Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, in 2007 this bill passed the House with no subsequent action in the Senate. Since then, the Federal Reserve has finalized rules establishing a new category of ``high-priced mortgages'' under HOEPA that will virtually eliminate all subprime lending.

When the Fed released these new regulations, Chairman Frank described the Fed's response to tighten the HOEPA restrictions as a ``very strong consumer protection position.'' I have heard the arguments made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the Fed's regulations eliminating all subprime lending don't go far enough, that even more lending in the marketplace needs to be eliminated. Now, I say ``eliminated'' instead of ``prohibited'' because by defining a class of loans under HOEPA, you are essentially killing that class of loans, never mind the fact that they may be a reasonable option for a number of consumers.

Now, I say ``eliminate'' because these loans under HOEPA are simply not originated, financed, or securitized in a normal marketplace, much less the severely restricted marketplace we currently have in lending that is very clear to the American people. The reason why there is not lending under HOEPA is due to the significant risk of loss on the holder of these loans.

In 2006, when we had a normal functioning mortgage marketplace, of the 10 million loans made, less than 1 percent were HOEPA loans. By expanding the loans that would fall under HOEPA even further than the Fed has already done, we would be killing options for millions of people to get future lending and ensuring that in an already restricted marketplace, things will become even more restricted.

Mr. Chairman, Members need to ask themselves, if the marketplace for mortgages is going to become so heavily regulated, further regulated with so many new protections included in the rest of this bill, then why in the world do we need title III of this bill? My amendment strikes title III.

During the committee hearing earlier this month, Massachusetts Bank Supervisor Steven Antonakes expressed his concern that the dramatic expansion of HOEPA will result in much fewer loans being made. Is this really the direction the Congress wants to take right now, further restricting the mortgage marketplace?

Mr. Chairman, I ask support of my colleagues for striking title III of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

As a proponent of the legislation, do I have the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, in summation, my colleague from North Carolina has made the argument why you should strike section III. His quote is, ``Yes, we intend to limit choices, Mr. Chairman.'' I think that is the wrong attitude this Congress should take.

The fact is, for those that have less than perfect credit, this section of the legislation will hamper their ability to get mortgages and purchase homes. That is the simple fact. In fact, my colleague from North Carolina says that, yes, they intend to limit choices, they want to eliminate choices in the marketplace for lending and for further restricting lending. I think that is the wrong path, Mr. Chairman. I think that is the wrong attitude this Congress should take. I think it limits choices for our consumers.

Mr. Chairman, when this becomes law, if we do not strike this section, Members will have to go home and answer to their constituents, Why can't I get the lending I need to purchase a home? And we can point to this very vote on whether or not they are in favor of more options in the marketplace or fewer, restricting choices, restricting opportunities, eliminating certain types of mortgages in the marketplace. I think we should eliminate section III.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding time on this important debate of the day.

Today, we are talking about the budget resolution. The budget passed by this Congress--I voted ``no''--increases spending at a rapid rate. We haven't seen such a rapid growth of government since Jimmy Carter was President of the United States in the malaise days of the 1970s, but I think it's equally interesting that we're debating the budget resolution today because, just yesterday, President Obama announced that he is finding savings in the budget, and they're trying to find savings of $100 billion out of our budget.

Well, today, this budget resolution will spend over $3 trillion, and so the savings that President Obama has announced is the equivalent of an average family of four in the United States deciding not to buy a Starbucks coffee--just one day, not for the year, just one day. The equivalent savings for a family is about $1.25. Actually, I don't even think you can buy a Starbucks coffee for $1.25 anymore; but instead of doing the hard work of paring down government spending and finding priorities and funding those priorities and finding those areas of government that are inefficient and ineffective and are not getting results for people, this budget simply taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too much.

In the end, with our borrowing costs going up as government, we'll see inflation in the coming years, inflation that will erode seniors' ability to purchase health care, inflation that will erode families' capacities to educate their children and fund their education. These things are real. Unfortunately, though a budget deals with people, we're not doing the right thing for the American people because we're going to see a massive tax increase in this budget. We're going to see a carbon cap-and-trade, a national energy tax. We're going to see health care changes where the government takes more capacity and control away from individual patients and doctors and puts it in the hands of government bureaucrats. Our tax dollars will continue to go up, and our tax rates will go up. Now, this is not for the rich. It's for everyone when you have the tax bills going up that much.

What I would urge my colleagues to do is to reject this motion to go to conference. I think it's time that we do the right thing for the American people and not increase spending to the rapid tune that this budget does, not tax them more and not borrow more. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I thank my colleague from California for yielding.

Madam Chair, folks in western North Carolina are hurting. We've seen the rise in unemployment. We've seen the economic dislocation that this recession has created. We've seen the impact it has on small towns and communities, on families that are struggling to make ends meet, and we've seen the rise in unemployment that generally has occurred. These are tough economic times, and I think we have to have a responsible Federal budget to meet these tough economic times.

Families have to tighten their belts during these tough times. Likewise, I think the Federal Government should do the same. I think it's wrong to raise taxes in a time of recession. I think it's wrong to raise taxes on people who are already hurting. That's why I oppose this budget that's being presented here today.

In fact, it's not simply enough as a public policymaker to reject a proposal, but you should offer your own, your own ideas on the way to properly act. Therefore, I am voting for two alternatives that will be better than the budget offered here today--the Obama-Pelosi budget-- that I'm offering through the Republican Study Committee and through the Republican Members.

We have a budget that spends far less without raising taxes and that borrows far less than this current budget. Moreover, I'm supporting a budget alternative that balances the budget without raising taxes, in fact, making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, which will help families and small businesses. After all, we should not be taxing and spending and borrowing more. We should be cutting, saving and incentivizing great economic growth, and we should be helping small businesses expand and maintain even the workers that they currently have, and we should be helping small families as well.

So I think it's reasonable to support a balanced budget without raising taxes, and I think it's irresponsible to support a budget that raises taxes, especially to the magnitude of this liberal budget offered here on the House floor.

With that, I urge the adoption of the Republican Study Committee alternative, of the Republican alternative, and urge the rejection of the Obama-Pelosi budget and especially of this very liberal budget offered here on the floor today.

I thank my colleague from Ohio for crafting a reasonable budget that brings us to balance. And I'm proud to stand on the House Floor today and support the Republican Study Committee alternative budget, which would bring our Federal budget to balance within the budget window.

The Obama budget, the Obama-Pelosi budget offered here on this House floor today, adds massive amounts to our Federal debt and does not come to balance. Even over 75 years they're running massive deficits that further add to our national debt and pass those debts on to the next generation. I think that's irresponsible.

The Republican Study Committee budget, as I said, brings us to balance. It also funds necessary and important government functions like veterans' health care. It has no cuts to veterans' health care. But it also maintains our commitment to seniors and Social Security. It maintains our commitment to Medicare and Medicaid, but makes those programs sustainable over the next generation and generations to come and, at the same time, reduces our deficit and brings us to balance.

This is a strong budget. It funds veterans' health care, as I said, and it also funds our necessary defense of this great country and maintains a strong posture internationally as well.

This is a good budget that I'm proud to support. As a Member of Congress, and as a policy maker, I think it's important that we put forward realistic ideas. We cannot simply say no to the massive spending of the Obama-Pelosi budget. But we have to say yes to something. And this is a budget that we can say yes to because it brings us to balance. It's good for, not just the current generation, but puts us on the right footing for economic growth, for small business growth and for our families as well.

I think it's very important that we support a balanced budget, and that's why I'm here today to support this budget, and I'm proud to vote ``yes.''

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, I have no more time.

The tax increase yesterday was in place on tobacco, which the gentleman supported.

Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield since he used my name?

You don't control the time. Therefore, you can't yield it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking Republican on the Rules Committee for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this fundamentally flawed Democrat budget, which taxes too much, spends too much, borrows too much. And we simply cannot tax, spend and borrow our way back to prosperity.

This budget raises taxes at an unprecedented level, and it raises taxes to the tune of $1.4 trillion, the largest tax increase in American history. It raises taxes, which we all know, we all know that raising taxes will only deepen and prolong this recession and hurt economic growth and growth of jobs.

This budget compiles a national debt larger than the total amount of debt accumulated by the Federal Government from 1789 until just this year. It will take generations to pay off this debt, and it will require even bigger tax increases in the near future to pay off this debt. And no Democrat has yet explained what happens when China stops bankrolling our debt or, worse, calls in the loans.

This is an unfortunate plan, and it's the wrong direction for America. We must cut, save and incentivize our way to economic growth. That is the way we create jobs. That's the way we get ourselves out of this recession. That's the way that American families can grow and prosper.

We must provide tax relief to help working families and small businesses create jobs. That's the way it occurs. That's the way it should be. And that's what our Republican budget alternative will do. Economic growth, not government spending, will restore prosperity for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Fire Chief Mark McCurry of Forest City, North Carolina. Chief McCurry was recently named Fire Chief of the Year by the North Carolina Association of Fire Chiefs. It is their highest honor.

Thirty-five years ago, Mark's uncle encouraged him to go into the family business of fire service. Now, 35 years later, Chief McCurry is still serving the community of Forest City. He says putting his life on the line to protect those of his fellow citizens is ``like a calling.''

Chief McCurry understands that his men no longer just put out fires. All Forest City firemen are now certified EMTs and trained to deal with hazardous materials and weather emergencies.

Mark McCurry recently said, ``It takes a crazy person to run into a building that everyone else is running out of.'' I think we all agree, but no, Chief, it takes an extraordinarily brave man to run into a burning building. And this year, your peers have recognized you as the bravest of all. Congratulations.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow the President's nominee for Commerce Secretary will have his confirmation hearing in the Senate.

Gary Locke, the former Governor of Washington State, is the third nominee for this Cabinet position. As you recall, the second nominee, Senator Judd Gregg, withdrew his name from consideration.

Senator Gregg objected to the President's intention to move control of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department into the White House. This unprecedented move to politicize the 2010 Decennial Census has met with strong opposition from across the political spectrum. The Obama administration has since backtracked and attempted to downplay its role regarding the census. To his credit, Governor Locke has expressed his intention to not cede control of the 2010 census to the White House should he be confirmed.

I have encouraged our colleagues in the Senate Commerce Committee to ask Governor Locke several important questions at tomorrow's hearing, two of which are: What would he consider to be an inappropriate political interference from the White House regarding the census, and how would he respond to attempts from the White House to exert political influence over the conduct of the census?

I suspect that Governor Locke's responses to these questions will determine his fate in the Senate.

But there is a second and equally important point of contention and controversy over the census. The statistical adjustment of census data is prohibited by Federal law. However, there are some partisans who refuse to give up the cause of data manipulation. They want to manipulate the census results for political gain, for their own political gain, and, in the process, undermine the integrity of the country's entire statistical system.

I hope that our colleagues in the Senate will question Governor Locke about his thoughts regarding statistical adjustment. Governor Locke expressed his willingness to use adjustment as an ``accuracy check.'' This comment must be expanded upon for members of the Senate Commerce Committee and all interested parties. Republicans and Democrats alike must truly guard the integrity of the constitutionally-mandated census in the United States. The appropriate allocation of Federal funds depend upon an accurate census.

My colleagues and I on the Census Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member, are working to ensure that the 2010 Decennial Census is apolitical, fair and accurate. Governor Locke's confirmation should rest upon whether he shares this goal; a census free of White House political pressure and partisan influence and free of manipulation, and data manipulation in particular.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the Red Devils of Newton-Conover High School for winning the North Carolina state football championship. The Red Devils, led by head coach Nick Bazzle, met the Tarboro Vikings in the University of North Carolina's Kenan Stadium for the state 2A title.-

Roughly 5,000 fans from Catawba County traveled to Chapel Hill to cheer on the Red Devils to the school's first state football championship. The hard work and dedication that these young men have put into the Newton-Conover football program paid off with an impressive 51-28 victory in the title game.

The enthusiastic support shown by the students, Principal Kevin Campbell, and the community has made this football season a historic one for Newton-Conover High School. I commend them for their efforts-- and a great victory!

Mr. Speaker, my district, Gaston County and the City of Gastonia lost a great leader when they lost three-term City Councilman James L. Watson, who passed away this Wednesday.

``Slug'' Watson, as he was known, became a great baseball player in youth and was always known as ``Slug.'' He was a great friend of mine and an early supporter of mine. He was an Army veteran, president of his own small business and a community stalwart. Citizens of West Gastonia had no greater friend and advocate than James Watson.

James was also an active member of his church, where he was a deacon. Upon his election in 2003, his constituents in Ward 6, the only area of Gastonia that overlaps with my congressional district, found themselves also served by a city councilman who had a passion for service and loved helping people. Slug showed us all perseverance. He ran three times for city council and lost, but he was elected three times after that.

James left his native Gastonia to serve our country in the Army and later went on to earn a degree in Small Business from the University of South Carolina.

Upon returning, he embarked on a successful business career with several firms, culminating in the founding of Watco of Gastonia, a parts company of which he was the President and Owner for the past 24 years.

Citizens of West Gastonia had no greater friend or advocate than James Watson. He was a stalwart in the community for decades. he served on the Shiele Museum Board of Trustees, The Gastonia Recreation Advisory Board, was on the first Executive Board of Gastonia Community Watch Association, was past President of the Hunter Huss High School Booster Club, and was a Shriner. He was also an active member of Maranatha Baptist Church where he was a former Deacon.

In politics, I learned a real lesson from James, that of persistence. He ran for City Council three times before he was victorious.

I want to extend my condolences to his wife of nearly 50 years, Carolyn, and the entire Watson family, as well as the mayor and city council of Gastonia. We have all lost a true statesman and a great leader.

I thank the ranking member for yielding. And I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to be here today and to talk about this important measure on the House floor.

Our President came before us last night and called for a new foundation of lasting prosperity. And I agree, that's what we must have in these tough economic times. We have to come together and work across party lines to make that happen. Unfortunately, the spending bill on the House floor today goes in the opposite direction. There is nothing new about this foundation that they're offering, and there is nothing lasting in terms of prosperity that will be produced from this legislation.

This is the largest increase in government spending since President Jimmy Carter and the malaise days of the 1970s. It was the wrong approach then and it is the wrong approach now. I think we need to work together to find a real solution.

President Obama called last night for us to make the hard choices to bring down the debt. Well, if that's the case, there were no hard choices in this legislation before us today because it doesn't bring down the debt--in fact, it increases it at a rapid pace.

In the last 3 weeks, this Congress will have passed almost $1.5 trillion worth of spending. It's dangerous. It's dangerous because it will lead to high inflation, it's dangerous because it crowds out private capital, it's dangerous because it hurts our long-term prosperity and our hopes for the future.

The American people deserve better. And that's why I encourage my colleagues to vote against this legislation. America can do better, and the American people deserve much better than this wild-eyed spending bill we have before us today.

I thank my colleague from Texas for the opportunity to speak on this legislation today.

And I think Congress agrees, I think we are going to have a nice bipartisan vote on this legislation. I want to thank the chairman for his hard work on this legislation.

But we have a greater issue that we also need to talk about today, Mr. Speaker. And action is truly needed to rebuild our economy. We know that. The American people know that. And our elected leaders know that we have to not only have good policies for homeland security and national security, but our economic security at home. And unfortunately, the Democrat majority in their so-called stimulus bill, which is really nothing more than a spending bill, does nothing of the sort. It devotes, ``tens of billions of dollars to causes that have little to do with jolting our economy out of recession,'' as the Associated Press says.

Only 3 percent of the funds in the so-called stimulus bill, or the pork barrel bill, are dedicated to road and highway infrastructure projects. And just 2.7 percent is dedicated to small business tax relief, even though we know that 90 percent of Americans are employed by small businesses, and most of the new jobs that this country creates are created by small businesses. And the Democrats' answer to stimulating the economy is not by helping small businesses, but by creating 32 new government programs and spending $646,214 per government job that is created under that bill.

To make matters worse, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that over half the money will be spent between 2011 and 2019, after most economists say this economy will have recovered and we will be out of this recession.

Look, this was nothing more than a partisan opportunity to lard up and load up this piece of legislation and add a bunch of different liberal spending priorities. It's not about a stimulus. It's not about helping the American people through these economic times.

And with so many of my constituents struggling in Western North Carolina just to keep their head above water, this Congress passed an $819 billion spending bill that will do nothing but add to our debt and deficit and cause us massive inflation in the years to come, as well as mounting debt every day. And I'm in agreement with so many of these economists who predict that this legislation will have a disastrous effect on our long term economic security in this country and will do little to stimulate this economy.

Well, the one thing that is certain is the result of this type of legislation will be a massive tax increase by this Democrat Congress in the future. I think this is highly unfortunate.

I think we should come together, as President Obama has said, and work for a bipartisan piece of legislation that will have tax cuts for small businesses in this country, as well as proper infrastructure spending that will help our economy regain its footing, so we can get back to economic growth and creating new jobs and good jobs for my constituents in Western North Carolina, as well as all Americans in all 50 States.

And so with that, I urge this congressional leadership to work together and listen to what President Obama has said.

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to honor the life and memory of Adam Klutz, a Caldwell County Sheriff's Deputy.

On September 19, Deputy Klutz was responding to a 911 call. Arriving on the scene of a suspected domestic violence situation, Deputy Klutz was fatally shot.

We send our deepest sympathies to Adam's parents--William and Sheila--and to his entire family. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Adam Klutz was mature beyond his mere 25 years. Two weeks prior, two of Deputy Klutz' fellow officers were shot and wounded. Despite being a rookie officer, Deputy Klutz was tasked with delivering the news of the shooting to the wife of one of the wounded officers. Adam's professionalism and compassion in handling such a difficult situation was praised by the officer and his wife, earning Deputy Klutz a letter of commendation.

The letter reads, in part, ``For an officer only having a year and a half of experience, he acted like a seasoned veteran. It was a testament to his character. We should be proud to work alongside Deputy Klutz.''

Five months earlier, Adam came to the aid of a fellow officer who had been injured in a vehicle chase. Hickory Police Officer Vic Camacho said, ``Adam was my guardian angel. The Lord was preparing him to be the best angel he could be, and anybody who knew him knew Adam was the best person he could be.''

Adam Klutz's friends and colleagues remember him as a brave and honorable young man, defined by his service to the community and by his faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Speaking at his funeral, Reverend John Bell of the Philadelphia Lutheran Church said of Adam, ``He lived in a way that touched so many lives. He lived in a way that made a difference. He lived with the understanding that his vocation was a calling and that, through his faithfulness, through his service, he would bring the power of God's kingdom a little closer to people. If you want to honor Adam, honor his commitment to service; honor the strength of his faith.''

This evening, Madam Speaker, I ask that we do just that, that we honor the amazing life of a real patriot, of a real citizen, and that we honor the life and memory of Deputy Sheriff Adam Klutz of Caldwell County.

May God rest his soul.

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the most significant extension of the Federal Government into the financial markets in over a generation. With the dramatic impact that this piece of legislation will have on the housing markets, as well as the financial markets, I think we have to give it due consideration.

And in that vein, Mr. Speaker, I have got a number of questions. Will taxpayers be forced to subsidize shareholders, shareholder returns if the GSEs borrowed from either the Fed or from the Treasury lines of credit without a requirement that they first reduce their dividends?

Will the bill create the possibility of future shareholder suits against the GSEs, and will the Government be on the hook for any of the settlement costs and damages?

Will the bill create the potential of GSEs going into receivership, and how could this affect the United States Government's bond rating if we engage in this type of activity?

And finally, why are we giving home owners with negative equity, who take advantage of the FHA refinancing proposal within this legislation, they have to give up 50 percent of their appreciation in homes. But, at the same time, we don't have that same requirement for the financial institutions we are giving a massive amount of money to in Federal assistance.

But finally, there is a large section of this bill called the Housing Trust Fund; and does this Housing Trust Fund work against the goal of this bill, which is to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

The Housing Trust Fund would tax Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and take that money, put it into a slush fund for Congress to hand out for other housing ideas. And will this hurt, in the long term, the housing markets?

And for these questions, I think there are answers; and the answers are that it will harm our U.S. Government taxpayers now and in the future, and at the same time, not truly help the financial markets in a way substantive enough for us to do this.

So therefore, I am going to vote against this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting with the cost of gasoline at the pumps, the rising price at the pumps, a weak economy that we're facing nationally and pending tax increases, a housing crisis that's facing many Americans, the struggles we've had in western North Carolina with bad trade deals.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting, and it is because of rising prices at the pumps. That is the most egregious and powerful punch that this Democrat Congress has laid before the people of America.

There are some in this House that have been advocating for increasing the supply, making sure that new oil refineries are online, new American production of oil and natural gas. Then we have those, mostly liberals in this House, mostly Democrats, that say, No. We don't want any new production. No. We will side with the extreme environmentalists, not with American people who are screaming. They will support the screaming environmentalists rather than the families that are screaming, screaming when they take their kids to school, screaming when they just go out for a Saturday afternoon.

I will tell you the American people need help when it comes to the price of fuel. And this Democrat Congress has abdicated its responsibility in this role. The American people will be furious when they find out that we have American resources that can be tapped into. And so many of us, my colleagues and many in this House, have been advocating more supply. And yet the Speaker of the House will say, No, we don't want new American supply. That won't do anything to the price of gasoline at the pumps.

Well, just this morning, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, testified before the Financial Services Committee. And in answering a question about the cost of price at the pumps, the question was posed to him, ``Would increasing supply cut the price of gas at the pumps?'' His response--here. I have blown it up large so that my Democrat colleagues can read it. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, ``A 1 percent increase in supply could lower prices by as much as 10 percent.'' A 1 percent increase in supply could lower prices by as much as 10 percent. This was the testimony, as of this morning, in front of the Financial Services Committee.

This is a very important thing for this Congress to understand, that if we allow for more exploration here that has been prevented by law, it can bring down prices.

Now, I'm not a newcomer to this. I have been advocating things from my first days here in Congress. I think we need to have an American energy policy that is multi-tiered. First, we need to have new refineries. We also, along with that, have to have new domestic exploration of oil. That can be done off the deep waters of our coast. It can be done in remote areas of Alaska, such as ANWR. It could be done in the Rocky Mountain West with oil shale production. These things can be done if Congress acts. And I think it's high time Congress acts with the price of gasoline over $4 a gallon in western North Carolina.

But that's not it. We can't just stop there. Certainly it will bring down prices, as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, if we increase that production. But we have to go a step further. We have to ask the American people to conserve energy. Conservation is not a means to American energy independence, though it is a sign of personal virtue. But it can help on the margins. And it can help family budgets across western North Carolina.

But beyond that, we have to heavily invest in alternative sources of energy. There will be a day when our economy is powered by alternative sources of energy. Whether it's an electric car or hydrogen-powered automobile, a natural gas-powered automobile, or even perhaps some nuclear-powered device, these things are possible and we have to heavily invest in that. But until that day comes, it is imperative that this Congress act and act now for American energy independence through domestic energy exploration. American oil, American natural gas, that creates American jobs and keeps wealth here in America.

Mr. Speaker, it is time this Congress acts, and it's time that we take the proper steps to help the folks across America who are struggling with high gas prices.

I thank my colleague for yielding, and Congresswoman Bachmann, thank you for your leadership here. This is your first term in Congress. To take such an active role on energy policy is very helpful, not just for Minnesotans but for the rest of the country as well. Thank you, and thank you for hosting this hour as well.

I think it's important that the American people understand what's happening in terms of energy policy. This challenge was not created overnight, nor will it be fixed overnight. But we have to take steps now to make sure we have an American energy independence day in the future. And what we can do now to decrease the price at the pumps is to increase supply. I think the American people understand the laws of supply and demand, but let's

talk about some of the basics of energy.

First of all, the American people, we consume about 20 million barrels per day; yet we only produce roughly 6 million barrels a day of oil. Now, what that means is we have to import the majority of our oil. Now, that's a dangerous position to be in.

Two of the largest countries we have to import oil from are Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. We know through Hugo Chavez in Venezuela that they're not allies. We also know through terrorist attacks around the world that the Saudi Arabians are not allies either, though they may say it.

Now, this puts us at great risk, not just in terms of our national security because we have to import the fuel from overseas, but it's also a matter of economic security, which we're facing right now.

And folks from Western North Carolina where I represent, they're hurting. The American people are hurting. We're in an economy fueled by oil. It means that every product delivered to market has to be on a truck, a plane, a train, some sort of oil-powered transportation.

Now, that's a risky position we have to be in. So what we have to do now are take positive steps to increase American energy production. How do we do that? Well, we have to streamline the process for licensing so that the oil companies can go out and actually explore areas within Federal control, for instance, off the Outer Continental Shelf. That's an area in the deep waters off the coasts of North Carolina, across the eastern seaboard, off the coast of Texas and the gulf coast region. It's also off the west coast as well.

We have large supplies of oil that have been taken off-line due to congressional action. These areas have been off-line for energy exploration and production. So that means that we can't get oil out of those areas; though, we know oil is there.

We also have areas like remote areas of Alaska, for instance, that are off-line for energy exploration and production. We also have a resource called oil shale in the Rocky Mountain West. We have three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia tied up in oil shale. We have oil here in the Rocky Mountain West that we just need to be able to tap, but Congress has made a law preventing us from doing so.

Now, you can see and the American people can understand and do the math here; yet it's congressional action that's preventing us from being independent when it comes to energy, especially oil.

We also have challenges with natural gas, but going through all this, we understand that we have to increase American production of oil.

In World War I, we produced 67 percent of the world's oil, during World War I. Less than 100 years ago, we produced two-thirds of the world's oil here in the United States. You know, we also invented drilling of oil. We invented the oil derrick here in the United States. We developed the technology, even the drill bit, and everything used to produce oil was originally an American invention, which brings me to the next phase here.

We have to use American ingenuity to go that next step beyond oil, to go that next step beyond natural gas. We can do that. The American people, we have brilliant minds here, brilliant minds. We have to unleash those brilliant minds on this challenge that we have in an oil- powered economy, and we have to break this monopoly that oil has on all that we do as Americans.

And the way we do that, I have a piece of legislation called the Independence Prize. It's a $1 billion prize for a private sector innovation for an American company to produce an American idea that makes us energy independent as Americans. How wonderful is that? We could unleash the private sector on a large public policy issue and thereby take that next step away from oil and natural gas to some future form of energy.

Now, until that day comes, when we have some new American idea to power our economy, we must make sure that we have energy exploration and refining here. We also have to make sure that we use coal. We also have to make sure we use nuclear power. We have to use the resources that God gave us here in the United States.

And if we do that, we can be energy independent.

But we have to have the will of the American people behind us. In the most recent poll, 73 percent support Outer Continental Shelf drilling and energy exploration. Now, that means the American people are behind more energy exploration. The American people also want wind and solar and biomass and all sorts of alternative energy sources to power our economy. And we should do all of those things.

Now, my strategy, and I think the conservative solution--and the American solution, better yet--is to do all of the above when it comes to energy. It's a massive problem. We have to have a massive answer to this by taking every answer possible and pursuing them all.

We're a great Nation, the strongest economy in the world, though we're facing enormous challenges right now brought on by high gas prices and some other challenges. But with the power that we have of the American people, by American ingenuity we can be energy independent. We can increase supply of oil in the meantime to bring down the price of gas at the pumps.

I'm so grateful that my colleague, Congresswoman Bachmann, is hosting this hour to ensure that the American people can hear directly what we're facing here in Congress. And it is the liberal Democrat- controlled Congress that refuses to bring up legislation that I've outlined and that Congresswoman Bachmann will be talking about this evening.

Now, it's the failure of action that has resulted in high gas prices. And it's high time Congress acted so we can actually become energy independent as Americans.

Thank you, Congresswoman Bachmann.

Mr. Speaker, this evening, I rise with a heavy heart to honor the life of former Senator Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr., of North Carolina. Senator Helms served from 1972 to 2002, 30 years in the United States Senate, tying the longest-serving Senator from North Carolina in that record.

Senator Helms was known to most Americans as a rock-rib conservative, both committed to a smaller, more efficient government that taxes less and spends less, and also a social conservative who would stand up to the common society of the day that was allowing for many permissive activities.

Senator Helms was much more than that, though. He was an ardent anti- communist, and supported freedom around the world against the tyranny of communism. Senator Helms has a very distinguished record in the United States Senate spanning three decades.

He was known as the strongest conservative in the United States Senate in his time, one of the best known American conservatives of his time. But what many people don't realize is that in 1976, just 4 years into his first term in the United States Senate, Senator Helms did a very bold thing, he endorsed Governor Ronald Reagan in his primary for President against Gerald Ford. Senator Helms was the only Senator to endorse Reagan in 1976.

Although then-Governor Reagan had not won any primaries coming into the North Carolina primary, Senator Helms put his full campaign organization behind Governor Reagan. And in an upset victory, Governor Reagan beat sitting President Gerald Ford in that Republican primary, the first primary that Reagan won in 1976.

Historians note that without winning the North Carolina primary, Ronald Reagan may not have had the opportunity to be President in 1980. He may not have had the ability to continue his campaign going into the convention in 1976. So for Americans who know Reagan, they should thank Senator Helms and his bold move in endorsing Governor Reagan.

Beyond that, in his final term in office, the world came to him. He didn't change his principles, he didn't change the things that he was focused on, but he took the opportunity to reform the U.N., working with Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. The Helms-Biden agreement called on the U.N. to reduce its budget and define its mission. It also forced a much-needed review of all U.N. policies. It was a large reform, and Senator Biden said at the time, ``Just as only Nixon could go to China, only Helms could fix the U.N.''

Just after that in 2000, Helms was the first U.S. lawmaker to address the U.N. Security Council. That is an amazing tribute to his leadership. He was not simply ``Senator No,'' he was voted as the ``Nicest Lawmaker in Congress.''

What people know about him was the personal touch he had with people. My

first political memory was in 1984 as a 9-year-old going to a Helms- Reagan rally. That is my first political memory. Beyond that when I was a high school student, I stopped into Jesse Helms' office and he took a few minutes to sit and talk with me, take a picture with me at his desk, and showed me around his office. And I realized once I became a lawmaker how very short time is here on Capitol Hill, and for him to give me that moment is a special memory that I will always cherish.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Helms family, and his wife, Dot.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).