The unrest in the Middle East should really clarify for President Obama that we can no longer remain dependent on foreign oil, especially from countries run by bad actors like Muammar Gaddafi. Unfortunately, the administration seems stubbornly resolved to halt American domestic energy production in its tracks to appease their radical environmentalist agenda.

I’m introducing new legislation in the near future that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil – from countries like Libya – by finally unshackling our own domestic energy sector from excessive regulation, while also directing a portion of those revenues to continued funding for alternative and renewable resources. Renewables and alternative fuels may be the future, but only our current administration has fooled itself into thinking these potential alternative fuels are right around the corner. We need our traditional energy resources as a bridge to help free us from dependence on foreign sources and sudden price fluctuations caused by uncontrollable world events.

Arguably most the important benefit of my bill to harness our energy sector’s potential: It would put many more Americans back to work than any of the other ‘job creation’ plans we’ve seen before Congress, while also reducing our federal and trade deficits.

In a recent meeting with BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich about the de facto moratorium, he basically just repeated the administration’s talking point – there is no de facto drilling moratorium in the Gulf. And just recently, the Interior Department made great fanfare out of issuing one new drilling permit…one.

Until the administration responds to my repeated requests to start issuing at least 15 new exploratory permits, I’ll continue to block two of Obama’s key nominations for administration positions: Scott Doney, Obama’s nominee to be NOAA chief scientist and Dan Ashe, President Obama’s nominee to head the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior.

The Interior Department’s de facto moratorium has destroyed jobs in Louisiana, contributed to the bankruptcy of at least one major employer and could force everyone to have to pay for $4.00 per gallon gasoline.

None of us want to see $4.00 a gallon gas again, and a simple solution starts in Louisiana, just off our coast.

This week alone, the Louisiana Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations rejected legislation that would call for the state to accept $98 million in stimulus funds that the governor has declined.

Many local and state governments, including in my home state of Louisiana, recognize the future burdens attached to many of these bloated stimulus projects. Congress should use the returned money based on fiscal decisions by those who better understand their own needs – the local and state government officials – to pay down our ever-growing national debt.

In order to prevent a scenario similar to the recycling of the Wall Street and auto bailout money as being currently practiced by the Treasury Department, Congress needs to put in legislative rules that prevent the recycling of your tax money to prevent it from being used for other stimulus projects once rejected by state and local governments.

Since the passage of the stimulus bill, governors, state legislatures and municipalities across the country have taken steps to reject stimulus funds, leaving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars back in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. My Want Not, Waste Not Act would direct the federal Treasury to use the rejected funds to pay down the national debt.

Ever since the passage of this bloated spending bill, we have seen multiple cases of waste and fraud associated with funding projects, and many local and state officials have outright declared that they do not want this money sent to them by an ever-growing and intrusive federal government.

My bill gives the taxpayers an opportunity to have their money returned to the Treasury to help reduce the burden on their grandchildren instead of spending future generations’ money on unworthy or insolvent projects.

Unfortunately this is nothing new for the Majority Leader. Throughout the 110th and 111th Congresses, he has repeatedly cut off debate and blocked amendments from consideration. Over the previous two years, he has “filled the tree” on numerous occasions to prevent minority amendments from being heard.

And even when he does “allow” amendments, they are generally hand picked by the Leader himself as he knows they will be defeated by large majorities.

Last night, I successfully forced the Senate to take up this amendment that would end Congress’s ability to give itself automatic pay raises. As Senator Reid called for the unanimous consent of the Senate to move forward with further votes on the omnibus, I objected to proceeding until I was given assurances that this important amendment would receive a roll call vote. That vote is likely to occur on Monday.

My amendment is similar to a stand-alone bill that I recently introduced to achieve the same goal – ending automatic pay raises.

In these tough economic times, when many Americans are making sacrifices, it’s time that the Congress quit making political theatre out of their hard times, attacking business leaders for their selfishness but trying to quietly give itself a raise. We should remember we’re here to serve our constituents in our states, and therefore our compensation for that service should be publicly debated and not automatically doled out through a mechanism in the law.

Last year in Louisiana, the state Legislature tried to give itself a large pay increase with a bill that would ultimately also make future pay increases automatic. Louisianans were rightly outraged and called for the bill’s defeat. Most Americans don’t have a formula at their jobs set to give them pay increases automatically. Congress shouldn’t either.

Yesterday, I introduced an amendment to remove wasteful spending from the stimulus bill. My amendment would remove almost $47.6 billion in funding that is not focused on creating jobs to help stimulate the economy.

By targeting the removal of approximately $30.4 billion in direct spending and striking a union-backed Davis-Bacon provision to save more than $17 billion in inflated construction costs we can start to trim the overall cost of this bill.

(The Heritage Foundation estimates that the costly union provision would add an additional $17 billion to the total cost of the stimulus bill because Davis-Bacon requires all construction projects to be performed at wage levels well above the market’s demand – especially as it is relative to different regions of the country, like my home state of Louisiana, for example.)

Some argue that a good portion of the funding in the stimulus has been set aside for worthy programs, but this ever-growing stimulus bill is not the venue for these projects to be considered. Like I said on the Senate floor last night, we can debate and address some of these worthy measures another day, another time and in another bill.

The American people have been told that this bill will help stimulate our ailing economy and it should do just that. But we’re not going to get out of this recession by removing small and medium-sized fish barriers – just to cite one example.

Here are just a few other examples of the wasteful spending in the current Senate stimulus package:
• $20 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove small and mid-sized fish barriers
• $1 billion for the 2010 census
• $600 million for the federal government to purchase energy efficient vehicles
• $500 million for NASA climate change studies
• $850 million to bail out Amtrak
• $100 million for the Department of Defense to purchase hybrid vehicles
• $2.25 billion for groups engaged in neighborhood stabilization programs, such as ACORN and other entities

Those examples listed above are traditional Washington spending projects – pure and simple. They are about pursuing pet programs – building big government and beautifying government buildings – instead of creating new jobs.

The Senate has a duty to change the core of this bloated stimulus so that it addresses real job creation, and this amendment would be a good start as an act of good faith for the American people.

I intend to ensure that the views of the many Americans who find this practice to be abhorrent are represented as we move forward.

That’s why I recently announced that I will use every procedural tool under my senatorial rights to filibuster, “hold” or block the Freedom of Choice Act from moving forward in the U.S. Senate. FOCA has not yet been introduced in the 111th Congress, but U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer authored a version of FOCA in the 110th Congress.

The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify all state and federal laws that interfere with access to abortion. It would also overturn partial birth abortion bans, eliminate parental notification statutes and force taxpayers to fund abortion.

FOCA invalidates federal and state laws regarding full disclosure to the patient – including ultrasound of the baby, information about pain inflicted on the baby or possible complications to the mother. In addition, parental notification or consent for minors seeking abortion, waiting periods for mothers considering abortions, restrictions based on fetal viability – allowing for abortions to occur at any point during the nine months of pregnancy – protections for doctors and nurses who decline to participate in an abortions due to moral and religious beliefs, protections for religiously-affiliated hospitals and public hospitals that do not perform abortions and exclusions for abortion coverage from health care plans of federal employees would be at risk.

The bill’s description begins by outlining its intent as “to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.”

This bill is one of the largest attacks against the culture of life we’ve seen in government, ever. I’m going to fight to ensure that those who support life have their voices and concerns heard about this divisive bill.

For this request to be approved, Congress is required to do nothing, and a formal resolution of disapproval must be passed if we are to prevent these funds from being released. This week, I introduced a disapproval resolution co-sponsored by U.S. Sens. Bunning, DeMint, Inhofe, Sessions, Barrasso, Brownback, Enzi, Cornyn and Roberts, and I urge my other colleagues to do the same. TARP has raised far more troubling questions than it has provided answers. And surely, at a minimum, we need to see plans for how the second half of this $700 billion will be used before we approve it.

I have a number of significant concerns with TARP as it stands, beginning with the fact that the entire rationale on which it was presented to Congress was thrown out within days of its passage. To date, it has become apparent that the plan has not achieved one of its pivotal goals – making credit available to individuals and businesses.

I also fail to see the logic in spending $350 billion when we are just about to begin consideration of a $1 trillion stimulus plan. The last thing we need is more debt upon debt, deficit upon deficit. Certainly we have to act on our nation’s economic troubles, and certainly the federal government should help do that. But as we consider spending another $1 trillion, why should we continue spending money on a program that clearly hasn’t worked?

I am particularly concerned with what I see as TARP’s significant lack of accountability. As it stands, the Department of the Treasury cannot clearly detail how they have spent the first half of the money, and the recent auto bailouts indicate that the program has devolved into little more than a slush fund. Yet we are now expected to release another $350 billion without knowing how it will be spent, let alone how the first half was spent.

I believe it is apparent that any move to release further funds should include a real and serious discussion of how the money will be spent. We cannot afford, and our kids and grandkids cannot afford, for us to continue digging our nation deeper and deeper into debt.

Before we move to approve this money, we need to have a thorough discussion about this program and the questions that it raises. We need to see how this second half will be spent, and we need to ensure that the same mistakes will not be repeated. The next step demands extreme caution, and Congress must consider the very real ramifications of approving these funds.