Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Jake Deitchler of Anoka County, Minnesota for qualifying for the 2008 U.S. Olympic Wrestling team. Jake is a three-time State champion from Anoka High School and will be attending the University of Minnesota in the fall.

Jake's path to joining the Olympic team was certainly not an easy one. Competing in the 2008 Olympic Team Trials in the Greco-Roman style, Jake defeated a two-time World Bronze medalist in the semifinals and was then victorious in a hard fought final to earn a spot on the team. Just 18 years old, only two other high school wrestlers have ever qualified for the U.S. Olympics, and even more remarkably, not one wrestler his age has qualified since 1976.

Jake's success in the Olympic Trials carries on Minnesota's proud tradition of Greco-Roman wrestling. Since 1968, at least one man has made the U.S. Olympic Wrestling team from the North Star state. Jake will be one of 16 wrestlers representing the United States in the Beijing Games taking place in China in August.

Congratulations, Jake, and America looks forward to you bringing home the gold. We are all proud of your tremendous accomplishment and our Nation wishes you and your teammates the best of luck in Beijing.

Madam Speaker, today, the House voted to override the President's veto of H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. Although I had previously opposed this legislation, I reluctantly cast my vote in favor of overriding the veto. While I maintain my concerns over the funding cuts to Medicare Advantage plans contained in the bill, H.R. 6331 corrects the scheduled physician payment cuts and we have simply run out of time to negotiate further on this matter.

Ensuring access to health care is critical for all Americans. It is especially important that senior citizens, who are at a particularly vulnerable time, receive high quality, affordable care. Consequently, in 2003, Congress created Medicare Advantage plans which combine the reliable nature of Medicare with the quality and value of a competitively driven market. With nearly 10 million Medicare beneficiaries currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, up nearly 60 percent since 2004, America's seniors are seeing the benefits of these plans, offering greater choice, lower out-of-pocket costs, and expanded service.

Unfortunately, the bill placed before us today actually falls short of a compromise that would have staved off the devastating reimbursement cuts and preserved valuable access to Medicare Advantage plans. Seeing how near Senate Finance Committee leaders were to reaching an optimal compromise, I originally opposed H.R. 6331. However, it is clear now that this bill represents the only vehicle to combat the painful cuts to physician payments and to maintain seniors' access to Medicare providers, and therefore it must be supported.

Madam Speaker, America's physicians have called on Congress to prevent a devastating cut to their Medicare reimbursement payments. This cut could have dangerous implications for America's seniors, risking access to the health coverage on which they rely. While H.R. 6331 does not represent the full extent of what I feel could have been done to address the health care needs for our senior citizens, it does defeat the most imminent threat. I remain hopeful that Congress will revisit this matter and restore Medicare Advantage to its true potential

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that designation of hour, and the purpose for being here this evening is to focus on the number one issue that many of us are hearing from our constituents back home, and that's the pain that they're feeling over the increase in energy prices.

There are a number of us here that are serving in the United States House of Representatives that are hearing the American people, Mr. Speaker, and we are crying out, as our constituents are crying out, to make sure that something can be done.

And the reason why we're bringing this discussion here before this body, the most magnificent body on the planet, the floor of the United States Congress, where freedom reigns, we're bringing this up here because the United States Congress is the entity that caused the current problem that we're under, and let me explain why.

The United States Congress has made it virtually illegal to access America's rich storehouse of energy resources. I know it's hard to believe, Mr. Speaker. It's almost impossible to believe. Why would any group of people, especially in a country where there's freedom, want to restrict access to energy resources? It doesn't make any sense.

So a number of us are here this evening because we want to talk about the possibilities that there are to have energy independence in the United States and to reach the very possible goal of getting back to having Americans pay $2 a gallon or less.

So, to start off this evening, I'd like to call on my colleague and I'd like to defer to him, Mr. Patrick McHenry from the great State of North Carolina.

I thank the gentleman. I appreciate, Congressman McHenry, your passion, your work on the issue, particularly the work that you are doing offering that spectacular prize.

One thing that we do understand and know in the depth of our bones is that American innovation has never died, it has always been alive and well. And when you hold that tremendous carrot out there, we know the American people can deliver, Mr. Speaker. That has been proved generation after generation. Every generation has been presented with a crisis.

Today, in the United States, this Special Order hour and the speakers who will be speaking now during this time are addressing the number one challenge of our age. And the great thing is the fact that we have an answer. It's entirely possible to solve this crisis. And we know the formula: It's explore here in America. Do it now so that the American people can get back to paying $2 a gallon for gas or less. It's entirely possible, and it can be done.

That's why so many of us are excited. This coming weekend the Republican leader, John Boehner, will be hosting a trip with about 10 freshmen, and we will be doing an American energy tour. On that tour, we will have a chance to go to Golden, Colorado to take a look at the national alternative energy laboratories, where we can find some of the ideas of the next generation, innovation that is yet to come on energy use and independence. And from there we will go up to Alaska, to ANWR, where there are proven reserves.

To speak out more on ANWR tonight, I've asked, and he has accepted, the Representative from western Iowa, Representative Steve King, who has been to the ANWR region of Alaska, who has been there, who knows the value of energy independence.

Before I yield to my brother, I want to just highlight today in the Financial Services Committee--of which I am a member and of which Congressman McHenry, who was here speaking before myself, is also a member--we had the occasion to have the Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Ben Bernanke, in front of the committee today. And for all of us this was an enlightening moment because the Federal Reserve Chair stated without blinking an eye today in committee, he said, ``A 1 percent increase in supply of energy''--American energy--``could lower prices by as much as 10 percent.''

Mr. Speaker, this is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who told

our Committee on Financial Services that if you increase the source of American supply by even 1 percent, you can lower the price at the pump by 10 percent. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in the United States House of Representatives want to increase American supply vastly more than by 1 percent. We can do that, and we can get back to $2 a gallon of gasoline.

So now I would like to take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to yield to my colleague, the esteemed Representative Steve King from western Iowa, on the issue of ANWR.

Thank you, Representative King, for your firsthand eyewitness experience of the ANWR area. I know the freshmen that are planning to go this weekend can't wait to get that same bird's-eye view.

Yes, I would be happy to.

I thank the gentleman for yielding back.

We are excited about being able to go up there this coming weekend. And just think, here we are at the end of July. The end of July. And when we had our briefing this afternoon, what we were told is that essentially we should be taking with us a waterproof down parka. So this is not necessarily an area where we are going to find tourists lying on a beach. There probably couldn't be a better square footage area on the planet to drill than the ANWR area. And I know the freshmen that are going look forward to having another Special Order when we come back, Mr. Speaker, so we can report to the American people on our findings.

Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, I just wanted to mention that one argument that we have been hearing a lot from the Democrats who are in charge of Congress--the Democrats control the agenda both in the House and in the Senate. And it's really mind bending to think that the Democrats have taken virtually no initiative whatsoever to add even one new drop of oil into the American pipeline nor one new watt of electricity. It's absolutely true. There has been complete inertia on the part of increasing America's energy supply.

What have we heard from the Democrats? We have heard for a catcall from them that 68 million acres that are leased out right now to companies that want to produce energy in America that apparently, according to Democrats, they're just sitting on that land.

Well, now, first of all, that doesn't make sense. My husband and I are business owners. One thing business owners don't do because there's not a lot of margin, there's not a lot of fluff or paddling left in your business budget, you don't just buy assets and leave them to not produce. It's a nonsensical argument from the Democrats. When they're saying that there are 68 million acres that are being leased, recognize, as the people, and your Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, deal with onshore and offshore leases, they told me this: They said, Representative Bachmann, every single acre is leased, and every single acre is in the current range of exploration. It takes so long to permit. And then the Federal Government allows 11 different points in the permitting process where lawsuits can be filed against the people who want to produce energy. So these energy producing wannabes are in a very difficult position of putting their capital on the table, their money on the table to try to drill for energy, and at the same time they have to wait for these artificial timelines to expire for a permitting process and they have to deal with these nonstop lawsuits. It's amazing anyone wants to go into the business. And yet, unfortunately, this is the only thing that our colleagues on the other side, the Democrats, have come up with as an excuse on drilling. It doesn't make any sense to me. I'm

sure, Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense to the people who are watching tonight.

So I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Jean Schmidt, for her comments now on energy.

Reclaiming my time, I had the Minnesota turkey producers in my office just a few days ago, and they told me that their energy prices have tripled this year in three different ways: One is in the area of feed. Another is the climate control that they have to have in the turkey houses. In Minnesota it gets hot and it gets cold. And then the third is on the transporting of the birds both to and from being produced. So they said they're getting hit on every single level. And the Minnesota Farm Bureau was in my office yesterday. They told me the same thing.

It doesn't matter which part of agriculture we are talking about. In Minnesota we have a lot of agriculture. Our farmers are feeling it, and not only are our farmers feeling it, our constituents, every time they go to the grocery store, are feeling it. So I thank the gentlewoman for bringing up this very important point.

I yield to the gentlewoman.

I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, for her work that she has done and for listening to her constituents.

I know off the floor we have talked about the beating that your constituents are taking on this issue. I know your heart is breaking for the people back in your district in Ohio. You see the reality of how this is impacting people.

And you spoke about petroleum, how petroleum is a part of every meal that we have. And I know that truckers in Minnesota told me that everything you have on your table takes about on average 1,200 miles in a truck or in some form of transportation to get to that table. So if we haven't seen increases in groceries, and I know in Minnesota we have seen increases in groceries, we are going to continue to see them if we don't solve this problem. We can get back to $2 a gallon gasoline. It's entirely possible because we have the resources.

So I thank you for your fervor on this issue. And I know one thing: Had the Republicans been in control of Congress this year, we would have seen action. We wouldn't have seen inertia. Just like the Republican-controlled Congress passed measures before in previous years to drill in ANWR. Unfortunately, when those measures made it to the Senate, they weren't passed. The one year when both the House and the Senate passed a bill to begin drilling in ANWR, which was in 1995, unfortunately, President Bill Clinton chose to veto that legislation. We would have had all of that oil online and swooshing down the pipeline from Alaska down to the lower 48 so that we could have had that available.

I thank the gentlelady.

With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio, your colleague, Mr. Bob Latta, a new Member to this body as I am a new Member to the body, but a longtime friend of liberty and an individual who understands the importance of American energy independence. And I thank the gentleman for his willingness to be a part of this hour this evening.

I thank the gentleman from the Buckeye State, Mr. Latta, for your words because you understand the answer, which the American people get. This is not terribly complicated. This is not difficult to figure out. America has made a big mistake. And it isn't the American people that have made a big mistake. It's the Members of Congress that made a big mistake when they made it illegal, and that's right, the United States Congress made it illegal to access the answer to our energy problem.

Mr. Latta has laid that case out very well. He has made the case. And he has made the case that we need to change the way we're doing business, and we need to make it legal. And instead of being one of the biggest importers of energy, we can be the biggest exporter. Because it's all about jobs.

And that is why I would like to hand out the baton now to my esteemed colleague from the State of Michigan, Representative Tim Walberg. Because in the State of Michigan, Mr. Speaker, there is possibly no other State that compares in terms of the misery that they have dealt with with their recession and with the job losses. And I think probably no one can speak to this better than Representative Tim Walberg and also his esteemed colleague, Thaddeus McCotter.

And now I will yield to my friend, Representative Tim Walberg.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the American people to understand, as incredulous as it sounds, the majority, which again is run by the Democrats, both in the House and in the Senate, have made a deliberate decision to do absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing to bring even one drop of oil or one new watt of electricity online for the American people.

I just read this morning in my clips in Minnesota that energy went out in the afternoon. It was so hot, the demand was so high our energy grid is getting overloaded and we haven't been building the new power plants and exploring for the new energy.

This is key, Mr. Speaker, for the American people to know. The Republicans in Congress have a plan. It is American energy, yes. The Democrats have said American energy, no. We want $2 a gallon gas. We can get there if we drill here, drill now, so the American people can pay less. It's entirely possible.

The Democrat plan has been drive less, pay more. It's not working real well, Mr. Speaker. People don't like that plan. They really would like to be able to pay $2 a gallon gas, especially when they know it is possible.

We are so grateful we can have this opportunity tonight, so grateful. But I tell you, the passion burns pretty deep in here because we know when we go home fairly soon for the August break, we have a lot of angry people on our hands at home, and they have every right to be angry. We are here calling on the Democrat Congress, pleading with the Democrat Congress, listen to the American people. Drill here, drill now so the American people can pay less.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the Land of Lakes Boys Choir, headquartered in Elk River, Minnesota, for their exemplary musical achievements and the pride and inspiration they instill in our community.

The Land of Lakes Boys Choir is an extremely talented group of boys who have brought global recognition to the great State of Minnesota. These children have worked tirelessly to perfect their skills and talents, participating in many prestigious competitions. They attended the World Choir Games in Germany, France, and Austria and recently received a silver medal there. And they will also be going to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China.

Since 1976, this choir program has helped many boys pursue their passion for music. In 2004, the Land of Lakes Boys Choir received the International Trebby Award for ``Best Boys' Choir Album'' with its CD ``Steal Away.'' And most recently, in 2006, it was awarded the Grand Champion of Cruise Festivals Music Festivals, for their outstanding performance.

This organization has been a helpful extracurricular program for many young boys, teaching them self-discipline, character and leadership. The individuals who have sacrificed their time to train and work with these boys should also be recognized for their continued efforts to mentor these children.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize and congratulate the Land of Lakes Boys Choir for its tremendous achievements in music and community service. I know that I join so many in Minnesota when I say that I am proud to have these boys as American ambassadors at this year's Olympic Games.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor two of my constituents, true community servants, Mr. John and Bonnie Enstrom.

The Enstrom's built the Veterans Lake Park in Ramsey, Minnesota to honor our fallen heroes. The park hosts the only monument in State dedicated to all Minnesotans who lost their lives as a result of the global War on Terror. The monument also contains a list of veterans who died in the Iraq war to protect our Nation's freedom.

Over $1 million has been personally invested by the Enstrom's to ensure that the park is well-kept and beautiful. Veterans visit the park and enjoy its quiet, relaxing environment. It has been seen as a safe haven to help the Vets mentally and emotionally recover.

Our Nation's heroes sacrificed their comforts and safety so that Americans can enjoy their continued freedoms. For their great efforts, veterans deserve much from the American people. Its efforts like those of the Enstrom's that truly show our appreciation for these heroes.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize and congratulate Mr. and Mrs. John Enstrom for their exemplary service to our Nation's heroes. The time and work that they both have sacrificed to serve the military men and women of our great State of Minnesota will not be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot about energy. I know I do as well. And the one thing that we know is that we're at a refreshing point of clarity in the energy debate. The reason for that is because the Democrat response has now become very clear.

A leadership aide said this week that the Democrat plan is to have the American people drive small cars and wait for the wind. That is one plan. If the Democrats want the American people to drive less and pay more, that's one plan.

Another plan that the Republicans have been pushing is to make sure that we open up Americans sources of supply. Our goal is to see the American people paying $2 a gallon or less. It's entirely possible. Congress created this

problem, Congress can solve this problem. Open up American sources of supply and fast-track the permitting process, take away the artificial timelines; we can begin drilling immediately, which is what the American people are demanding, and we can get gasoline prices back down to $2 a gallon or less and get the economy moving.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the Minnesota chapter of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, FAPA, which has done an exemplary job of keeping the voice of the Taiwanese people alive in my State of Minnesota. This organization has spoken for the people of Taiwan on many important issues including the all important matter of supporting Taiwan's membership into the World Health Organization, WHO.

The WHO is an important international organization that works to attain the highest possible level of health for all people. Unfortunately, the 23 million citizens of Taiwan are denied access to this organization and are unable to take part in international health forums, programs and benefits conducted by the WHO.

The large volume of international travel to Taiwan heightens the transmission of communicable diseases and makes Taiwan an ideal candidate for membership in the organization. For this reason alone, Taiwan and its people should be allowed to participate in the health services and medical protections offered by the World Health Organization.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the Minnesota chapter of the FAPA for their continued efforts to defend Taiwan. And, I urge you to join me in supporting Taiwan's inclusion in the World Health Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I actually think that we're at a refreshing point of clarity in the energy debate, because the one thing that we have learned is the only thing standing between the American people and lower energy prices at the pump is the Democrat-controlled Congress.

They've made their position very clear. It is drive less and pay more. Or, as we heard yesterday, drive small cars and wait for the wind. Or, the other suggestion we've heard is the Congress has done such a wonderful job running a railroad, now let's have Congress take over the energy industry and we can run that, too.

It's only been in the last 18 months that we have seen energy prices increase a dramatic 76 percent. At 9 percent approval rating, I don't think we're hearing a clamoring from the American people for Congress to take over and run anything.

The Republican Party now has become the party of the little guy. We want to open up energy exploration, permit expediting so that we can get this online. We don't have to wait 20 years. That's Congress that caused those barriers. Congress can unlock those barriers and bring clarity back to the issue.

Mr. Speaker, we are at what I think is a very refreshing moment of clarity on the national energy debate that is occurring right now in hamlets and towns and villages all across the United States. We have captured people's attention because we really are at a crisis point because, at least in my district, the Sixth District of Minnesota, people are paying close to $4 for a gallon of gas. I know that the national average is at about $4.11 a gallon. It's at historic highs and people are frantic.

When I was home over the break, I had met with people from all aspects of dealing with the energy issue. In particular, I met with some car dealers and they told me that people come into the dealership, this was Morrie Wagner Chevrolet, and they told me that they have people literally coming into the store with panicked looks on their faces saying, Take my truck, take my SUV. It's a new car. Take my minivan. It's new. We still owe quite a bit of money on it but we can't afford to drive this thing. Sheer panic and trying to find anything else because they just don't know how much higher prices are going.

But I say that we are at a refreshing point in this debate for this reason: We have clarity right now on the debate that we have never had before. Frankly, I have been baffled; baffled by how are we going to be able to get us back to $2 a gallon gasoline or less? And I mean that sincerely. I know that we can be at $2 a gallon again.

It wasn't that long ago when I took office, 18 months ago. I am a first-termer in Congress, Mr. Speaker. When I came in, gas was $2 and change a gallon. Think of that. Eighteen months ago, gas was $2 and change, and here we are topping out at over $4 a gallon gasoline.

What happened in that amount of time, when we have seen a 76 percent rise in the price of gasoline? What happened? We have seen worldwide demand go up and up and up, so that worldwide demand exceeds the amount of supply. That has fed into the price going up and up and up.

Well, what do we do to deal with that? We need to get more supply so we can get the price down. Why isn't that happening? It is really clear to me now. And I was baffled about this. I couldn't believe it, but it is absolutely true.

The Democrats' position so far, Mr. Speaker, has been drive less, pay more. That is where they are coming from. I find that really hard to believe. I grew up a Democrat in a Democrat home, and I thought that just can't be. It defies commonsense. Drive less, pay more? That is your plan?

Well, that isn't just some Republican saying that. That is the Democrats' own words. There was just an aide of the Democrat leadership that just came out and said, ``This is what our plan is: It is drive small cars and wait for the wind.'' That is actually true. This was not a tongue in cheek remark. It is ``drive small cars and wait for the wind.'' Well, I don't know about you, but I think Members of Congress are going to be gone with the wind if we don't do something about the price of gasoline to bring it down again.

Not only that, I was reading on the Hill from Roll Call newspaper and another Democrat leadership aide had this to say: They said that the majority is confident they would be able to defeat the offshore drilling amendment.

Now, just think of that for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The Democrats are confident they would be able to defeat the offshore drilling amendment, which means what are we supposed to do for energy? We have got to go get it. We have got to drill for it. They want to kill being able to drill offshore to bring on line the energy that we need so we

can get the American people back to $2 a gallon and so we can get the economy back on track. But they are confident that they can kill this bill.

They have no intention of bringing more energy supplies on line. In fact, this aide was quoted as saying, ``We have defeated that amendment before, and we will defeat it again.'' They are proud of it. They admitted, at least I give them credit for that, yes, it is true, the Democrats are responsible for defeating drilling to get the energy that we need, and they are confident they are going to defeat it again.

It is almost unbelievable to me, because, as this chart says, what we need to do is bring it on. If we are short on energy, we need to bring it on. We need to bring the onshore oil on line, we need to bring the offshore oil on line, and the new refineries on line, because we are the Saudi Arabia of oil. We have more oil in three States, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, we have more oil in those three States than all of Saudi Arabia. We have 25 percent of the world's coal in this country. We can be the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more natural gas. We have 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico, and we can't get it.

Now, why is that? It is because of Congress. Congress created this problem. We are about the only country in the world that has made it illegal to access our own energy. Congress created this problem. Congress can solve this problem by making it legal to access our own energy reserves.

Well, that can't be done. We hear, Mr. Speaker, from the Democrat presidential nominee, Senator Obama, it will take 20 years before we can get any of this energy on line. Are you kidding? That is balderdash, so-to-speak. Of course, we can.

I have a bill that I am introducing this week that will fast track the permitting so we can have the Secretary of the Interior start immediately to get it online. We need to do this, the American people want us to do this, and we can get back to $2 a gallon gas.

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

I'll be referring to an article that came out. It's a shocking article that many of us in this Congress read just a few weeks ago, and I commend the American people to pick this up on the Internet or go find it at your local library. June 23, 2008, the Wall Street Journal newspaper, it's on page 1. It's an article by Stephanie Simon called ``Abortion Provider Goes Upscale. Aid For Poor Questioned.'' And here is the bottom line of this article.

It exposes the fact that Planned Parenthood, a 501(c)3 organization, which is a nonprofit organization--in other words, Planned Parenthood pays no taxes. They don't have to pay taxes because they're considered a nonprofit. This nonprofit is big business. It was started back in 1916 by Margaret Sangar, a woman who promoted eugenics, and this organization has now become a big box retailer, big abortion, in other words. It is a big retailer. And it brought in, get this, $1 billion in revenues--$1 billion in revenues.

Not only does this organization not pay taxes like other businesses do, but they receive in that $1 billion, almost one-third of what they receive comes in the form of your tax money, Federal tax money, State tax money. But get this: they receive almost $1 billion, according to this article, in annual revenue, one-third of that coming from Federal and State grants to care for women. The nonprofit ended the year with a surplus of a $115 million.

So they had your money, your money that you're paying in taxes. They had an extra $115 million cash on hand at the year end. A $1 billion budget, and they had that much cash on hand, about 11 percent of its revenue, net assets of $952 million, almost a billion dollars in net assets.

So the article asks, Why are we giving them so much money? That's exactly right. Why are they receiving, as Congressman Mike Pence asked, why are we giving them so much tax money? They have 882 clinics State- wide, and they quietly dropped their statement that said no matter what a person's income, we're going to be helping those people.

Well, let me tell you, they've made a decision, Planned Parenthood, that they are going to go after the affluent. How do I know that? It's happening in my district, and it was detailed in this article. It said three express centers in wealthy Minnesota suburbs and shopping centers and malls, places where women are already doing their grocery shopping, picking up their Starbucks, living their daily lives.

Do we understand what this is? This is to promote women, to promote that woman intentionally take the lives of their unborn children. We are asking God-fearing Americans to subsidize this brutal and bloody procedure on a regular business in upscale shopping malls all across the United States.

Not only are they not paying taxes, but we are giving them over $330 million a year to do this dastardly deed. And when they do this, do you realize they could take this money and they can use it for political functions? I don't know how this works. What a game. Who wouldn't want to get in on this?

And all across the country, we have very poor, struggling life care centers, organizations that are trying to give positive alternatives to women. They don't get these grants. They don't get them. They get local donations to try to help women make a decision about saving lives and choosing life.

I just want to end with the fact that if we can agree on nothing else, it should be that the United States taxpayer shouldn't have to pay taxes to an organization that uses your money to

politicize, yes, in upcoming elections candidates who give them more of your tax money. This is unconscionable.

And I look so forward to hearing what our colleagues are going to have to say to the American people about this gross injustice. You bet we should defund Planned Parenthood. We should take away their tax fund and we should defund.

Absolutely.

You absolutely do. That's exactly what the article says. In fact, it goes on to say that it's the Federal tax law that has caused this tragedy.

I'm a former Federal tax litigation attorney, and this is absolutely true. This is what our tax code allows. In fact, Planned Parenthood, who plans to raise the $10 million, as the gentleman from Texas said correctly, they can take that money that we taxpayers are giving them to mobilize voters and advocate on issues such as abortion rights and sex education in schools.

Life care centers don't get that advantage, but people who advocate for the destruction of innocent human life get this money.

As the gentleman knows, there is nothing fun about an abortion. In fact, for many women, they are forced into abortion by a boyfriend who says they'll leave them, by parents who say, What an embarrassment. And women, often against their own desires, are forced into getting an abortion when they don't want to.

I just wanted to end, Madam Speaker, by saying Steve Trombly is a top executive director of Planned Parenthood in Illinois, and he said, ``I would like to think of Planned Parenthood as the Lens Crafters of family planning.'' If you've got 882 clinics, you have $1 billion a year in annual revenue and $330 million of that comes from taxpayer funding, I think that shows pretty clearly they are big business. They are the Wal-Mart of big abortion. They're the big box retailer.

It is time to end their tax exempt status. It's a fraud. And it's time to stop the public financing of Planned Parenthood. It's the right thing to do.

I yield back to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, the stalwart of prolife, Representative Chris Smith.

Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. While I applaud the House for taking under consideration a bill to address the impending cut to Medicare physician reimbursement payments, H.R. 6331 contains provisions that would rob America's seniors of crucial health care access in the form of funding cuts to Medicare Advantage.

Indeed, H.R. 6331 contains a provision that would reverse the scheduled 10.6 percent payment cut set to take effect on July 1, 2008, a provision I have supported in the past. That being said, the bill also contains deep cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, which millions of seniors depend on to serve their broad health care needs. These cuts, totaling nearly $50 billion, would place the burden of leadership's failed Medicare reform policies directly on the backs of America's seniors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an amazing company from Oakdale, Minnesota. Higher Dimension Materials has perfected a groundbreaking new material--called SuperFabric--which may literally revolutionize the world of material science and which has lifesaving applications for our service men and women.

Under the bold and pioneering leadership of Dr. Young-Hwa-Kim, HDM has developed a line of SuperFabric materials, which possess an astonishing strength, flexibility and resistance and are open to an equally astonishing array of uses. After 10 years of painstaking research, HDM has successfully overcome the challenge of developing a polymer that possesses both great density and great flexibility. SuperFabrics incorporate hard solids with flexible fabrics to create new composite fabrics that maintain their original flexibility and yet are resistant to fire, abrasions, cuts and punctures.

In fact, NASA, law enforcement agencies and the United States military have all expressed great interest in taking advantage of Higher Dimensions' breakthroughs. For instance, the military is applying Super Fabrics technology in the making of boots for the special-ops community and also potentially lifesaving vests for Coast Guard divers. NASA is even testing SuperFabrics for new space gloves.

So revolutionary are these technologies that the University of Minnesota is putting them on display in their new Museum of Design. And the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Textiles and Apparel has selected HDM to participate in their European Outdoor Show--one of the world's major international trade shows, focusing on performance textiles.

These are but a few of the honors HDM as received for its ingenious technological advances. Thanks to the devotion and brilliance of people like Dr. Kim and the scientists at HDM, America continues to lead the world in the development of new technologies.

Higher Dimension Materials is a true credit to the state of Minnesota and I am honored to recognize their achievements today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 6307, the Fostering Connections to Success Act. This vital piece of bipartisan legislation was designed to make much needed improvements to the child welfare system, focused on some of the most vulnerable among us--foster children.

There are more than 500,000 children in foster care nationwide today, many of whom come from troubled homes and have been moved from family to family several times. My husband and I have cared for 23 foster children, and I understand full well the struggles these children face on a daily basis. This bill goes a long way in alleviating some of the roadblocks standing in their way.

The main focus of this bill is to improve the accessibility foster youth have to essential services, their family, health care, and education. However, this legislation makes considerations for those not only actually in foster care, but for those who ``age out'' of the system--a group of young men and women who are often overlooked.

A key component of this bill is the extension of federal foster care payments up to the age of 21. We are considered adults at the age of 18 in this society, but reaching 18 does not automatically mean that an individual is financially independent. As these young men and women pursue a degree of higher learning, or whether they choose to start working, this bill will give them the financial help they desperately need. Too often their troubled past and unstable family background have not provided them the foundation of support to do it on their own.

Along with providing--for the first time--federal financial support for relatives who assume legal guardianship of foster children, this bill also expands coverage of federal funds for the training of child welfare workers to include private agency and non-profit workers who provide foster care and adoption services on behalf of the state. When combined, all of the components of this bill offer the overhaul our foster care system so sorely needs.

Today, I stand proud knowing that Congress is on the cusp of passing such a crucial piece of bipartisan legislation for America's youth. As a foster mother myself, I thank Congress for giving this matter the serious time and consideration it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer a motion which will ensure that parents of children in residential treatment facilities have control over any medication being prescribed to their child. While the bill as currently written would require a parent or a legal guardian to disclose to the facility any prescription drugs that their child is currently taking, the facility would not be required to receive parental consent for the child to be issued a prescription for any new medications.

As a mother and also as a foster mother, I strongly believe in the importance of the role of the parent or the legal guardian in a child's life. This is especially true, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to matters as serious as the health and well-being of a child.

Prescription drugs, such as medication to treat psychiatric conditions, can have a major impact on the mind and the body of an adult, let alone on the young mind and the young body of a child. Such a critical decision should only be made by a qualified medical doctor with the expressed consent of a parent or legal guardian. This is only common sense, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today would allow residential treatment facilities to impose their will on children without affording those children the protection and guidance of their closest family. Whether the parent, whose intimate relationship and familiarity with their child is critical in choosing a treatment path, feels that it is in their child's best interest or not, any medication could be prescribed. For example, in its present form, this bill would allow a treatment facility to prescribe contraception to a child, who when properly informed and guided by a parent may have chosen to carry the baby to term, either raising it as their own or contacting an adoption agency, not terminating its life.

The purpose of this amendment is to protect children who are in a very vulnerable situation away from their families in a residential treatment facility where they are supposed to be receiving help for a very difficult problem. The parents and the guardians who have raised and cared for these children, who know and understand their children and their medical histories best, should know about any new or changed medications to exercise their role as primary medical decision makers for their children. The right of consent should be explicitly stated in this legislation meant to protect these vulnerable youth.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I saw firsthand as a foster mother, there were too many children of color, minority children, who were overly prescribed for prescription drugs at a younger and younger age. This is a very disturbing issue and expressly underscores why parents or their guardians should have a say to actually give consent whether these children are given prescription drugs.

That being said, my motion, Mr. Speaker, does not infringe in any way on the role of the medical facility at a treatment facility. The expertise of the staff and the physicians would still be fully utilized in the diagnosis and, upon parental consent, the dispensing of prescription medication.

Moreover, my motion would not require parental notification for nonprescription drugs. A child in a residential treatment facility would not be hindered in obtaining any over-the-counter medication, such as aspirin. Only prescription drugs, which can have such far- reaching effects on a patient, would be applicable to the terms of this motion.

The prescription drugs often used in these facilities, especially the mental

health drugs, have very serious, and sometimes fatal side effects. This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. These side effects for children, for children, Mr. Speaker, include suicide, homicide, psychosis, heart problems, tics, movement disorders, diabetes, even obesity.

Mr. Speaker, a parent is one of the most powerful influences in a child's life. I think this body agrees on that. In the case of a child in a residential treatment facility, with a very small voice and no ability to protect himself or herself, it is imperative that a parent or a legal guardian be given proper authority over the course of the treatment recommended by the treatment facility.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer a motion which will ensure that parents of children in residential treatment facilities have control over any medication being prescribed to their child. While the bill, as currently written, would require a parent or legal guardian to disclose to the facility any prescription drugs their child is currently taking, the facility would not be required to receive parental consent for the child to be issued a prescription for any new medication.

This issue is very real for me. As a mother and a foster mother who has cared for children in similar situations, I strongly believe in the importance of the role of the parent or legal guardian in a child's life. This is especially true when it comes to matters as serious as the health and well-being of that child. Prescription drugs, such as medication to treat psychiatric conditions can have a major impact on the mind and body of an adult, let alone the young mind and body of a child. Our professionals deal with this on a regular basis in mental health facilities all across the nation. Especially tragic is the statistically high number of children of color who are placed on prescription psychotropic drugs, often with severe misgivings from parents or guardians. Such a critical decision should only be made by a qualified medical doctor and only after the expressed consent of a parent or legal guardian is given.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today would allow staff in residential treatment facilities to impose their will on children, without affording those children the protection and guidance of their closest family. Whether the parent, whose intimate relationship and familiarity with their child is critical in choosing a treatment path, feels it is in their child's best interest or not, any medication could be prescribed.

That is a historic leap in loss of parental rights over their children. Parents remain legally and financially liable for their children's mental and physical welfare yet this bill has government stripping parents of their right to consent to medical treatment via prescription drugs for their children. This bill says parents are good enough to pay the bill, but they can't be trusted to make decisions regarding their child's health. That is insulting, demeaning, and wrong.

The purpose of this amendment is to protect children who are in a very vulnerable situation away from their families in a residential treatment facility where they are supposed to be receiving help for very difficult problems. The parents and guardians that have raised and cared for these children, who know and understand their children and their medical histories best, should know about any new or changed medications to exercise their role as primary medical decision makers for their offspring. The right of consent should be explicitly stated in this legislation meant to protect these vulnerable youth.

That being said, this motion does not infringe on the role of the medical faculty at a treatment facility. The expertise of the staff and physicians would still be fully utilized in the diagnosis, and upon parental consent, the dispensing of prescription medication. Moreover, this motion would not require parental notification for non- prescription medication. A child in a residential treatment facility would not be hindered in obtaining any over-the-counter (OTC) medication such as aspirin. Only prescription drugs, which can have such far-reaching effects on the patient, would be applicable to the terms of this motion.

The prescription drugs often used in these facilities, especially the mental health drugs, have extremely serious, and sometimes fatal side effects. These include suicide, homicide, psychosis, heart problems, tics and movement disorders, diabetes and obesity.

Mr. Speaker, Members understand, a parent is one of the most powerful influences in a child's life. In the case of a child in a residential treatment facility, it is imperative that his or her parent or legal guardian be given proper authority over the course of treatment recommended by the treatment facility.

I believe this is an important addition to this bill and I urge my colleages to support the addition of this language.

I thank Representative Latta. I appreciate your leadership on the issue of energy, and although you are a brand new Member of Congress--you haven't been here for a long time--you've shown just extraordinary leadership on the issue that's probably facing more Americans today than any other, and that's the dramatic increase in the price of energy, and I know how passionate you've been on this issue. You've worked tirelessly in your district, and the people of your district in Ohio are fortunate to have you as their representative. Thank you so much for working so hard on this issue.

It's one, Mr. Speaker, that I believe probably every Member of this body is hearing from their constituents over and over and over again. I know that I have as well. I had conducted a meeting with several members of my community who own gas stations, independent owners of gas stations. And one thing that they told me that broke my heart, they told me that they are seeing 30 percent fewer sales at the pump, and they're also seeing 30 percent fewer sales inside their store, and they're hurting.

One gentleman told me that normally he would spend $10,000 to purchase the gasoline that would go into the ground in the holding tanks, $10,000, and that's money that's out of his pocket, sitting there in inventory until it can be sold. And he said, now, I pay $40,000 to have that inventory in the ground, and now sales are 30 percent less. And so he has more money in the ground, not producing for him, at a higher and higher price level, and he said this is eating up my entire profit margin. There are people going out of business.

And so what he told me is we've got to do something to get gasoline back down from its $4 a gallon, and that's what we're about here tonight to say there's very good news on the horizon.

It's doom and gloom when you wake up in the morning and you see and you hear on the radio and you see when you drive to the gas station what the price at the pump is. But the good news is, there is an answer, and America can go back to $2 a gallon gasoline or less. It's entirely possible.

Why? Because we have the answer right here in our country. We are standing on our own solution. We have energy that's available to us, 86 billion barrels, that's according to our own United States department, 86 billion barrels of energy right now that's available to us in the form of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf area.

We have over 10 billion barrels of oil that's fully recoverable up in the arctic energy slope. This is an area of land that Congress originally set aside specifically for the purpose of accessing that energy through drilling to bring back down to the United States. I had the privilege back in the mid-1970s of working two summers up on the Aleutian Chain in Alaska. That's when the Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, trans- Alaska oil pipeline was built. That oil pipeline is currently up. It's running, but it is only half full.

With very little effort, we could actually tap into that oil pipeline, the 10 billion barrels that we know are already in Alaska, and we could fill that pipeline. Rather than having it half empty, we could fill it and bring down another million barrels of oil a day.

And Mr. Speaker, 1 million barrels of oil a day translates into 27 million gallons of gasoline, and that would mean a 50 percent increase in American reserves than we're already tapping today. That's just those 10 billion barrels. That doesn't include the 85 billion barrels that are also available in the Outer Continental Shelf in the deep sea energy reserves that America only has.

But Mr. Speaker, I think most Americans aren't even aware that America is the only country in the world that has voluntarily made it illegal to access its own energy. That's right, Mr. Speaker, we are the only country in the world that's made it illegal to access our own energy.

Congress caused this problem. The problem is not OPEC and the problem is not speculators. The problem is the United States Congress. I believe part of the reason why we are seeing Congress's approval ratings at an astoundingly low 12 percent is because Congress has chosen to make it illegal to access the answer that we need, and that's our own energy resources.

Here's another great fact. In the gulf coast region, we have what is probably the world's largest reserve of natural gas. We have 420 trillion, 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that's available to us right now off the shore in the Gulf of Mexico. We can access this, and we can bring natural gas into our country, use it to fire up our electrical grid, and also, we could even change our cars and buses, run them on natural gas as well.

America also is home to 25 percent of the Earth's supply of coal right here in the United States, almost an unlimited supply. We have clean coal technology today that's available to us that can process coal and transmit that almost unlimited supply of energy all across the United States.

And as well, nuclear energy. I have a nuclear energy facility in my home district in the Sixth Congressional District of Minnesota, Mr. Speaker. And I'm so grateful we have that because nuclear power supplies almost 20, 25 percent of Minnesota's energy needs. It's a clean, safe, reliable form of energy, and it has zero emissions. I am so excited about this wonderful technology, but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, again, Congress has made it illegal for us to be able to tap into this wonderful source of energy.

Whether it's nuclear, whether it's coal, whether it's natural gas, whether it's the oil reserves that we have, America has the answer. In fact, this is the industry that we can tap into right now. We don't need to find a magic bullet or a magic alternative. This is energy that we have available to us today that we could tap into today so we can see the American people very soon get back to paying $2 a gallon.

One thing that happened not too long ago was this body, the United States Congress, sent out stimulus checks to Americans all across the country. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because people in the United States Congress were worried about the economy, so we went to the United States Treasury and we wrote checks that are still being sent out to Americans all across this country. Why? We wanted to encourage Americans to spend money to stimulate the economy.

Do you know what I believe the greatest stimulus would be to Americans? It would be to get gasoline back to $2 a gallon. And it's so possible. It

was just about 18 months ago that the Democrat majority took over in this body. And when they took over, gasoline, on average, at the national level was $2.33 a gallon. Mr. Speaker, that average today is about $4.07 a gallon. That's a dramatic increase in the price of gasoline, unheard of increase in the price of gasoline. It took us 25 years in the United States for gasoline to go from $1 a gallon to $2 a gallon. And just in the time that the Democrats have held the gavel they have taken this country from $2.33 to $4.08 a gallon.

I was listening to the previous discussion that occurred, and I heard some suggestions about why the price of gasoline has gone up so dramatically. And I find it interesting, because if you look at the votes from 1994 until today, this Congress has already voted on whether or not we should explore in ANWR. We voted on it. In fact, the Congress, back in 1995, sent a bill to President Bill Clinton to say that we should be drilling in ANWR. The House passed that bill, the Senate passed that bill. Unfortunately, it was President Bill Clinton that vetoed that bill; otherwise, we would have already been drilling in ANWR. We wouldn't be in the pickle that we're in today.

But this is the vote and these are the facts. I'm not trying to be partisan because we need to come together, as Democrats and Republicans, and solve this problem now because Americans are feeling real pain and the economy is reeling over energy prices. But here's the facts, Mr. Speaker. This is a fact. Any American can go and find out what the voting has been on ANWR exploration, of bringing energy down from Alaska.

Ninety-one percent of Republicans have voted to explore in ANWR and drill for oil in ANWR, 91 percent; 86 percent of Democrats have opposed drilling. And that hasn't changed today because we already know what the Democrat plan is for energy, they've made it abundantly clear. It is very simple. Their plan has been, let's have the United States Government--that created this problem--take over the oil industry and nationalize oil refineries. That's what they said last week at a press conference, let's nationalize oil refineries. Well, that's not a new idea, but it's not an American idea. And that's not an idea that the American public wants us to embrace. They don't want us to embrace socialism. But that's what we heard Democrats say last week.

Here's the other part of their plan: It is, drive less and pay more. Drive less and pay more. That's not what the American people want. But Senator Obama, the nominee of the Democrat party, just recently said it isn't the high price of gasoline that has him worried, it's how quickly that price went up. Well, I'll tell you one thing, Congressman Bob Latta, Congressman Paul Broun and also Congressman Rob Wittman, who was on the floor tonight, it's the high price of gasoline that's bothering us.

Republicans don't want to see gas at $4.08 a gallon, or $5 or $6--or whatever that price could be by the end of summer. We don't want it that price because we know for a fact we can get gasoline back down to $2 a gallon or less very simply if all we do is explore what we already know we have. We've got the resources, we've got the technology. We can do this thing, we're Americans. We're Americans, and we can do this, just like Congressman Wittman said, like we did with the Apollo 13. We can do this, and it's exciting.

We don't have to go with the Democrat agenda, which is, nationalize the oil industry, take over the oil refineries. We think the United States Government--who didn't do such a great job at Walter Reed Hospital--is going to be brilliant and bring down the price of gas by taking over oil refineries? I don't think so. I don't think that's who I want to trust, not with the American people saying that we have a 12 percent approval rating; I don't think they would trust us either.

And I don't think the American people want us to drive less and pay more. I think what the American people want is what the Republicans are offering. And that's why I'm so grateful to Congressman Latta tonight for sponsoring this important hour on energy. Because what Congressman Latta is trying to let the American people know is that we can get back down to $2 a gallon of gas or less if we open up the key to our own answer, which is, open up America's supplies and do it in a clean, safe, environmentally sensitive way, which we've already done.

How do I know that to be true? Because the United States was one of the only countries in the world last year that actually reduced its emissions. That's right, Mr. Speaker, the United States is one of the only countries in the world that reduced its emissions. All these other countries that signed onto the Kyoto Treaty, the EU, that signed onto this elaborate, bureaucratic-driven cap and trade system, their emissions all went up, ours went down. What's the difference?

We, in this country, believe in freedom. We believe in freedom and we believe in free markets to solve our problems. And they do, free markets solve the problems. It's not socializing our oil industry like the Democrats have suggested. It's not sitting home, putting a sweater on, turning our thermostat down, that's not going to solve the problem. It's not going to be paying more at the pump; that's not going to solve the problem. It is unleashing American ingenuity and finding these new sources of supply, which we already have, with technology that we already have, and bring the supplies in so we can make it happen.

I am so excited about what Congressman Latta is doing. And I just want to end now with these other statistics, and they're very simple. House Republicans voted 97 percent of the time to have coal-to-liquid technology, to give us more oil at cheaper prices. Democrats opposed it 78 percent of the time.

Oil shale exploration. The United States is the Saudi Arabia of oil. We have more oil just in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming than all of Saudi Arabia, over 1.3 trillion barrels of oil. Republicans said yes, let's explore that oil 90 percent of the time. Democrats opposed exploring that oil 86 percent of the time.

Outer Continental Shelf, where we have 86 billion barrels of oil. House Republicans voted 81 percent of the time, let's explore, let's access that energy. Democrats, almost the flip, 83 percent opposed exploration.

On refinery increase. Because, you know, we had over 300 refineries not too long ago in this country, we're now down to somewhere near 150 refineries. The Republicans voted 97 percent to increase the number of refineries, Democrats opposed it 96 percent.

I don't take any glory in reading those numbers, but if you average them all together, over 90 percent of the time, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have voted to explore American energy, explore it now so that Americans can pay less. That's our answer. We're not new to this dance. This has been the answer that Republicans have been giving since 1994. That's the answer we want to have. Democrats, since 1994, almost 90 percent have said no, let's not access American resources; in fact, let's make it illegal to access these resources. Well, that's not what the American people say.

Mr. Speaker, over 70 percent of the American people have had it up to here. They're seeing their lives change; they're seeing jobs lost, jobs sent overseas. They want us to explore here, explore now, so they can pay less.

And, Mr. Speaker, we agree with the American people. And Congressman Latta is leading the charge tonight to let the American people know that we're with them, we're in their corner. We don't think they are the problem. We think the American people are way out in front on this solution.

So I yield back, Congressman Latta. I yield back because I can't wait to hear what more you have to say on this issue. And thank you for that opportunity.

Thank you, Congressman Latta. I want to address a point that was brought up by Congressman Broun and really the absurdity of the remark regarding the oil leases that oil companies have taken up. These lands are owned by the American people and they are leased out to oil companies or natural gas companies. These oil and gas companies have to pay for these leases. They aren't just given to them free of charge. They have to pay for the right to search for the oil.

They take all the risk, and they find the natural resource and they access that natural resource. It doesn't make any sense economically for a company to lease something and waste money on leases that they aren't going to use. It's already in law that if the companies that lease this land, if they are not productive, it's already a law they have to turn the leases back. They can't just lease them forever, get them for free, not pay for that right to lease the land. They have to already turn them back if they aren't productive, because the companies know if there's oil on the land, or if there's gas on the land, they already know if it's there.

Just because they have leased land doesn't mean that there's oil on it or that there's gas on it. It just doesn't make sense someone is going to waste money if they are in a private company. That takes away from profit, and you need to have profits to be able to go forward.

Again, this is the 75th anniversary of the New Deal, and it reminds me of Solomon, who said in Ecclesiastes, ``There is nothing new under the sun.'' And there is nothing new under the sun with a lot of these suggestions we have seen. As a matter of fact, the plan we have seen so far from the Democrats has been this, and it's pretty simple, it is: Drive less, pay more. That is pretty much the plan that we have seen. Oh, yeah, also, let's increase taxes on the domestic production of American energy. That doesn't take too much for the American people to figure out.

If Congress would decide we are going to start taxing food, do you think food would cost more? Of course it would. What about if Congress decided, Let's add taxes to health care, as if that wasn't expensive enough. Would that cost more? Of course it would.

This is not the way the American people want us to go. They don't want us to jack up taxes on American production of oil. They don't want to drive less, they don't want to pay more. They don't want to have America socializing and taking over oil refineries. What the American people want, pure and simple, is freedom. They want freedom, they want the free market, and they want to see energy prices get back down to $2 a gallon or less.

I know it's possible, I know it can happen, and that is why I am so thankful for your brilliant leadership tonight, Congressman Latta, and also for Congressman Paul Brown, and also for Congressman Wittman, who was here earlier this evening speaking, because here's an answer. Here's an answer.

It's here, it's ours, it's for the taking. We can be environmentally sensitive. We can explore here in America now, and we can have Americans pay less. I yield back.