Floor Statements

Last week, congressional Democrats unveiled several sweeping overhauls of American health care. Each of their plans includes a government-run bureaucracy that would put red tape between patients and their doctors.

I saw this firsthand as a doctor when patients with government-run Medicaid coverage often after heart surgery had difficulties finding doctors for follow-up care. A failure to get follow-up care after heart surgery is a great way to guarantee a poor quality result for patients and higher cost for taxpayers. Far too often, patients in our current government-run programs lack real access to a doctor, leaving them out of the system.

Today, House Republicans put forward a commonsense plan to revitalize the American health care system and improve quality. Our plan puts patients and their doctors back in control of their health care destiny. Our plan makes health care more affordable and more accessible, with patients able to see a doctor of their choice.

We all agree improving our system will make America more competitive and give families peace of mind. Let's work together to put the doctor and patient back in control.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Karen Fontenot, of Duson, Louisiana, who has dedicated her life to helping veterans throughout Southwest Louisiana.

She answered her country's call during the Vietnam Conflict, serving as a nurse in the Philippines.

It was while trying to help move and carry male patients twice her size that Karen first injured her back. It was an injury which left her permanently disabled, unable to walk without the assistance of a cane, and in constant pain. Karen's caring and tender nature was injured, perhaps more severely than her physical being. She suffered with every young man she saw torn apart by the horrors of war.

Upon returning to her family and domestic life in Southwest Louisiana, Karen remained true to her fellow veterans. In an area which lacked Memorial Day and Veterans' Day ceremonies, Karen led a movement to establish those events. She was aided by some fellow veterans, but the brunt of the effort fell on her. For more than a decade, Karen has organized ceremonies to honor those she served alongside as well as those who came before and after her.

When the Iraq War led to the deaths of several local, young men, Karen added a special tribute to the Gold Star Mothers. These families led by the mothers who have lost their child gather with dozens of other veterans and their families to pay tribute to those who have died and those who live.

In addition to the beautiful ceremony, Karen invites all of those attending to a catered lunch at the local Armory. Each of the Gold Star Mothers receives special gifts, and those who have made special contributions are recognized and receive a tribute.

Karen Fontenot broke her back to care for young men injured and killed in the Vietnam conflict and returned home with the intent that all men and women who have sacrificed for their country will be remembered. If it is up to her, none of their sacrifices will be forgotten or overlooked. Karen Fontenot is a patron saint of veterans.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Karen for her achievements and dedication to our nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, I was privileged to give the weekly Republican address. And as a doctor, I've seen firsthand the difficult challenges that face health reform, and at first glance, the task really seems daunting. However, working together we can achieve real results for the American people. We can lower out-of-pocket costs for families and reduce the Federal deficit, which is ballooning out of control. We can increase the quality of care by increasing the choices and information patients have in order to work with their doctor, the doctor they choose to decide the best care possible. Let's begin by ensuring families can keep their current coverage, as the President has promised to do. Then we can work to lower the cost of health care by giving patients flexibility and choice rather than one-size-fits-all, government-run health care. Working together, we can achieve real results and make health care more affordable and accessible.

We all agree, improving our system will make America more competitive and give families peace of mind. Let's work together to put the doctor and patient back in control.

I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding time to me.

I want to go back for a moment, back to March, at a time when the Ways and Means Committee in the House convened to hear Secretary Geithner's testimony to us regarding President Obama's budget proposals and specifically regarding the issues related to cap-and-trade and some proposed tax increases on the oil and gas industry. In fact, in addition to cap-and-trade, the administration is proposing $31.5 billion in increased taxes on the U.S. domestics--the small, independent companies that produce oil and gas and that power our country. So, at the time, I had a very simple, a very straightforward question for Secretary Geithner, who was testifying.

I said, Mr. Secretary, how many jobs will this kill, particularly on the gulf coast? The gulf coast is trying to recover from hurricanes, but yet, at the same time, it has done a magnificent job of getting the oil and gas industry back up in the Outer Continental Shelf and inland--our refineries--to provide energy for our country. So I asked him simply: How many jobs do you intend to kill with this budget? He could not answer the question. So I gave him a little time, and I followed up with a letter to Secretary Geithner.

Two or three weeks elapsed. I received a letter today, and I have yet to receive an answer on how many jobs this administration intends to kill with its energy policy of cap-and-trade and of increased taxes on the domestic oil and gas industry.

Now, I know for a fact that we have about 1.5 million people directly employed in the oil and gas industry and that there are about 6 million additional folks who have jobs related to this, whether in manufacturing or in support services. So, if we look back and if we look at a time when a previous administration, Mr. Carter's administration, raised a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry, it devastated our domestic industry. What happened? We became more dependent on foreign oil, and we saw price spikes in energy.

So what's going to happen with this massive tax increase that is compounded by cap-and-trade? Well, my prediction is we're going to see massive job loss.

I was down in Louisiana for 2 weeks back during the Easter recess. I toured and went along the coast, and I visited a lot of these small companies, companies that employ pipefitters and welders, people who work on the boats, folks who do the electrical work on these rigs, people who do the fabrication work. These are good-paying jobs, high- paying jobs with benefits. These are manufacturing jobs, the same kind of manufacturing jobs my friend from Illinois just spoke about.

And our President says his goal is to save or create 3.5 million jobs before the end of 2010. I want to know a simple answer to the question I posed: How many jobs does this administration intend to kill with its energy tax proposals? It's a simple question.

And I think the American people deserve an answer. And certainly the good, hardworking folks down in Louisiana and Texas and Alabama and Mississippi who supply a large amount of the energy that this country uses deserve a simple, straightforward answer from Mr. Geithner and this administration.

Now, let me make one clear point here. I want to quote something first. Let me quote something from this letter that I received from Secretary Geithner. He says, ``To the extent the credit,'' he's referring to the tax credits that the oil and gas industries had since 1913, ``to the extent the credit encourages overproduction of oil, it is detrimental to long-term energy security.'' Overproduction of oil? Does any American believe that we have overproduction of oil? I would like to know what planet the Secretary is living on. What kind of information is he getting, for God's sake?

Now, I think it's also important to recognize that if we're going to have a reasonable and sensible energy policy that the American public can believe in, an energy policy that diversifies our sources of energy and utilizes oil and gas and clean coal technology and nuclear power as well as green technology and alternative fuels, that's the kind of energy policy that we're promoting. That's the energy policy that the American people want to hear about. That's the energy policy that will unleash individual American genius to solve our problems.

But if you're thinking about energy policy, our transition to that strategy involves natural gas as a diversified fuel as well as expanding nuclear power. But keep in mind that 30-35 percent of the natural gas that this country uses comes from rigs, oil and gas rigs that were drilled within the last 2 years. 35 percent.

Now, I have to tell you that the rig count in the United States since September is down by over 50 percent and dropping because of these tax proposals. It's dropping, and that means we're going to have a shortage down the line of natural gas and oil, and we're going to become more dependent on oil from foreign sources, and we are going to become more dependent on liquefied natural gas being imported into this country.

All the while, we're kind of like--we're the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We have a lot of natural gas reserves, but we're not utilizing them. And this energy policy that the President is proposing, these tax increases will devastate our industry, and we will become more dependent.

So, again, I asked President Obama and Secretary Geithner how many jobs do you intend to kill with this policy? And I think the American people, again, deserve a straight answer. Again, we're talking about good high-paying jobs across the board, manufacturing jobs, jobs that allow folks to buy homes, jobs that allow them to send their kids to college.

Finally, let me just say that I believe it is wrong for this administration to deliberately pick winners and losers. It's the height of arrogance. What we ought to be doing with an energy policy is unleashing American genius to solve these problems, the same kind of genius that have solved many problems before in this country.

One last thing I would like to mention is that back during the heyday of World War II when this country was in a fight against Nazi Germany and the Japanese and the concerns about energy were there and there was a fight for oil reserves and so forth, there was also a fight to see who was going to get nuclear power first. And it was because this country had a well-developed manufacturing and refining system with all of the chemical engineers, the petroleum engineers, that they were able to bring forth enough of the technical capability to win the race for atomic energy. And this is the same energy industry that this administration is currently trashing with this tax policy.

So, again, I want to know a simple answer to a simple question: How many jobs does the Obama administration intend to kill with cap and trade and with these targeted tax increases on the oil and gas industry?

With that, I will yield back to my friend.

This administration doesn't understand the difference between our large multinational energy companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron that do most of their work overseas, and independently owned, American-owned energy companies working in the Gulf of Mexico who provide most of the oil and gas that this country utilizes. These are small companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico, predominantly, some in California and other areas around the country, but predominantly in the Gulf of Mexico. And this industry will be devastated by these tax proposals, and it's going to hurt our energy production, and it's going to make the price of oil and gas and gasoline and electricity go up significantly. It's absolutely the wrong policy at this time. We need a diversified energy policy, and we shouldn't punish those who are producing energy that Americans need desperately today.

I would be happy to yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would just add that really a productive way to reduce emissions would be to work out a cooperative agreement with China--which also has large amounts of emissions into the atmosphere--and let's use the technology that we have today to work with the Chinese to reduce emissions. But instead, with these tax proposals, they intend to destroy this industry. And I will tell you from my experience in Louisiana in the 1980s, once these jobs are gone, folks leave. They go off and do other things. That expertise is gone. You can't develop it overnight. And this is at a time when our energy needs are critical.

So I have to say when the President talks about saving or creating 3.5 million jobs, this policy is not the way to do it. It will kill jobs, and it will kill many jobs.

If the gentleman would yield,

You know, U.S. companies in the oil and gas industry do the safest and most environmentally friendly work of any of the companies around the world. We've got Louisiana and Texas expertise disbursed all over the globe as a result of what happened back in the 1980s with the windfall profits tax. I run into workers all the time who are coming back to Louisiana to visit family. And they have been away, and they wish they could work in the Gulf of Mexico around this country doing work in this country to produce energy for our country. Yet, they were pushed out. We lost those jobs. And as the energy industry has started to come back, now we're seeing the specter of these increased taxes, which will be devastating.

And, in fact, I have a friend of mine--he and I finished college together--he's a petroleum engineer, and he's lived his entire professional life overseas because he went out into the work world at the time that this tax took place and devastated the domestic energy.

With that, I yield back to my friend.

The American people want both sides of the aisle working together to help lower the cost of health care. However, according to a story in today's New York Times, even all but a few Democrats, in addition to Republicans, are being left out of the talks.

Some Washington Democrats are more concerned with implementing a government-run, bureaucratic health care system than achieving real solutions. Working together, we can lower the cost of health care in America while increasing access to a doctor and high-quality care.

Both sides have good answers, which we should consider. However, a silver bullet does not exist to solve all the problems. Compromise and common sense could produce results--such as lower costs, better access to a doctor, and coverage for all. And that's what we should be working toward.

Health care is a complex issue that affects individuals and businesses, young and old--everyone. And that's why it's more important than ever to work together to come up with good policies that will help the American people. They want us to work together to achieve real solutions--and that's what we should be working to, Madam Speaker.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to the rule that led to this budget proposal.

Let me just say that, first of all, this Congress is facing some very grave challenges, along with the President, and I think the President has rightfully singled out health care, energy and education as areas that have to be addressed with substantive reform, but I have to say that I vehemently disagree with the prescribed approach. Let's look at a couple of points here.

First of all, let's take energy. This energy proposal lays out a prescription for singling out a number of serious oil and gas tax increases, at the very minimum, totaling $31.5 billion. Now, this is going to devastate an industry, a domestic oil and gas industry-- independent companies, not the big companies like ExxonMobil and Shell and others that do work overseas but, rather, those independent companies that work in the Gulf of Mexico and that supply a major source of oil and gas energy for the United States and for every single American family.

What does this mean for the average family? They're going to pay higher gas prices at the pump. They're going to pay higher costs in electricity. Also, we're going to see massive job loss.

Now, we did have hearings, yes. Oh, we had hearings. I sit on the Ways and Means Committee. I remember Secretary Geithner coming in front of us. I asked him: How many jobs will this budget kill? He could not answer the question. I asked: Do you realize that the oil and gas industry employs about 1.8 million people in the United States with about 6 million additional jobs associated with this industry? A lot of these jobs are going to be killed; we're going to lose them, and they don't come back right away. This is at a time when our energy dependence on foreign oil is serious.

What is our transition strategy as we try to get to a green economy? Well, it's natural gas. Well, guess what? Thirty-five percent of the natural gas used in this country comes from wells that were drilled within the last 2 years. The rig count is now down over 50 percent since September. Do the math. We're going to see higher gas prices.

So I have to say, if the Secretary comes before the committee and offers this budget proposal but cannot answer simple questions such as ``What is going to be the impact on unemployment across multiple sectors?'' that's a serious concern.

The CBO. I asked the same questions of the Director of the CBO and got the same answer. They have not done the analysis. Well, I think that's incomplete work.

Don't you think we need more information as to what the impact of this budget is going to be on unemployment and on jobs if it's implemented in its entirety? We're talking about good, high-paying jobs. I'm not talking about white-collar executive jobs. I'm talking about pipe fitters, electricians, painters, people who work on boats, across-the-board manufacturing jobs, small manufacturing companies that do fabrication and so forth. These are serious jobs.

This is a serious issue. It needs to be well-thought- out. Throw on top of those specific tax increases that are proposed on the oil and gas industry this massive cap-and-trade proposal which is still not well-thought-out, and of course, we have more work to do on it, obviously.

I have to say the American people deserve to know what this is going to do in terms of job loss. They really deserve to know, and they deserve to know what this is going to do to the cost of electricity in their hometowns and what it's going to do to the cost of gasoline at the pump and what it's going to cost in heating oil and so forth. That is information we ought to have.

So, before we start proposing these types of expansions of taxes that are going to kill jobs, that are going to create higher unemployment and that are going to run up the costs, we're talking about a recipe for more borrowing, for more spending and higher taxes.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I think it's important to recognize that this budget proposes to enact cap-and-trade legislation. It's one of the assumptions in the budget.

The gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned that the American people have spoken about this, but I want to remind him that, again, there are a lot of unanswered questions about the inherent proposals in the budget, such as the impact on unemployment based on some of the assumptions in this budget.

I've got data from the oil and gas industry that shows pretty devastating results across the board on the gulf coast and in manufacturing in other States around the country as a result of the assumptions in this budget.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

I think it is a mischaracterization to say that we cut veteran spending. We actually raised veteran spending each year we were in the majority. But I want to point out something else, and that is----

No, I am not going to yield to the gentleman. I want to complete a thought.

The gentleman was standing here at the podium saying that we are going to spend this and we are going to spend that on veterans; but at the same time, my friend from New Jersey was earlier saying that this is a budget proposal that doesn't enact anything. So I think we are seeing a double standard being discussed over here.

We all recognize this is a proposal, it is a political document, but I have to say that we oppose it because it proposes to borrow too much, it proposes to spend too much, and it proposes to tax too much.

Madam Speaker, last night the President tried to make a case for his $3.6 trillion budget. He suggested that more than $30 billion in new taxes on America's energy producers would not cost American jobs.

I represent a number of America's small energy producers and the support companies, service workers, and others who responsibly provide the energy powering America. The President's budget would force them out of business and send their work and their jobs overseas.

But this is what the President failed to tell those listening last night. His new energy taxes would hit every single American. The new taxes in his carbon program would increase electricity prices, the price at the pump, and home heating oil costs.

Republicans believe we must be good stewards of the environment, and Louisiana workers prove every day that we can produce energy in an environmentally responsible way.

Let's work together to create jobs and keep energy costs down.

The President's plan to hike taxes on Americans who are already struggling with a slow economy is just the wrong way to be going. Let's make America competitive again and get Americans working. That's the kind of stimulus Americans and our economy really need.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. These earmarks are contained in Division C--Energy and Water Development:

Southwest Coastal Louisiana Hurricane Protection, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $956,000 to advance the authorized Southwest Coastal Louisiana Hurricane Protection, LA project. The Corps is directed to expedite the study under the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The funds will be used to continue the feasibility phase including the Chenier Plain Sustainability Initiative. Activities include plan formulation, hydrology and hydraulic analyses, economic inventory, environmental analyses, and stakeholder and public involvement.

Calcasieu Lock, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $574,000 to advance the authorized feasibility study for the Calcasieu Lock, LA project. The study is needed to replace the lock. Funds will be used to address economic and environmental concerns. A rate review will be undertaken to determine the economic impacts of the without-project conditions, and will be accompanied by an analysis to identify impacts from flooding of agricultural areas. The Calcasieu Lock is a bottleneck on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway system in Louisiana, causing delays in transportation and interstate commerce.

Calcasieu River and Pass Navigation, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $155,000 for the authorized Calcasieu River and Pass Navigation, LA project. The study is needed to investigate ways to improve navigation on the Calcasieu Ship Channel by adding passing lanes and anchorage areas. Currently only one-way traffic is allowed because of the narrow channel and hazardous cargo. The funds will be used to complete the feasibility study and initiate the PED phase. Additional beneficiaries include the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District and the users of the Calcasieu River Ship Channel.

Calcasieu River Basin

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $75,000 to advance the authorized feasibility study and initiate the PED. The study is needed to investigate methods of providing flood control and environmental enhancement measures in the Calcasieu River Basin. Additional funds could be used to initiate the plans and specs for the first construction contract. Other beneficiaries include the residents of Calcasieu Parish.

LCA--Ecosystems Restoration, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $8,604,000 to advance the studies for the authorized Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) Ecosystems Restoration, LA project. The funding is needed to continue eleven feasibility studies and initiate six PED studies. Activities include completing and submitting to the Secretary a final report on the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Program Feasibility Program, completing identification of initial BUDMat projects; beginning plans and specs on Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration project; and continuing studies initiated in FY08. Additional beneficiaries include residents of Louisiana.

Calcasieu River and Pass, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $13,894,000 for the authorized Calcasieu River and Pass, LA project. Funds are needed to keep international commerce moving without delays and light loadings. Funds will be used to operate and maintain the Calcasieu River Salt Water Barrier and the channel, dredge bar channel, dredge mile 5 to 17 and Devil's Elbow, foreshore dike construction for protection of disposal areas and to reduce shoaling, and maintenance of dredged material disposal facilities. Additional beneficiaries include the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District and the users of the Calcasieu River Ship Channel.

Freshwater Bayou, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $1,716,000 for the authorized Freshwater Bayou, LA project. The lock is crucial to support offshore oil industry to provide the necessary fuel, supplies and food to offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, and also to support commercial fishing. The funds will be used for operations and maintenance and to dredge two critical reaches to support the energy infrastructure along the Freshwater Bayou, LA.

Mermentau River, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $1,828,000 for the authorized Mermentau River, LA project. Funding is required to dredge and continue ongoing repairs along the Mermentau River, including operations of Catfish Point and Schooner Bayou Control Structures, maintenance of the control structures, including water control data systems, real estate, and dredge Mermentau Bar Channel, and boathouse replacement at CPCS.

Bayou Teche & Vermilion River, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $13,000 for the authorized Bayou Teche & Vermilion River, LA project. The funding will be used for ongoing repairs, debris removal, and operations and maintenance for the Bayou Teche & Vermilion River.

Bayou Teche, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance

Purpose: Provide an earmark of $194,000 for the authorized Bayou Teche, LA project. Funding will be used for dredging and ongoing operations and maintenance for the Bayou Teche. Activities include surveys of the channel, environmental studies, real estate management, and operate and maintain Keystone Lock.

Calcasieu River, Mile 5.0-14.0, Cameron Parish

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, CAP 204

Purpose: To provide an earmark prioritizing the Calcasieu River, Mile 5.0-14.0, Cameron Parish project within the Corps CAP 204 program. Funds will be used to complete the design and implementation phase for the beneficial use of dredged materials project along the Calcasieu River. The project provides for the placement of shoal material from the Calcasieu River, Mile 5 to Mile 14, into the Cameron Creole Prairie National Wildlife Refuge. Additional beneficiaries include the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District and the users of the Calcasieu River Ship Channel.

Town of Carencro, Lafayette Parish, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, CAP 205

Purpose: To provide an earmark prioritizing the Town of Carencro, Lafayette Parish, LA project within the Corps CAP 205 program. The funds will be used to continue the design and implementation phase for the small flood control project in the Town of Carencro. Additional beneficiaries include the residents of the Town of Carencro.

Bayou Queue de Tortue, Vermilion Parish, LA

Member requesting funds: Charles Boustany Jr., MD (LA-07)

Entity receiving funds: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, CAP 205

Purpose: To provide an earmark prioritizing the Bayou Queue de Tortue, Vermilion Parish, LA project within the Corps CAP 205 program. The funds will be used to complete the feasibility for a small flood control project in Bayou Queue de Tortue. Additional beneficiaries include the residents of the Town of Gueydan.

Mr. Speaker, tonight President Obama is expected to unveil some of his health care reform, and I hope to work with the President to lower costs for American families and make health care more accessible without dramatically raising taxes.

Some of my Democratic colleagues advocate for government-run universal health coverage, but coverage alone does not guarantee access. Too many rural communities currently lack doctors, and Medicare payment cuts and frivolous lawsuits have driven providers out of business in underserved communities.

Health care reform should be based on three basic principles, information, choice and control. Information that provides real information to patients and doctors, choice that allows freedom of choice to choose a doctor and develop a doctor/patient relationship, and control, which creates real portability for families.

Working together, I believe we can achieve real results and make health care much more affordable and accessible. We all agree that our system will make America more competitive and give families peace of mind. And that's why we need to work together to put the doctor and patient back in control.

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a correction here to the gentleman's comments. While providing coverage is one thing, providing real access to care, to a primary care physician, is another, and far too many of these children are receiving care in the emergency room, which is the most expensive and least effective way to provide care.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill.

Last week, the Democratic majority rushed a massive bill through the process, laden with wasteful spending of borrowed money that has not been shown or demonstrated to create jobs.

The American people are hurting. They are clearly hurting. We have tough economic times, and we have a responsibility to legislate and to legislate in a responsible way. Too often, children on Medicaid or on SCHIP receive fewer visits with primary care providers than those with private coverage. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, children on these programs were 2 times more likely to visit hospital emergency rooms multiple times in a given year.

As a physician, I know that government-run programs must achieve better results. My State has the eighth highest ER visit rate. This is unacceptable and we can do better. Now, the GAO has criticized government-run programs, like SCHIP, for disregarding patients' access problems. It warned: ``Coverage alone does not guarantee services will be available or that children will receive needed care.''

It is disappointing to me that the majority rushed this flawed bill to the floor without permitting any opportunity for improvements. In fact, as proposed, this bill would exacerbate enrolled children's access problems. The CBO warned that a similar bill would force more than 2.4 million children out of private health care plans and onto government rolls.

Working together, I know we can do better. I know we can make SCHIP help children who really need it--those who really already qualify for it but who are not enrolled. There are far too many of these children out there. This massive expansion fails to help those children most of all. States should measure also and report provider access problems in SCHIP programs to measure their progress. We asked for this, and it was not even entertained in the Rules Committee. I do not understand the closed debate here, the closed opportunity.

We also need to limit the crowd-out of private coverage and target the neediest children for enrollment first. We need to help poor children first. I know we can do better.

Oppose this rule. Oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, both sides can agree that our national economy is in trouble as tens of thousands of Americans are without work. But the question remains, are we going to get this right? The bill before us falls far short of the goals that we are hoping to achieve.

In 2005 my home State of Louisiana saw economic devastation as the result of two hurricanes. During that recovery effort, we learned many things about what government can and can't do effectively and quickly. Tax relief for small businesses and families enable businesses across the Gulf Coast to rebuild, expand, and create good-paying, long-lasting jobs. As a result, thousands of Louisiana families found security they desperately needed following these two storms.

Government direct spending was also attempted. However, 3 years later, 3 years later, much of that money is still tied up in bureaucratic entanglement.

There's a lesson here. There is clearly a lesson. There are many different solutions to a problem, and this economic crisis, as complex as it is, certainly proves this. But secondly and more importantly, we must look for solutions that will produce results.

We need to spur job creation to get Americans working again, and the best way to achieve that job creation is by reducing taxes on small businesses, entrepreneurs, and companies who can put people to work now.

We are willing to work with the administration and with our friends across the aisle to accomplish these goals. Together I believe we could craft a bill that would stimulate private sector job growth, which is what's desperately needed. That will make this country competitive again. This bill will not accomplish those goals.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and let's come up with a better way to do this.

Madam Speaker, as a physician, we all recognize the importance of high quality health care for all children in this country. In addition to the declining source of revenue as a means to pay for this, which I believe is an irresponsible way to legislate on health care, there's a serious other problem that needs to be discussed and that is, does this bill provide real access to quality health care?

Too often children on Medicaid and SCHIP receive fewer visits from primary care providers than those with private coverage. That's clear. And they are much more likely to seek care in the emergency room when it's late. They don't get the necessary screenings and vaccinations.

GAO criticized government-run programs like SCHIP for disregarding patients' access problems.

It's disappointing to me, as a physician, that the majority rushed this flawed bill to the floor without permitting any opportunity for improvements. I offered an amendment that went to Rules which was not allowed, which would have encouraged States to measure and report provider access problems for SCHIP programs. It would also require States to report their plans to limit ``crowd out'' of private coverage.

I would like to include the rest of my statement in the Record.

In section 402 of their bill, Majority leaders failed to address the access problems I brought to their attention last year.

Their vague language does not require states to uniformly report primary care visits.

It does not mention surveying parents on whether sick children received needed care quickly.

It also fails to require states to describe their plans to avoid displacing children's private coverage.

We need to help poor children first.

A plastic government coverage card that delays access to needed care is an insult to low-income families.

Congress has a duty to help enrolled children who--despite being covered--still can't find a doctor to treat them when they're sick.

Madam Speaker, as I travel across my district, helping with hurricane recovery, I am proud of the can-do spirit of the people of southwest Louisiana. Hurricanes Gustav and Ike caused amazing damage throughout my area, but neighbors are helping neighbors.

These two storms also highlight the importance of American energy production in the Gulf of Mexico. High gas prices are affecting our food prices, the economy in general, and people's pocketbooks directly.

Throughout August, I joined my fellow House Republicans in urging Speaker Pelosi to bring Congress back in session to help American families struggling with the dramatically high gas prices, but she refused.

Now we can act. We can increase and diversify our energy supply, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil and create good high- paying American jobs. Many of these energy jobs are going overseas, but we can keep them right here in America.

By harnessing all of America's vast resources, we can help Americans in the short term and into the future. Let's do the responsible thing. Let's open parts of our deepwater coasts for energy exploration and pass a comprehensive energy bill. Let's begin to reduce the price at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from California in support of House Resolution 1464, recognizing and honoring the 50th anniversary of the founding of the AARP. While I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, I must also remind all of my colleagues that we, in Congress, must do our part to serve our constituents over the age of 50 by approving an all-of-the-above comprehensive energy package that will put our Nation on the path to energy independence, a real energy policy, and not one that just pays lip service to parts and parcel of energy policy, one that really looks at solving our energy problems going forward.

With that, I would say that I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I urge my Democratic colleagues to work with us across the aisle and to serve those constituents that the AARP serves in approving essential energy policy as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 6890 which would extend the authority of the Secretary of Education to waive certain requirements for those States impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The legislation would also ensure that those school districts that experienced widespread damage by the severe storms, tornadoes, or flooding in the Midwest or hurricanes in the gulf coast receive the same amount of funding under the title I program as they did last year.

I want to thank my fellow members of the Louisiana delegation for working with me in introducing this bill and their ongoing work alongside with me to assist those impacted by the devastating natural disasters that have hit the gulf coast as well as the Midwest.

Mr. Speaker, the events over the past month when Hurricane Ike hit the Texas and Louisiana coast and Hurricane Gustav hit the Louisiana coast remind us of the damaging impact that natural disasters have on our Nation's residents and their local communities. As thousands of residents return to their homes and towns, they'll need help in rebuilding their houses and their livelihoods. Local elementary and secondary schools--both public and private--will need help in replacing textbooks and other instructional materials so that students can get back to learning and a little bit of normalcy.

Just over 3 years ago, our Nation experienced one of the worst disasters in our history when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated Louisiana and the Mississippi gulf coast. More than 1,100 public and private schools were forced to close, and approximately 158,000 students were displaced as a direct result of the hurricanes. The loss of business and government infrastructure, jobs, and housing deprived school districts of local property taxes that normally fund school operations.

In the Midwest, we know that the massive flooding experienced over the summer in Iowa and recently in Illinois has devastated local communities and schools. Louisiana and Texas are still assessing the damage done as a result of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, but the initial assessments paint a grim picture.

In the aftermath of these natural disasters, Congress should assist those public and private elementary, middle, and high schools that are struggling to re-open and re-enroll students for families returning to these devastated areas.

In 2006, we provided funds to States and public and private schools in the gulf region impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to replace instructional materials, recover student and personnel data systems, and other important services to get schools back up and running. We also guaranteed that those school districts in the gulf coast receive the same amount of funding under the title I program for fiscal year 2006 as they received for fiscal year 2005.

We provided the Secretary of Education with limited authority to waive certain financial requirements to ensure that those states that were heavily impacted by the destruction could use several funds to meet their financial commitments. These waivers have proven critical to the recovery of schools in several impacted areas and enabled them to access much-needed reconstruction funds.

The bill we have before us today, H.R. 6890, would extend this temporary authority for another fiscal year through September 30, 2009.

As we continue to assess the damage in the Midwest and along the gulf coast, similar to the assistance provided back in 2006, H.R. 6890 also guarantees that those school districts in the Midwest impacted by flooding and the gulf coast impacted by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike receive the same amount of funding under the title I program for this upcoming school year as they received for the last school year.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6890. I'm thankful to the committee and to the gentlelady from California for bringing this resolution to the floor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.