Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this Republican plan for the wealthiest Americans.

President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose.'' So let us look at the choices. This tax cut falls on the heels of a deficit reduction plan passed before Thanksgiving that cut children's health care, child care assistance, college aid, child support, and will actually increase the deficit by $20 billion. That is what they refer to as new math in America.

What kind of Congress calls this fiscal responsibility? A Republican Congress, but of course.

With all the problems facing middle-class Americans, soaring energy costs, coupled on top of skyrocketing health care costs, educational expenses, and flat incomes 5 years in a row, what is the solution offered by this Republican Congress? Cut capital gains and dividend taxes for millionaires.

It is time for a change in new priorities rather than that same old tired failed policies that got America to where it is today.

This budget cuts $9.5 billion, adversely affecting $6 million children's health care. It cuts 40,000 children from nutritional assistance. It cuts child care assistance leaving 330,000 children without child care assistance. It cuts $14.5 billion from student aid and college assistance. It cuts child support collections $4.5 billion.

This budget gives a whole new meaning to women and children first. And what do they do in return? Fifty-three percent of the benefits of this tax cut on dividends and capital gains goes to people earning $1 million or more, and 62 percent of the benefits go to those earning $500,000 or more.

What kind of Congress would throw children over the side to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? A Republican Congress, but of course.

These are the wrong priorities for America. We can do better. It is time for a change and for a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 2003, President Bush signed the Medicare drug benefit act into law. At the signing, the President hailed the law as the greatest advance in health care coverage for America's seniors since the founding of Medicare. Here we are 2 years later, less than a month before the program begins, and so far the benefit as it relates to the consumer, i.e. the senior citizens, the 42 million senior citizens across this country, is an absolute failure.

It has failed because my colleagues on the other side who wrote this bill refuse to adhere to the number one rule of any business, which is that the customer comes first. And that customer in this case is senior citizens.

This bill was never designed with senior citizens in mind. It was designed with the pharmaceutical industry and the private insurers in mind, who are making on average $130 billion to $132 billion over the next 10 years in more profits than they would have made had this bill not been in place.

Senior citizens all over this country, regardless of district, regardless of region, regardless of income, regardless of education are all saying the same thing, that the bill is too complex. Part D, as it relates to prescription drugs, is way too complex. This is a case where simplicity trumped choice. We have given them so much choice, it is so complicated that nobody can figure out how to get the ``benefit'' of the prescription drug.

In fact, the drug manufacturers will see an extra $130 billion in profits over the next 10 years. Private insurers, we actually have an HMO slush fund where private insurers are rewarded with up to $130 billion in additional profits over the next 10 years because of overpayments.

So it is not just bad for our senior citizens, but because we are paying more, it is bad for our taxpayers. We could be doing better.

There are also three other provisions in this bill that left the basic principles of the private sector out.

First, competition. We should have allowed the reimportation of pharmaceutical products from Canada and Europe. That competition of pricing that goes on in Canada, France, Germany, England, Ireland, with what happens here in the United States, we would have had prices that are 50 percent cheaper. That is good for our senior citizens and good for our taxpayers who are being asked to pay for a pharmaceutical bill that is $800 billion over 10 years, not the $400 billion as advertised.

Second, the legislation designed by the Republicans specifically prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating lower prices. Just like Sam's Club does, just like Target does, just like any business that negotiations with their services, they get the best price because of competition, this legislation left the number one principle of private sector, negotiate for the best price.

So what has happened? According to the Government Reform Committee, they found that the new Medicaid drug benefit has done nothing to hold prices down. In fact, today, Medicare prices are 61 percent higher than the average price in Canada for the same medication, and 84 percent higher than the federally-negotiated prices that we do under the Veterans Administration. There is no price system, no competition in this bill as it relates to reimportation and as it relates to negotiation of price.

Third, it puts more barriers in place to getting generics into the market to compete against name-brand drugs. If we followed those three principles: Reimportation to allow competition and choice; negotiation between the government and the prescription drug companies just like the VA does, just like Sam's Club does, just like Target does, just like any company that negotiates with its sources and suppliers to get the best price; and third, allow generics into the market quicker, the taxpayers would have saved money and we would have delivered a better product to our senior citizens, and we would have had price control.

Right now, the only beneficiary out of this are the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. The senior citizens and the taxpayers are being left behind. This bill never had the number one person in mind, the customer, the taxpayer and the senior citizen in mind, when drafting this bill.

It also failed at having a discount card. So few seniors signed up because there was no discount. In the greatest expansion of Medicare in terms of an entitlement, we were originally told this bill was going to cost $400 billion. It is going to cost $800 billion, and it is mounting and there has been nothing done to control the prices.

Once the errors were discovered, CMS directed seniors to Medicare's Web site, even though over 75 percent of the seniors have never used the Internet. There are serious and widespread problems, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare prescription drug benefit is a failure because it was never designed with a customer in mind.

Mr. Speaker, in the last week, two Vietnam veterans, one Democrat, one Republican, one in the House, one in the Senate, came to the same conclusion: the present course is not succeeding and is not working. Both have different solutions and different recommendations. Senator Hagel has his. Congressman Murtha has his. Senator McCain has his. Congressman Skelton has his. But what all of them have in common is that the present course is not succeeding. Doing more of the same and expecting a different result is failing our troops and failing our country.

These policies and the policies the President has are not succeeding. But the reason each of these men has come forward with a recommendation is because all we are offered is more of the same. It is a policy void of leading us to a strategy of success and victory and departure. This is not a discussion about relitigating the past. It is a debate about how we succeed and exit, not about how we got in, but how we get out with victory.

Now, I would think that after a series of the last 2\1/2\ years, what we can be criticized for here in this House is not for raising questions but for not having raised questions. We have given the administration an appropriated $450 billion, everything they have asked for. They have gotten everything from this Congress. Our role is to appropriate. We have appropriated. What we have not done is ask the questions, and we deserve criticism for not having had oversight, not having asked questions. That is where the fault lies in this House, because we did not ask the questions.

What do we have? We appropriated $450 billion, 2,000 troops in Iraq, 200 or more in Afghanistan, 15,000 fellow citizens wounded, and we have a single Iraqi battalion to show for it?

We have a job to ask the questions in oversight. We abdicated our response. This is a course tonight to begin to ask and to begin debate because for 2\1/2\ years this Congress was silent in its role and the American people have asked us and demanded of us to speak up to the responsibility in our sworn oath and responsibilities.

Whether it is Kevlar vests; whether it is Humvees; whether it is the Secretary of Defense, who originally said only 75,000 troops were needed; whether it was the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who said this would be 7 days and a short war, our men and women deserve a policy of success and victory and exit so they can come home to their families. And tonight we are having, finally, some debate, but we also need an overture of our responsibility and some oversight of what goes on. After $450 billion, 2,000 American lives, we have a responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Robert Kennedy's 80th birthday, the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department maybe, given what has happened, should be renamed the Department of No Justice, because political operatives in charge have betrayed his legacy and the cause of justice in this country.

As The Washington Post reports this morning, despite objections of the Justice Department's career professionals, President Bush's political appointees ``preapproved'' a controversial Georgia voter- identification program that has been compared to a modern-day poll tax.

This is just one of a series of incidents that have subverted the purposes for which the Justice Department exists.

Last June, Justice Department political appointees announced that the government would seek $10 billion instead of the $130 billion recommended by career lawyers in a case they tried for 6 years against the tobacco industry, and won.

In the voting rights section, political appointees have also overruled career lawyers in approving GOP-backed redistricting maps for Georgia and Texas in recent years.

Now, that is a way to build morale.

In fact, the Civil Rights Division has lost nearly 20 percent of its career lawyers this year alone because they are fed up with political interference. At this point, they might as well drop the word ``justice'' from the masthead of the Department.

It is time to end the political interference and let the Justice Department professionals do their jobs. Incompetence is not a virtue.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is set to vote on a budget that will cut education and health care investments in order to make room for $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

If you are asking yourself what kind of Congress passes a budget that cuts $9.5 billion from Medicaid adversely affecting 6 million children while overpaying HMOs by $10 billion, look no further. A Republican Congress.

What kind of Congress hands out $14.5 billion in tax subsidies to oil and gas companies, and yet cuts $14.5 billion in college tuition assistance? Look no further than a Republican Congress.

What kind of Congress cuts child care assistance to 330,000 children while giving special tax breaks to bow and arrow manufacturers and logging companies. Look no further than a Republican Congress.

Child care, child support, children's health care, college tuition assistance. You guys give a whole new meaning to women and children first.

When George Bush in 2000 declared he was opposed to nation building, who knew it was America he was talking about.

This budget continues your policies of cutting taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent in America, while cutting child support, children's health care, child support collection and child care assistance as well as college tuition assistance. Have you no shame? Have you no decency when it comes to America's future? Then you stand up here having added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt in 5 short years and declare yourself that you believe we have to put our fiscal house in order, and all the while you add to the Nation's deficit.

Thank you very much. No one has quite said thank you for all your hard work.

Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, it is time the Republicans stop their Big Oil dog and pony show.

Last week, the oil CEOs testified that the companies had not met with the Vice President in his office in developing the energy policy. Well, in today's Washington Post, those documents show that they in fact in 2000 did meet with the Vice President and administration officials.

Of course they were involved in the development of the energy legislation. How else do you get $16.5 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies at a time when oil is trading at $60 a barrel? None of the back-room deals come as a surprise or a shock to any of us. The old adage: just follow the money.

What is shocking is my Republican colleagues think they can hold a PR

stunt and the American people will forget the private meetings and the $16.5 billion in gifts that the Republican Congress has provided Big Oil. Republicans should know it is wrong to hand out billions of dollars to oil companies at a time when they are making record profits and then cut home heating assistance to the elderly. But they do not forget.

The paper trail is too thick for the Republicans to hide their cozy relationship with Big Oil. The record is finally cleared up. Big Oil, Vice President Cheney, the Republican Congress, what a team. It gives a whole new meaning to family.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for a change and time for new priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 302, recognizing and commending the support provided by the employers of members of the National Guard and other reserve divisions who have been mobilized during the Global War on Terror.

More than 433,000 members of the reserve components of the United States Army have been mobilized for active duty since September 11, 2001. During this difficult time for them and their families, the commitment of their employers is essential. The obligations of the National Guard and other reserve components will continue for years to come, and job security and support for those who are mobilized in defense of our nation is crucial for the country in continuing the War on Terror.

In my home town of Chicago, many employers have demonstrated their commitment to the safety of the nation and to those who fight to secure it. When National Guard employees of Chicago law firm Bell, Boyd & Lloyd learned they would be deployed, the firm responded by asking how it could help. Whether the need was for supplying care packages to the troops or redoubling their support as deployments were extended, this firm has provided tremendous assistance to its employees and their families.

Doug Ewing, the former president of Ewing-Doherty Mechanical, Inc., left a strong legacy of support for our troops. When his employees were deployed, Mr. Ewing supplied them with necessary provisions and equipment. He also frequently contacted his employees' families in order to boost their morale and ensure that they were provided with any necessary assistance. Mr. Ewing has sadly passed away, but his commitment and compassion will long be remembered by his employees and their families.

The Chicago Fire Departments and Chicago Police Department also merit recognition for the support they give to their employees who have been mobilized during the War on Terror and their families. These employers have shown themselves to be dedicated to the security of the nation, and have provided support beyond that which is required. They deserve our most sincere recognition and gratitude. I would like to offer my praise for their contributions, and encourage the Department of Defense to continue its efforts to maintain a high level of support between deployed Guardsmen and their employers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in recognizing and commending the strong support provided by employers for those who work to secure the goals and safety of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the first day seniors can enroll in the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

When the Medicare drug bill passed this House more than 2 years ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle touted it as the greatest health care achievement since Medicare's inception. Today, we have a different reality.

The Medicare drug benefit is an absolute failure. The way this thing is designed, one would think that Brownie from FEMA had something to do with it. It is a failure because of its complexity and inability to provide seniors with access to affordable drugs.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said this benefit would help 42 million Americans who are served by Medicare. But the only people who are really benefiting from this benefit are the pharmaceutical companies who gave $132 million over 10 years and have walked away with $139 billion in additional profits from this bill. Insurers who gave well over $100 million to the Republican Party are awarded with over $130 billion in additional profits, all paid for by the taxpayers.

This bill was never designed with the customer in mind. This legislation was designed with the pharmaceutical companies and the HMOs and the insurance companies in mind. They could never have designed something this complex if they were thinking of people who were 65 years and older whose 60 cents out of every dollar for their health care goes to prescription drugs. They could never have thought of that when they designed this legislation and this bill.

Aside from the horrible corporate welfare, the complexity is a real shame here. But what is ironic is on this floor where we debated this, all the Republicans talked to us about how this choice was going to be a real win for the seniors. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) said, ``We are simply saying let us offer choices to seniors.'' The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said, ``To qualify for Medicare, you qualify for this program, and you are going to have choice.'' The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) said, ``This Medicare bill offers a prescription drug benefit through competing private health insurance plans, marking the first time the private sector plans and consumer choice would be the principal vehicle for delivering Medicare benefits.''

But it is all this choice that is causing the problem. Sometimes simplicity is better than choice, like Part A and Part B in the Medicare plan. Through all this choice, the only thing they have done is confuse seniors and driven up the profits for the pharmaceutical companies and the HMOs. There is no choice here. Mass confusion is what is going on.

The benefit is so complicated and confusing that even beneficiaries who are PhDs say they cannot figure it out. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that more than six in ten seniors either barely understand the benefit or do not understand it at all.

But just as important are the choices that the Republican Congress did not make. What did they not do? They did not do anything about the price of these drugs. They could have done something with direct negotiations just like Wal-Mart, just like Target, just like private sector companies, just like VA, the Veterans Administration does: negotiate, pool the resources, purchase bulk, just like every company in the private sector does. They refused to allow Medicare to do that. So we in America now are paying top premium dollar for drug and pharmaceutical prices and products that we could negotiate and get better pricing for. Why do we do that? Because of the pharmaceutical companies. And who is left holding the bag? The taxpayers and seniors.

What else does this legislation refuse to do? It does not allow us to actually access products in Canada and Europe and allow competition to bring prices down. For a party dedicated to the principles of a free market, it is not understandable why they decided to choose a closed market, forcing America to pay the highest prices of any country in the world. Again, negotiation or allowing people access to the prices of drugs in Canada and Europe, we could have brought prices down; and, third, they could have allowed generics to get to the market faster. Three market ways: competition, open markets, negotiations. They could have brought the prices down and had a simpler plan, but there is nobody paying the piper for those ideas, and that is why the pharmaceutical companies are walking off with corporate welfare to the tune of $139 billion in additional profits, all paid for by the taxpayers, all brought to us by a Republican Congress.

The final bill that created the drug benefit left seniors with a limited benefit that failed to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, gave them serious choices that have led to complexity.

Now it is possible that seniors would understand the drug benefit a little better if this administration had distributed information to beneficiaries that was actually correct. But they botched that, too. The administration's own ``Medicare & You'' handbook included inaccurate information. Once the errors were discovered, CMS directed seniors to Medicare's Web site, even though over 75 percent of seniors have never used the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare prescription drug benefit is an absolute failure. It is a failure because it was never designed with the customer in mind.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Congress is about to slash nearly $50 billion from investments in our children's future, in health care and education. Yet because of Republican priorities, they are going to actually add $20 billion to the $3 trillion in our deficit. Only in a Republican Congress.

What kind of Congress passes a budget that cuts $9.5 billion from children's health care, affecting 6 million children, while overpaying HMOs by $5.4 billion? What kind of Congress hands out $16.5 billion to oil and gas companies, while cutting 40,000 children's nutrition programs and seniors from home heating assistance?

What kind of Congress cuts 330,000 children from child care assistance, while giving special tax breaks to bow and arrow manufacturers, NASCAR track owners, and logging companies?

What kind of Congress cuts $14.5 billion from student college assistance, the largest cut ever, while cutting taxes for millionaires?

A Republican Congress, but of course.

Those are the wrong priorities for America. Americans know.

Mr. Speaker, we should cut spending, but we should not do it by throwing our children under the bus. America can do better. It is time for a change.

Mr. Speaker, on November 11, I will proudly join thousands of Polish Americans living in Chicago in celebrating the 87th anniversary of the Independence of the Republic of Poland.

Until Poland was recognized again as a sovereign nation, it struggled against tyranny, just as the United States did against colonial rule before our own independence was achieved. From the end of the 18th century until World War I, Poles were forced to live under the despotic rule of the Russian czars and Prussian and Austrian emperors. During the war, the Polish territory suffered under the heavy hand of Russian, German, and Austrian occupation. However, during World War I, Poles were gradually able to self-govern at local levels and established institutions, laying the groundwork for eventual independence.

Meanwhile, President Woodrow Wilson made the restoration of Polish independence one of his 14 conditions for peace. President Wilson was a friend of Ignacy Jan Paderewski, a famous Polish artist, composer, statesman and great patriot. As World War I drew to a close, Polish culture began to flourish again and self-governance was finally achieved when the first Polish government was established.

After 123 years of partitions and uprisings, Poland's dream of independence was realized when it became a sovereign state again on November 11, 1918, the same day as the Armistice ending World War I. With its long and rich history and traditions, Poland regained its rightful place among free and independent nations. Eighty-seven years later, we continue to celebrate Poland's independence.

I am proud to represent more than 111,000 people of Polish descent who live in the Fifth Congressional District on Chicago's northwest side. We must continue to build upon a strong record of cultural and economic ties between our two nations. We are grateful to Poland for its friendship and commitment to democratic ideals of liberty, human rights, and most recently, its commitment of resources and troops who stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. Armed Forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Poland continues to be our staunch ally and steadfast friend in Europe in our fight against terrorism.

On this day, I am proud to join the people of my district, as well as those of Polish descent around the globe, in celebrating the 87th Anniversary of Poland's independence.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow the House is planning to vote on America's future. The budget vote will decide who wins, who loses. The Republican budget does not reflect America's priorities. Where else would you protect corporate welfare like $16.5 billion in handouts, taxpayer handouts to oil and gas companies, and all the while throwing America's children over the side. A Republican Congress, of course.

Where else would you cut $9.5 billion from children's health care affecting 6 million children, while helping protect big oil and gas companies. Where else would you cut 330,000 children from child care assistance while protecting big HMOs. Where else would you cut 40,000 children from nutrition programs while protecting America's polluters. Where else would you cut $14.3 billion in student college aid, the single largest cut in the history of the student aid program. A Republican Congress, but of course.

These are not the right priorities for America. They are not America's priorities for its future. Madam Speaker, we should cut spending, but we should not jeopardize our future by cutting programs for our children. It is time we made a change. It is time that we choose our priorities. We can do better, not protecting Big Oil at the expense of taking America's children and throwing them over the side.

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Day marks the 87th anniversary of the armistice ending World War I. On this date we honor the soldiers, sailors, marines, and aviators who have protected the United States in times of war.

Today, we are again a Nation at war; 2,058 American military personnel have now given their lives fighting in Iraq; 247 Americans have fallen in Afghanistan.

This Veterans Day we must honor those who have served, those who have been wounded, and those who have fallen.

For this reason, I have introduced a resolution, with 73 cosponsors, honoring each of the fallen from Iraq and Afghanistan by name.

I have also led a bipartisan group of 21 Members of Congress in reading the names of the fallen into the Congressional Record. Tonight, we continue this tribute with the names of the most recently fallen, completing all 2,300.

God bless each of the brave Americans, men and women, whose memory we honor tonight; and their families are in our prayers.

Sergeant Eric A. Fifer, Private 1st Class Nicholas J. Greer, Lance Corporal Sergio H. Escobar, Staff Sergeant Gary R. Harper Jr., Staff Sergeant Jerry L. Bonifacio Jr., Specialist Jeremy M. Hodge, Lieutenant Colonel Leon G. James II, Sergeant Leon M. Johnson, Sergeant 1st Class Brandon K. Sneed, Staff Sergeant Matthew A. Kimmell, Sergeant Donald D. Furman, Specialist James T. Grijalva, Master Sergeant Kenneth E. Hunt, Jr., Sergeant Lorenzo Ponce Ruiz, Petty Officer 1st Class Howard E. Babcock IV, Specialist Robert W. Tucker, Specialist Samuel M. Boswell, Specialist Bernard L. Ceo, Sergeant Brian R. Conner, Sergeant Mark P. Adams, Specialist Thomas H. Byrd, Specialist Jeffrey W. Corban, Specialist Richard Allen Hardy, Staff Sergeant Vincent E. Summers, Specialist Timothy D. Watkins, Lance Corporal Daniel Scott R. Bubb, Lance Corporal Chad R. Hildebrandt, Chief Warrant Officer Paul J. Pillen, Lance Corporal Christopher M. Poston, Specialist Lucas A. Frantz, Lance Corporal Norman W. Anderson III, Specialist Daniel D. Bartels, Staff Sergeant Tommy Ike Folks, Jr., Specialist Kendall K. Frederick, Sergeant Arthur A. Mora, Jr., Specialist Russell H. Nahvi, Specialist Jose E. Rosario, Sergeant Jacob D. Dones, Staff Sergeant Dennis P. Merck, Staff Sergeant Richard T. Pummill, Lance Corporal Andrew D. Russoli, Lance Corporal Steven W. Szwydek, Lance Corporal Kenneth J. Butler, Corporal Benny Gray Cockerham III, Corporal Seamus M. Davey, Captain Tyler B. Swisher, Petty Officer 3rd Class Christopher

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the important work being conducted by the Pamela B. Katten Memorial Leukemia Research Foundation. The foundation was formed shortly after the tragic loss of Pamela Katten in 2002 as a result of Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. Its mission is to promote research into the diagnosis and treatment of leukemia.

Pam was born in 1961 and grew up on the North Side of Chicago and the northern suburbs. She attended Northwestern University before heading to the East Coast to begin a successful career in the New Jersey Attorney General's office.

In addition to all her success in the courtroom, Pam was a loving mother to her son Max, and a caring sister, daughter and friend to many who knew her. They will tell you about her infectious laughter, off- beat sense of humor and love for story-telling. Most of all, they remember Pam for her zest for life and unyielding desire to live each day fully.

On November 19, the third annual ``Pam Jam'' will take place in Northbrook, Illinois to honor her memory and announce the establishment of a ``Pamela B. Katten Fellow'' at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to study stem cell proliferation.

Unfortunately, Pam and her family are not the only Americans that have had to wrestle with this devastating disease. There are over 640,000 people in this country alone who are fighting various blood cancers, including leukemia. Through the work of the foundation that Pam inspired and others like it, these families find hope.

Mr. Speaker, Pam's friends and family will never forget her glowing personality and daily joy for life. Her memory and her legacy are truly inspiring. I am proud of the work the Pamela B. Katten Memorial Leukemia Research Foundation has done, and I wish them the best in all of their endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow some of the biggest names in the oil industry are coming to Capitol Hill to testify on why their companies are making record profits at the same time American families are struggling to heat their homes.

We are hearing some really big talk from Republicans. Why, if you were Rip Van Winkle, you might actually believe the Republicans were trying to do something about gas prices. Yet the tune they are singing now is really different from the tune they were singing back in the summer when they passed the energy bill. Back then, they were singing from the energy industry's hymn book.

The fact is, thanks to a Republican-backed energy bill loaded with taxpayer subsidies to big oil to the tune of $14 billion, American families are struggling with sky-high energy bills and oil companies are struggling for ways to count their cash.

Just an example: ExxonMobil recently reported that their profits increased by 75 percent in the third quarter, and so what do we do? We give them $14 billion as taxpayer subsidies to help them run their business plan.

Americans are seeing a Congress that has done nothing to help them and do everything to help the oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to hand out money to energy companies who are making record massive profits and then cut funding for home heating assistance to our elderly. We need a change. We need new priorities. America can do better.

Madam Speaker, this Wednesday, some of the biggest names in the oil industry are coming to Capitol Hill to testify why their companies are making record profits at the same time Americans are struggling to heat their homes and fill their cars with gasoline.

We are hearing some big talk out of the Republicans now. Senator Domenici said the oil executives ``are going to get pounded on the price.'' Last week, my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my friend, said that oil companies should ``give back to the American people and put some of that profit toward lowering the cost of gas.'' Even the Speaker of the House said, ``The oil companies need to do their part.''

Man, you would think we were all Rip Van Winkle around here, as if we just woke up after 100 years. You might actually believe the Republicans were trying to do something about gas prices. I only wish this was the attitude and intention when we had the energy bill up on the Floor just only 6 weeks ago. Their tune was different then and winners were different then. Back then, they were all singing the energy industry's hymn. The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, ``This is a darned good bill, and this is going to help this country. The sooner we get it implemented, the better.'' Senator Domenici said that the energy bill was ``the most important piece of energy legislation by Congress in 50 years.''

Republicans may be talking a good game now, but the fact is that, until recently, the Republican Congress has done everything in its power to help oil and gas companies. The energy bill they passed this July actually contained $14.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies to drill for oil. We are subsidizing oil and gas companies when the price of a barrel is 65 bucks a barrel. In fact, the bill they passed, according to the Department of Energy, the bill actually increases the cost of gasoline. It increases the cost of gasoline so consumers pay more at the pump, and because of the tax subsidy, on April 15, we also pay more, all for big oil companies who are making record profits.

I think what the big oil companies miss and what we need is a little free market in this process. There is too much corporate welfare going on. Most recently, this Congress passed a refinery bill with an additional $2 billion in handouts to oil and gas companies. The worst part of it is that the refiners did not even ask for the bill; the Republican Congress just gave it to them.

So why the sudden change towards the oil industry from cheerleader to detractor? Gas is around 3 bucks a gallon. Utilities are now predicting that families could pay as much as 70 percent more to heat their homes this winter, and 1 year from today is Election Day. So all of a sudden, everybody is realizing that they have to act really tough on the big oil companies.

Natural gas prices are so high that the Energy Department predicts the average bill for the average family will be $350 more this season. American families are struggling with sky-high energy bills, and oil and gas companies are struggling with ways to count their cash.

ExxonMobil recently reported that their profits increased by 75 percent in the third quarter. Shell's earnings increased 68 percent. Phillips' third quarter, 89 percent; BP Amoco, a 34 percent rise in quarterly earnings. And what did we do in Congress the same season? We gave them $14 billion a year to help them drill for oil, which is their business plan.

Now, I do not know about you, but my view is, if you are making record profits, somewhere north of 80 percent, the last thing we want to ask the consumers is to subsidize your business plan. You are in the business of looking for oil and getting it to consumers, and the taxpayers should not be in the business of subsidizing it. You should get a wake-up call on what the free market is like.

ExxonMobil is the largest donor to the Republican Party, and that is why we produced a piece of legislation that gave them one of the biggest handouts to corporate beneficiaries. But I cannot fault the oil companies; it is just a good investment for them. Since 1980, big oil and big gas have given the Republican Party well over $200 million in support, and they have gotten $14.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Where else can you get an investment like that with a return like that? You cannot get that on Wall Street.

Now, with their approval ratings at an all-time low, all of a sudden, Republicans are trying to figure out how to

punish big oil. Big, big talk. Do you think anything is going to come out of it? The first thing they can do is give back the $14 billion. The second thing they can do is give back the $2 billion, all of which were assessed on the taxpayers to subsidize these companies.

So, Madam Speaker, it is wrong to hand out money to energy companies who are making massive profits, and then cut home heating assistance for our most vulnerable citizens, our senior citizens. And it is wrong to claim to be doing something when you are not, nor do you have any intention. And when you had a chance to do it, rather than help the consumers, what did you do? You actually produced a bill that actually increased the price of gas at the pump and gave $14 billion that you did not have to big oil companies to support them to execute their business plan.

Those are not the values of this country, and thank God they are not the values of the American people. We need a change of priorities. We need a new set of priorities. And we can do better, Mr. Speaker. The American people can do better. It is time we returned the People's House back to the people rather than to the auction house it has been to the big oil and gas companies.