs off to foreign countries, like Brazil. He is bragging that he wants to create more energy jobs in Brazil. We are saying, Mr. President, we have thousands of jobs here in America that we can create today. We have got billions of dollars that are being sent to foreign countries, many of whom don't like us, by the way. We can bring those dollars back. And, by the way, that can also help us pay down the national debt that is out of control right now. And that is what this bill addresses. And what's their answer on the other side? The President is talking about raising taxes on American energy, and the minority leader from California just emphasized it. She talked about a $30 billion tax increase on American energy production. You want to talk about a warped policy? Look at what their plan is. We're saying let's open up supply. Let's create jobs in America. I have seen it in south Louisiana. We have lost over 13,000 jobs in the energy industry just because of the President's policies in the last year, where he shut down production and said you can't go back to work drilling safely for known oil in America. But he wants to run those jobs off to foreign countries. So that is what is happening. We saw one of the deepwater rigs go to Egypt just in the last few months. So an employer is saying, I want to take a thousand jobs and it's better to do business in Egypt because of these radical American policies on energy right now. So we are trying to turn that around and say let's actually explore for energy here in America, creating thousands more jobs in America and bringing in billions more dollars that pay down our deficit. Their answer is raise $30 billion in taxes and, you know, go talk about Big Oil. Big Oil is not going to pay that. Big Oil is leaving. They are going to foreign countries. It is our local energy producers here in America who will pay that tax. And you know what that ends up equating to? That means higher prices at the pump, $30 billion in higher prices at the pump, because of their policy. And they're bragging about it. They're saying, let's raise taxes on American energy. By the way, their bill doesn't apply to energy that is produced in Saudi Arabia. So what do you think is going to happen?

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. I appreciate the hard work that you have been doing for years, as I have, on this issue. I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Illinois who just talked about just what is happening here. In the last 2 weeks we were in our districts, and I got the opportunity to go through parts of my district. When you talk to people about what is happening in this country with the economy, the biggest question that comes up, beyond the short-term issues of the economy and jobs, is the high price of gasoline, and just why is it that right now people are paying almost $4, if not $5 in some parts of the country, $5 per gallon for gasoline, and we are still not even into the heart of the summer. It is very clear as people look, it is very clear that the policies of this administration that have completely shut off our ability to produce, go and explore for and produce energy in America, is one of the main contributing factors to this high price of gasoline. Of course, you don't have to go far in south Louisiana to see the direct impact because, as my colleague from Georgia just pointed out, not only the moratorium that was imposed about a year ago, but the permatorium that we are still experiencing today, where the administration won't let our people go back to work exploring safely for energy, people that had absolutely nothing to do with the BP explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, people in much deeper waters, drilling safely back then that now cannot go back to work. We have lost over 13,000 jobs in the energy industry in south Louisiana in the past year specifically because of President Obama's policies that have shut those areas down. It has literally run thousands of jobs, 13,000 by the White House's estimates--we think the number is much higher, but I will just use the White House's numbers-- 13,000 people in this country who have lost their job in the energy industry, high-paying jobs, by the way, that have gone to foreign countries. We have tracked some of these deepwater rigs that have left. Of course, the President goes to Rio de Janeiro a few weeks ago and brags that he wants to drill in Brazil. I would suggest, Mr. President, let's drill in America safely, where we know there are billions of barrels of oil here in this country, where we can create thousands of high-paying jobs and generate billions of dollars that the Federal Treasury would take in because of all that economic activity and the royalties that would be paid by those oil companies, that would lower our deficit. And yet, no, the President says we want to shut you down and put your people out of work, but we want to go and spend our resources drilling in Brazil. This is the backward policy that this administration has pursued that has gotten us to this point where we are paying over $5 in some places in this country--$4, close to $4 in my district--for a gallon of gasoline, and we are not even in the heart of the summer. So then when you look at what the administration's plan is. Clearly, our plan is we want to let our people go back to work exploring and drilling safely for energy, creating thousands of good jobs, bringing all that tax revenue into this country to lower our deficit. But the Presidents's answer, is, you would think maybe he would be agreeing on us with this. This should be a bipartisan issue, there is bipartisan support, by the way, to do what my colleague from Georgia and I are talking about, but the President not only doesn't support our plan, but the President's proposal is to raise taxes on American energy. He goes out, and I guess every time he speaks he wants to go and beat up on an American industry, and right now it is the oil companies. Well, frankly, the oil companies that are out there right now, many of them are producing in other countries. But our local producers, the small businesses, these aren't the big guys. These are the small businesses that are barely hanging on by a thread, struggling to survive, that he would be shutting down by raising taxes. His plan is to raise $22 billion in taxes on American energy production. Now, his plan, by the way, coincidentally, doesn't apply to foreign countries. So when he goes to Rio and says ``drill in Brazil,'' his package that he actually has asked Congress to pass, and I sure hope we don't pass it, but his package not only raises taxes on American energy. That same tax increase doesn't apply to the drilling in Brazil or in Saudi Arabia or some of these other Middle Eastern countries that use that money to do things that are counterproductive not only to American energy security, but our homeland security. So the President would say to raise $22 billion in taxes on American energy production, which, by the way, runs even thousands more jobs out of our country and increases our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. This is counterproductive policy, but that is the President's answer to high gas taxes, is to raise taxes on American energy, which means higher prices at the pump. And, by the way, we are already paying too much at the pump. Gas prices have more than doubled since President Obama took office. It is not just bad luck that gives us high gas prices. It is bad policy that comes out of Washington, D.C. That is why I really appreciate the gentleman from Georgia bringing us here tonight. But also the legislation that we will be voting on tomorrow that actually starts to address this problem and says, you know what, if people in America want to safely explore for and produce energy here in America, we are going to let them do that. We are going to let them go to work here so that we don't send those jobs and those billions of dollars to countries like Brazil, and, even worse, Middle Eastern countries who want to do us harm. So clearly the policy impacts the price of gas we are paying at the pump. We have got to reverse these policies that make absolutely no sense that are coming out of this White House and get back to an all- of-the-above strategy that actually allows us to utilize our resources here in America in a safe way, that produces thousands of good-paying jobs and brings billions more dollars into the Federal Treasury to pay down the national debt.

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This mantra that's thrown out there, frankly, for over 2 years now, yourself, myself, we've been clamoring for policies that actually create jobs. And then when we bring forward legislation, actual bills--not to run up the deficit like our colleagues on the other side, not to run more jobs out of our country like our colleagues on the other side--but when we actually bring bills to say, Stop the madness, change these policies and bring that work back to America, create those jobs here, bring in that revenue here, they actually criticize us and say that has nothing to do with jobs. Well, it shows, first of all, that they're out of touch. They don't understand how job creation works in this country. But they also, obviously, haven't been tracking the history; tracking exactly what's happening all across America, but especially in using the areas around southeast Louisiana as the prime example. You don't have to go any further than to go down to south Louisiana and you'll see the job losses that have occurred because of this administration's policies which have, one, shut off American energy production, which have led to higher gas prices, but also run thousands of high-paying jobs out of America. We've tracked those rigs, those deepwater rigs, which each of them is about a billion-dollar asset. So you have got an American employer that said, You know what; I can't even do business in America any more with my billion-dollar asset. I've got to move it somewhere else; to a foreign country. One of those rigs went to Egypt. I think we all know what's going on in Egypt right now. Isn't it a sad indictment on this administration's failed energy policy that an American employer would say I think it's better to do business with my billion-dollar asset, to bring that asset over to Egypt and take the chances over there because of how bad the environment is business-wise in America. By the way, that one rig--and there are multiple rigs that have left our country--that one rig that went to Egypt is representing about a thousand high-paying jobs that are no longer here in America, that are no longer here in America, that are now in Egypt. I think that's a shame. It shows the failure of this administration's policies and it's the reason why--one of the few, but an absolute reason why--American families all across this country are paying higher gas prices at the pump. And there's no reason for it. We can reverse it. We need to reverse it. I'm glad your committee passed legislation that we'll be voting on tomorrow. I know in our Committee on Energy and Commerce we're working on similar solutions. I think American people want as many solutions as possible. But at least we're finally putting solutions on the table to say, Mr. President, your plan might be to raise taxes on American energy and raise the price of gas at the pump. We've got a different approach. The House Republicans here, and hopefully Senators, will understand and push this issue. But our approach is to lower gas prices by increasing the supply here in America so that we're energy secure, we don't have to rely on these Middle Eastern countries, and we don't have to send our jobs and billions of dollars to those Middle Eastern countries, which jeopardize our security here at home, which as a member of the Homeland Security I know you know about very well, too.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 37, which prevents the Federal Government from coming in and regulating the Internet. If you look at what's happening in Washington right now, I think there is no clearer sign how broken this town is. President Obama couldn't even pass a budget last year, and his party controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, which is why we stand here today facing a potential government shutdown. But yet the President is going to come along and say now he wants the government to run the Internet, to have regulations on the Internet. You know, my colleagues on the other side talk about all these innovations. And I love all the innovations that have happened over the last few decades. The irony of that is all these great innovations have all happened without this government regulation that the FCC is now proposing. They act as if we're trying to take away the things that have allowed the innovation. In fact, it's the innovations that have happened because the government hadn't figured out how to come in and regulate it in a way where they would be picking winners and losers. And yet the FCC is proposing a plan that picks winners and losers. And they rattled off a big list of some big companies who have done well for themselves and now want to be those winners that the government would protect. What you don't hear about is what about those small startup companies, that small company that is working out of a garage right now in California that's going to be the next big idea. But if the government picks winners and losers, we all know who usually are the losers: It's those small startup companies that might never be that great idea of innovation. We have got to be able to protect the next Harvard student who is right now studying at Harvard but may be getting ready to drop out and be the next billionaire who created another great idea. And all those great ideas, again, happen without this government regulation the FCC is proposing, which is why we need to block them from doing it. Then you can just go look at the innovations. In 2000 less than 5 percent of homes had broadband Internet access. Today more than 70 percent do, and it's growing because of over $500 billion of private investment, because of this innovation in the job creation that's going with it. Let's protect those jobs. Let's protect the Internet's ability to continue regulating without the heavyhanded government picking winners and losers.