much interested in maintaining the privacy of its consumers. that's a promise that they want to make. and they've been wounded in terms of their business model by suggestions that they are subject to government compulsion to give away the private information of their own customers. they are, therefore, large members of the coalitions that katie was talking about, and broadly support the idea that government access to the data that they hold on your behalf should be limited to the maximum extent that is consistent with good law enforcement practices. i mean, they're not trying to sit behind walls, and say the government has no role.

but broadly speaking, the, i guess it's not the digital court, but the other one. >> digital due process. >> has like 100, you know, tech members of every way, manner, shape and form. digital fourth is limited to the four -- >> four activist. >> four activist groups here in the district that are kind of more political driver types, i guess. including heritage action. so, yeah, i think the basic answer is is that in terms of privacy, and support of individual privacy against government intrusion the tech companies are pretty much on board with everything that's happening. >> right down here? >> the fact that they have this information, use as an example the post office, and the courier, they did not go in to our mail or scan it, so is there something, congressman, in your bill that mandates that the

private company cannot share that information. you're talking now about them having to be subpoenaed to give up the information. but what if they want to voluntarily give it up? >> under the legislation that we're proposing, that information cannot go to a government agency without a warrant. right. >> i'm sorry, to a publisher? >> they have contractual obligations, right? i mean you -- when you soon up with google, they -- or yahoo! or microsoft, i don't want to pick google, it's just the easiest name to pick, you have terms of service that you've agreed to that both authorize them to use your personal information in some ways and prohibit them from using it in others. there are, of course, it's a completely separate issue that a lot of consumer advocates are talking about, about whether google should be and microsoft and yahoo! should be able to use your information in some of the ways that you've agreed to.

but that's kind of a private sector contractual problem, where what we're concerned about here is really the far more troubling possibility of governmental abuse. >> and the constitution is clear when it comes to the government seizing that kind of information, private interchanges are, as he mentioned, through contractual relationships. >> we're dealing with kind of three different layers here. there's domestic law enforcement privacy. there's the privacy concerns that you have contractually with yourself and a business, and then there's also kind of, you know, with things that have been going on, there's international, there's fisa, and these are all under different regimes. what the congressman's bill does is protect our domestic communications, our law enforcement so that a warrant is needed for your e-mail, just like for your letters. so you can't company the postman

to get my letters without my knowledge. you have to come directly to me. and so that's really -- that's very important. it should be a very easy, commonsense reform. there was a petition that over 100,000 people signed for the white house, the president has not responded. you know, this is something that's easy for congress, for the administration, to show that they care about privacy. while dealing with more complicated issues. this is an easy step and they're stalling it because agencies still want to be able to read your e-mail without your knowledge. it's crazy. it's really -- that's just what it is. >> this doesn't apply to foreign nationals, either. and foreign governments. they are not protected under the fourth amendment of the constitution. the bill of rights strictly deals with american citizens. >> right down here in front, jerry. and just before you go, jerry, i would ask to let folks know that you're trying to get on the

wi-fi the pass word is benjamin harrison, all one word, capital "b," capital "h." >> good morning. glad i came today. i'm learning some new things. metadata i think is a separate thing from what you're talking about. i was unaware that there were a number of units or elements of the federal government that could actually read my e-mails. and i think i heard that correctly that there are. so under what authority are t the -- they doing this or have they been doing this and how long have they been doing it? >> the authority generally, for the administrative agencies, the irs, the s.e.c., epa, osha, i mean, every alphabet soup that you want, has civil investigative authority to examine the violations of the osha regulations, or whatever. and that has generally been construed to authorize them to make investigative demands of -- of your service provider for the

contents of the e-mail. a typical thing that the s.e.c. would say, i mean, i don't buy this, but this is their argument, is you know, we're investigating complex financial frauds in the banks, or in t the -- or in the stock market, and we need to, you know, get the insider e-mails that do the inside trading, and that's all communications, and we should be able to get that. because the electronic communications privacy act from 1986 essentially says that you have no privacy interest in any mail that is stored on your server for longer than six months, which is a lot of mail, right? then, because congress hasn't carved that out, or has excluded that from protection, the s.e.c., using its generic authority, investigative authority, can go to your service provider, microsoft, yahoo! and say, here's an

administrative subpoena, please provide me all of jerry's e-mail. and the service provider is currently legally obliged to do that. to answer that, just as it would respond to a grand jury subpoena if you were under criminal investigation in the exact same way. the virtue of the congressman's bill, it revokes -- would be to revoke this. >> right. and so your question is how long have they been able to do it? they were empowered to do it since the 1986 electronic communications privacy act. we're trying to amend that act to say that they can't do that. that if they want to get your e-mail or your private electronic communications, they have to have a warrant. >> -- certain individual has no place here. >> the probable cause not with civil investigations. with criminal investigations, yes. and that's where metadata comes in to build a case, and then you build a probable cause case to get to the content.

but with civil investigations, that's a completely different track, and it's hard to think of an instance where the s.e.c. is going through a case that's, you know, as i said where it wouldn't also be criminal. so they don't need particular authority, and also, if you're dealing with the biz or an individual within a business, and it's internal e-mail, you can go to the company and request that information. so, i can't think of a situation where they would actually need this, something they've brought up is, you know, those who are deceased or something along those lines so they can issue a preservation order to service providers until they can work through those issues. so dlz not really a case where they need broad access to your e-mail. it's just, there's too much paperwork. >> it's actually a useful historical point that it goes back to the late 1800s that the court said that the probable cause -- supreme court said

probable cause requirement would not apply to civil investigative demands, even if that information might eventually be passed along to the criminal investigators. so, the purpose for which the demand is made at the time, assuming it's not a fraud, and that there's a legitimate, the court said we will permit civil investigative authorities to act without the probable cause requirement which applies only in the criminal context. and so that's -- that's a very old, probably changed view. incorrect view. but i can't undo everything. right here and then we'll go there. [ inaudible ] -- under obamacare you don't have -- you sign up, and your medical records could be communicated electronically and

you actually have to sign a statement that says, it's okay, for outside agencies to get your records. >> -- obamacare, this is specifically addressing the 1986 law that basically allows government agencies to come in and get e-mails. this is very, very, very targeted. as i mentioned, earlier, there's a broad swath of what i call fourth amendment issue pieces of legislation. i'm co-sponsor to many of them, and there is one being drafted, and i can't remember the bill numbers that it specifically addresses this, actually has been drafted. i'm a co-sponsor of that, as well. >> great. up here?

>> to the chap from heritage, i think you owe everybody to explain that the t.o.s. or terms of service are moving targets. if someone doesn't know when to go in to see if there's been a change, they're not going to know what the current terms of service is that they're found to. and in terms of obamacare, people are being tracked the second they come to the page. if you are talking to people who have gone to the page, and not entered data, they're already reporting that they're getting hit with solicitations. and i think a prime example of what needs to be aware of is facebook. because facebook is a great example of someone who came out way after the fact, and then said oh, by the way, everything you're giving us has given us is now ours to sell, and that they fail to disclose to people that the goal of their model was to capture data. i do paper trails. i am tracking data to foreign countries.

i'm tracking algorithms of our data in england. i'm tracking things like yumpu who are taking our information, these are french and german and austrian foreign nationals who have our data. you can go on to your own website here, internet here and search your name, and find out what's been disclosed of you. i think the conversation cannot just be focused in on one area. it's a model. i tend to draw things back to model and i'd like to hear clarity when you go in to your act that you're looking at the model. the same model that's being used by the nsa is a model that was established by these private entities who know everything about us what we're doing, where our finances are, et cetera. >> well, i mean, as the congressman said, there is no

doubt that commercial services use data, as well. but he, i think, quite rightly is going in a step by step way. if we had a large -- the gentleman here asked whether or not the tech companies were supporting this legislation, to which the answer is yes. if you add it in, they will -- if you added in something that started to talk about commercial issues, and their business model, which are fair -- i mean your points are very fair. i'm not disagreeing with your points. but in the art of the possible, you know, right now there are i don't know how many sponsors you all have and all but on the senate side they've got 52 or something like that. we can actually make a change, and so i'm kind of focused on success. >> and it's kind of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. this legislation was not born

out of necessarily consumer protection. it's about civil rights. it's about the relationship between us and our government and enforcing the bill of rights. when you're dealing with private companies. i agree. i think there are egregious things happening and companies are -- private companies are overstepping their bounds, i hate the cookies. you know when you go check a site and then you get all these e-mails, and advertisements from different groups. and that should be addressed, as well. we have to remember that we're dealing with a fourth amendment issue, and that's what we're trying to correct, and we're going to try to get it as one step at a time you mentioned that politics makes strange bedfellows and there are some strange bedfellows together on this kind of legislation. the more you put into it the more it complicates and the narrower that group of

supporters is going to be and the less likely you're going to get anything done. >> i did want to ask you, congressman, you're working with a lot of folks on the libertarian side of this position in the house of representatives, you have a liberty caucus that's forming, guys like justin and others, and i know that there's a lot of focus in that group on these types of issues. i also know that talk to chairman of the study yesterday who wants to put to the some legislation on this kind of issue. what are the areas going forward that on top of the bill, i think you're right this is low-hanging fruit but where do we go after the low-hanging fruit? >> this was low-hanging fruit because it's a no brainer. everybody understands that the technology has changed and this is the snail mail of our time. this is how communications are done. i think over and above fourth

amendment issues religious liberty is going to continue to be an incredibly important issue for those of us who are civil libertarians and freedom of speech issues. i think private property rights has been enshrined in the fifth amendment of the constitution, that's got to be something we focus on and let's not forget one of the most important ones we come back to time and time again is the testimony and the fact that all powers not delineated in the constitution are reserved for the people and the states. and i think that's one that the general welfare clause in the constitution that's been so overplayed, and overan viced to justify doing things at the federal level that our founding fathers never would have envisioned being done here, and so that's just to name a few. that's not all-increwsive. i'm sure there's other things. but i think those are the things that are going to not only be a

focus in congress i think they're going to be campaign issues. >> absolutely. time for a couple more questions. >> agreeing that your bill is a no brainer that it should pass, what is your prediction? when will it pass, and who are the no brainers in the senate that won't support it? >> i don't know about you know who is and isn't supporting it yet, as it is moving forward, it will need to go before the judiciary committee, and you know, my frustration i think is the same of any of you in the audience and any in the area mat we don't do anything of any substance in election years. that's a crime. we're elected to do the hard work of the american people, and you know, problems don't take a holiday. and we have a responsibility this year to go in and dig deep, and i mean i'm hoping this year,

i'm not holding my breath, there are a lot of no brainers that have been on the docket for years and years and years that should have been done. another no brainer is why in the heck haven't we done anything about entitlement reform knowing that our nation is going broke? and there's no way we can cover future obligations for people that are going to be retiring. but, i wish i could give you that answer. and it's very, very frustrating to me that what is clear to the american people doesn't become necessarily so clear here. i wish i could give you a date and time. but, i can't. >> did you want to weigh in a little bit there? there are one or two things that could break the logjam right now. >> you know if there are enough co-sponsors for this particular idea to go through then it's something that can't be ignored, and there's been a large large groundswell of support for electronic communications, privacy or reform in the house.

this is an idea that is very much supported, and really on the senate side, it did pass out of committee, without amendment. it passed out clean, and then once the hearings came up, that's when the s.e.c. started to make their case and started to have meetings because they saw this passing. so you know it's something that really should go through and more support from people who care about this particular issue, who care about privacy to focus on something that can get done right now. without all of the other distractions. and you know, those other things are very important. there are other bills that are in the house right now that do address these. there's a location tracking bill, which is another complicated issue that should pass. but there's a lot of discussion that needs to go on on certain, you know, certain areas, and that's almost worked out. but electronic communications, privacy reform, has been discussed. it has been worked out, and that's something that should move forward easily, and i think

it has the strongest chance in the house. and once it's cleared the senate should have no reason not to act. >> i think one other real shot in the arm to give a plug for heritage is the fact that they're profiling it today on a list of ten different issues that they're going to make a priority. heritage has quite a following nationwide, and i'd like to put a plea to all the folks who are associated with heritage across the country to let their members know, because the one thing that they actually do pay attention to is people that vote, or will not vote for them based on an issue. and i hope that they hear strongly from the american people that you have a job to do, get it done. and this is one of the things that can and should be done this year as part of your job. >> thanks for the plug congressman. we are hopeful that today really is the start of an agenda that we can wrap our arms around as kvs and push across the house floor and we intend to push it with all our muscle.

maybe one more question. anyone? right here. what do we have, greg? about 30? okay great. going once, going twice. last one. sorry, one last one. hearing that so many federal agencies are getting access to our information, and that the lady behind me saying about how the service providers are possibly misusing our information for commercial purposes, do you have a recommendation of a service provider who is least offensive? >> pass.

pass. no way we're going to touch that one from up here. that's unfair. but if you talk to me offline i'll give you my personal. okay well thank you. please join me in thanking the panel and the congressman. folks just one housekeeping note and then we will break for ten minutes to get ready for the next speaker and panel. we are -- we've had senator cruz had some flight issues this morning, so we are going to move senator cruz's speech to 1:00. which means the health care panel will go before the health care speeches. so the health care panel will be around noon. and then congressman's roe and price will speak after the health care panel at 12:30, and then senator ted cruz will speak at 1:00. let's take a ten-minute break and we'll bring in the next panel. needham back

to the stage to introduce your next speaker. coming up, the heritage policy on on the energy for the next 35 minutes. works doesn't work in america's energy sector. on the one hand the private sector has offered inspiring examples of creativity with fracking and drilling, expanded energy, putting downward prices on prices and creating jobs and growth. on the other hand unnecessary federal regulations have artificially driven up the cost of energy, slowed development on federal lands, and impacted the private sector's ability to innovate and meet new challenges to provide americans with affordable energy. the start of today's event i mentioned the only way to win conservative policy victories would be to win elections inspiring millions of americans with bold policy ideas aimed at

changing the broken status quo in washington. washington, d.c. is not broken. it is a finally tuned machine aimed at expanding federal power and using those to reward those politically well connected. only way to change that status quo is to inspire americans across the country to get involved and demand control of their government. nobody has done more sooner to advance this agenda than our next speaker. three words summarize his first year in office, make d.c. listen. whether fighting a bipartisan gun control agenda the imperial presidency of barack obama or doing everything possible to stop obama care before it disrupted our nation's health care system ted cruz had been the leading conservative reform movement for the last year. ladies and gentlemen here to talk about the american energy renaissance act join me in welcoming a great american senator, ted cruz.

>> thank you very much, mike. good afternoon. it's great to join you. i just got off a plane coming in from texas. exactly. you know, i got to tell you, yesterday it was 70 degrees back in houston. i took my girls out to the park. i get out here and it is freezing. i mean it is really cold. i have to admit i was surprised. al gore told us this wouldn't happen. look, it is so cold, i actually saw a democrat with his hands in his own pockets. now that's cold. you know, mike mentioned the disconnect there is in

washington. the disconnect between career politicians in both parties and the american people. the most common frustration you hear all across the state of texas and all across the country, is that politicians in washington they aren't listening to us. and this cuts across party lines. this is true of republicans, democrat, independents, libertarians, americans are frustrated because their priorities are not the priorities of washington. if you get outside the beltway, the number one priority of americans is jobs and economic growth. state of texas doesn't matter where you are, you can be in east texas, up in the pan handle oreo grand valley, over and over again when you ask americans what their top priority, the answer over and over again is restoring jobs, restoring economic growth. i've got to tell you in the 13 months i've served in the

senate, we have spent virtually zero time even talking about growth. in harry reid's senate, jobs and economic growth don't even make it on to the agenda. we spent six weeks talking about guns and the president's agenda to restrict the second amendment right and no time talking about fundamental tax reform, regulatory reform, reducing the barriers coming from washington that are making it harder and harder for people who are struggling to achieve the american dream. today what i want to talk to you about is one specific avenue. we can pursue to restore growth. it is truly, i believe, a providenceal blessing that at a time where we had five years of stagnant growth, at a time when we've got the lowest labor force participation in this country

since 1978, we are also seeing the beginning of a revolution in energy. we are seeing extraordinary developments in energy that are opening up resources that five or ten years ago, would have been unimaginable. that as i said is a providenceal blessing. we are seeing the beginning of an american energy renaissance. and if the federal government doesn't get in the way and mess it up, that has the potential to transform the situation for so many people who are struggling. take a look at a state like north dakota. the president has tolds us he wants to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. now what he doesn't confront is that the real obama minimum wage

is zero dollars because that's what everyone who has lost their jobs under the crushing taxes and crushing regulations is getting right now, is zero dollars with the obama minimum wage. if you look at north dakota, the average hourly wage in the oil and gas industry in north dakota is $45.90 an hour. i'm a lot more interested in generating lots of jobs at those wage levels where people can provide for their family than continuing the path where more and more people who are struggling lose their jobs. in north dakota which is experiencing a boom because of shale gas and oil, the unemployment rate is 2.6%. in north dakota, does anyone know the hourly pay for a cashier at walmart? $1.50.

-- $17.50. in north dakota, mcdonald's is offering a $300 signing bonus because people can make so much in the oil fields it's hard to get people to flip burgers. that's the potential of growth. and i got to tell you it's happening in my home state of texas as well. "the dallas morning news" reported last year that, quote, in west texas, the flood of money and workers into the region is im possible to miss. increased oil revenue is turning around poorer school districts. a high school graduate can earn more than $80,000 driving trucks. from 2001 to 2012, the number of texas upper middle-income jobs grew 24.2%. think about that for a second. a high school graduate making $80,000 a year driving trucks those are the sorts of jobs that

we want to see expanded. bringing back working-class jobs, blue collar jobs where people can earn a living, provide for their family, that was the backbone of the american middle class. those are the jobs that have been decimated under the obama economy. and you know we're seeing that as well in pennsylvania and parts of ohio, as they're taking advantage of the marcellus shale. even so it is striking if you look at the marcellus shale, the shale doesn't end at the border between pennsylvania and new york. but the jobs do. the jobs end because in new york they don't allow fracking. new yorkers apparently, according to their political leadership, don't want jobs. because they prohibited the ability of development.

if you go south to pennsylvania you're seeing this kind of economic opportunity and the arbitrary line carved in the ground shows the impact of misguided government policies. now there is one thing and only one thing that can stop us from achieving the full potential of this energy renaissance and that is the government. let me tell you a story. it's a story about a modern pioneer, some might call him a modern day hank reardon. fellow named george mitchell. now if you listen to the president's state of the union address a couple years ago, you might think president obama invented fracking. but let me suggest that credit for the technological developments far more properly belongs with george mitchell. here's what the economist

magazine described george mitchell as. mitchell was the embodiment of the american dream. his father was a poor greek immigrant. a goat herd who later ran a shoe shine shop in galveston, texas. mr. mitchell had to work his way through the university and graduated at the top of his class. he was also the embodiment of the entrepreneurial spirit. he did not discover shale oil and gas, geological surveys revealed them decades before he started, he did not even invent fracking. it had been in use since the 1940s. but few great entrepreneurs invent something entirely new. his greatness lay at a combination of vision and grit. he was convinced that technology could unlock the vast reserves of energy in the barnett shale beneath dallas and ft. worth and

he kept grappling with the unforgetting rock until it eventually surrendered its ridges. the point i want to make, economic growth, the energy revoluti revolution, didn't come from the u.s. department of energy. it didn't come from any government agency. it didn't come from a grant program picking this is how we're going to transform energy. it didn't even come, with all due respect to our wonderful host, from a think tank in washington. it came from entrepreneurs putting capital at risk and meeting a need. and let me note that where it occurred was not accidental. it occurred in my home state of texas. there are very few state s in te

union that would have allowed the experimentation, would have allowed mitchell to go. the barnett shale is not some distant formation out in the countryside. it is right underneath dallas and ft. worth, major cities. you know, california, is blessed to have significant shale formations. they're not developing them. had mitchell been in california, had california's regulatory system been the only regulatory system we have, there's no way mitchell would have succeeded. because there's no way he would have been allowed to try and develop the technology. think for a moment what we are able to do now, to drill down, miles into the ground, turn and drill miles horizontally, and extract

resources -- you want to talk about technology, you want to talk about unbelievably you imagine trying to do the same thing under san francisco? couldn't have happened. that is the story of america. this government is fond of picking winners and losers or to be more fair, is fond of picking losers. it seems this administration would like to see a whole lot more solyndras and a lot fewer george mitchells. what an incredible opportunity we have right now. but we can't fall victim to what hyatt called the fatal conceit.

we cannot believe that government invents, creates or produces. it doesn't. what it often does it stifles creativity, invention, production. the only thing that can stop this great energy renaissance is the government getting in the way. and i will note, particularly with this administration, it's been doing that more and more. right now, federal lands contain 43% of the nation's oil reserves and 28% of the nation's natural gas reserves. but significant portions of that land are not available for development. the number of new leases has fallen by 42%. from 9,661 to 5,568 between the

bush and obama administrations. now, you may be confused because if you saw the president's state of the union address, he proudly took credit for expanding oil and gas production. what he didn't mention is that it's expanding on private lands. not on government lands, on private lands. the u.s. has approved 37% fewer new drilling permits under the obama administration than under the bush administration. now presidents going back to richard nixon have given speeches calling for energy independence. it doesn't take a geopolitical expert, it doesn't take the renowned insight of a henry kissinger to realize that our nation being dependent on foreign nations for energy, many

of whose interests are very different than our own, is profoundly dangerous. as a result of the innovation, as a result of the technological advances we have right now, we're seeing jobs, we are seeing incomes rising, we are seeing less and less dependence on foreign oil, we are seeing the environment improve in unprecedented levels based on the expansion of natural gas that is reducing admissions. you know, it's interesting, our office put together a map of counties across america, color coded as to whether median income has gone up or down. that map looks like it could be a geological map of shale formations in this country. because you can see median

income going up in and around the bakken, down around the barnett, the marcellus, and the eagle ford shale and one other notable exception. washington, d.c. the rest of the country sadly has seen median incomes go down. we should be lessening the barriers for incomes to go up everywhere. for every american. you know,s just recently, president obama's former secretary of energy -- and i would note under prior administrations it was the u.s. secretary of energy, but the president is fond of saying it's my secretary of energy, to his secretary of energy recently observed that the delay with the keystone pipeline is not scientific. it's political.

there have been five environmental review, each of which has concluded the keystone pipeline does not raise significant environmental concerns and yet, it has not gone forward because this administration continues to block it. tens of thousands of high-paying jobs with the stroke of a pen the private sector could be allowed to create, but this administration is not stroking that pen. but here's the point, as much as we need to approve the keystone pipeline, we need to think far broader than that. we need to do far more. in coming weeks, i will be introducing a bill, the american energy renaissance act, that is designed to do two significant things. number one, to prevent the federal government from stopping the energy renaissance that is blossoming across the country.

and number two, to expand the lands, the resources that are available for the private sector to develop so that we can answer what the american people are asking for which is jobs and economic growth. this opportunity is right in front of us. if the federal government will simply listen to the american people. now what are the elements of this bill? i'll give you the elements at broad level that i'll tell you in coming weeks we are continuing to receive input from multiple players as we design the exact pieces. here are the broad strokes. number one, preventing federal regulation of hydraulic fracture. fracking a technology that has been in use for over 60 years, is what in combination with horizontal drilling has opened up resources that are

unimaginable. there is no reason for the federal government to get if the way of fracking and if the federal government did so, the harm to the economy, the harm to the number of people who could eyes ha otherwise have good jobs would be staggering. the states care every bit as much about having clean water and clean air, but we are seeing states that are able to ensure clean water and clean air with responsible fracking and at the same time not impede the development of our resources. number two, improve domestic refining capacity. streamline the process for upgrading and building new refineries. you know, we haven't built a new large refinery in the united states since 197 7.

that's got to change. number three, allow and approve the keystone pipeline and remove the barriers for approving additional pipelines. there is no reason for this bureaucratic mess in washington. no reason whatsoever. and i would note a pipeline building the keystone pipeline ought to be a no-brainer. in the senate there's a large bipartisan majority. republicans and democrats who agree we should build this pipeline. it's a no-brainer from the perspective of jobs, a no-brainer from the perspective of national security, no-brainer from the perspective of tax revenues and it is even a no-brainer from the perspective of the environment. indeed, i will suggest if you

are a birkenstock wearing, tree hugging, greenpeace activist, you should love the keystone pipeline. you should love the keystone pipeline because number one, the keystone pipeline is not built, it means we will continue to rely more and more on overseas oil, and as long as there are oil on tankers, there will be spills. by any measures transporting oil in a pipeline is far safer for the environment, far more controllable than overs seas tankers. and number two, if the pipeline is not built north/south it will be built, it will go east/west. the canadians will not leave the tar sapped sands -- if it goes east/west it will go to china to

be refined there in a much dirtier way. if your concern is the environment the last thing you want to do is send the oil to china to be refined there which will do far more damage to the environment than refining it in the u.s. where it would generate good high-paying jobs and benefit the environment number four, stop epa overreach and the war on coal. you know, we are blessed to have enormous coal resources in this country. and yet, the last five years we have seen an all-out war on coal. when i visit with those working in the oil and gas industry i tell them quite frequently, you guys are the second most despised industry in the country in this administration. only coal exceeds.

in 2008 president obama was cand candid, he said you can open a new coal plant and it will bankrupt. and we have seen hundreds of coal units across this country shut down. i have to tell you, some time ago i was in southern illinois, visiting coal workers and one after the other came up and shook my hand and the look on their faces as they realized their government has declared a war on their lifestyle. the look of just hopelessness and despair, generations of families who provided for their families, for their kids, working in coal up and down the appalachian. now, these are not the favored classes this administration likes. these are not titans of wall street. these are not ceos flying on

corporate jets. they do very well under the obama administration. the top 1% of our economy, the millionaires and billionaires the president loves to demagog right now earn a higher share of our national income right now than since 1928. the people who have been hurt by the obama economy and people struggling, young people, hispanics, african-americans, they're single moms. they're people working in coal country who for generations have been able to provide for their families and they're seeing their jobs go away as the administration tries to shut it down. that doesn't make any sense. number five, we need to force congress and the president to vote on epa regulations that kill jobs. the epa is issuing a new regulation that's going to take away jobs, let members of congress sign it.

let members of congress go home to their districts and say, i voted to eliminate your job. part of the reason we see this out of control regulatory state is that congress has outsourced its responsibilities. has handed it to unaccountable regulators who don't actually have to see the american people. our constitutional system is based on accountability. if congress has to cast a vote, before putting in place legislation that kill jobs i suspect we'll see a little more focus on what the american people care about which is a focus on economic growth and jobs. number six, proactive. the first five that i laid out were preventing the federal government from stopping the american energy renaissance. the next are proactively expanding it.

broaden energy development on federal land. provide states the option of leasing, permitting or regulating resources on federal lands. there are states eager to see the kind of job production we're seeing in north dakota, we're seeing in texas. i suspect there are other states that would be very happy to see high-paying jobs come to their states, would be very happy to see welfare rolls dropping down because people are getting jobs and providing for their families. would be happy to see local school districts tax revenues going up because people are providing jobs, getting jobs and providing for their families and yet the federal government is not opening up those lands for development. the states can do a far better job of that. among other things expand energy development on indian lands. there are considerable natural

resources on indian lands, many native americans tragically live in crushing poverty. and the resources are right there to improve their standard of living and it is only the federal government that is keeping them in that condition of poverty. we ought to allow native american tribes to develop the resources on their own lands. number seven, we need to open up offshore exploration. expand the offshore areas of the outer continental shelf that are available for development and streamlining the permitting. we have enormous resources we're simply not accessing and actually sitting by and let other nations develop those resources instead. doesn't make any sense. number eight, we need to expand u.s. energy exports. we need to expand liquid natural

gas exports. we're producing natural gas at incredible levels and yet the bureaucratic paperwork to export lng has been mind numbingly slow. we ought to open it up which also gives incentives for developing more resources here, but also gives the ability to expand trade and commerce across the globe. we need to end the crude oil export ban. right now, exporting crude oil is prohibited and that is a relic from ages where our supply of crude oil was viewed as quite limited. we are now developing crude at an extraordinary level and unfortunately, there's a mismatch because most of our refineries in the u.s. are designed to refine heavy crude

from nations like saudi arabia. and so the sweet light crude being developed here, our own refineries have limited capacity to refine them. and we also should reduce the regulatory barriers to exporting coal. with all of those, with producing our natural resource, if we expand the markets, expand the markets they can go, that generates more and more high-paying jobs. let me note something. the jobs that we're seeing in the energy renaissance, are not just oil and gas jobs. they wouldn't just be coal jobs if we ended the war on coal from this administration. they are jobs across a host of industries. like heavy manufacturing where we're seeing more and more heavy manufacturing come back to the united states. industries like the steel

industry that have been beleaguered for generations, we had hard-working americans, union members, going to work in heavy manufacturing, providing for their kids and we've seen their jobs drying up as the working class in this country has been left out of federal government priorities. we're seeing those heavy manufacturing jobs come back and we're able to compete with nations like china, not based on low-cost labor, none of us want to xweets with china based on low cost labor, but competing instead based on low-cost energy, based on the abundant natural resources that god has given this country that are here and available if the federal government simply will allow private initiative to develop those resources. and finally, i would note,

preventing washington, from stopping the american energy renaissance has enormous benefits, will produce millions of high-paying jobs across this country. and also will generate significant additional revenues to washington and the final element in this bill, is the additional revenues coming in, will be dedicated to a trust fund to pay down our crushing national debt. five years ago our national debt was $10 trillion. today it is over $17 trillion. it has grown some 60% in five years. it took 43 president s and one president in five years to grow it over 60%.

what we're doing to our kids and grandkids is wrong and having a trust fund dedicated these national revenues will go to paying down debt we can start exercising some basic responsibility. our parents didn't do that to us. they didn't give us a crushing debt we couldn't escape from. how can we be content do it to our kids and their kids. i will note, money in washington, trust funds in washington, have a way of being, but the advantage of dedicating this revenue is it increases the political price of politicians raiding the kitty. doesn't mean they won't have the instinct to raid the kitty but it does mean any politician who tries, will face accountability of his or her constituents saying why are you spending

money in the trust fund to free us from your debt on your own spending project. this is a combination that makes enormous sense for our country. i want to close with this. i've said many times, that where we are today, is early similar to the late -- eerily similar to the late 1970s. the same failed economic policies that we saw under the jimmy carter administration, out of control spending and taxes and regulation and the same economic stagnation and malaise as a result. just this afternoon i re-read president carter's speech on energy. because i am a gluten for punishment. it really is striking.

he compared the energy crisis of the '70s to, quote, the moral equivalent of war and he told the country, we are running out of oil and gas. by the mid 1980s it will be gone. it's really worth re-reading. it is a speech where he tells the american people, i am calling on all of you to sacrifice. and listen, any time a politician calls on you to sacrifice, grab your wallet. for some reason, the sacrifice never seems to fit -- hit the rarefied air in washington and sacrifice just thickens the government while the rest of the american people hurt. it's worth re-reading carter's speech because i'm pretty sure every single word in the entire speech is wrong including and

the. but what's striking is how much of our energy policy is still stuck back in the 1970s. like that tv show with ashton kutcher "that 0s show" that is the current federal government's approach to energy. we still have antiquated bans on exporting, crude, restrictions on lng. antiquated rules on building pipelines that enable a president who's being irresponsible to arbitrarily stand in the way, to behave as the energy secretary said, politically, to stop those tens of thousands of i might note union jobs that are not being created because the president doesn't want them. the rules and restrictions we have are for a different time, for a different