Floor Statements

Pursuant to clause 2(a)1 of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of privilege of the House.

The form of the resolution is at the desk and is as follows:

H. Res. --

Whereas the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, a Representative from

California, served from 1997 to 2002 as Ranking Democratic

Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence;

Whereas Representative Pelosi currently serves as Speaker

of the House, a position of considerable power and influence

within the Congress;

Whereas title 3 of the United States Code designates the

Speaker of the House as third in line of succession to the

Presidency;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi has publicly challenged the

truthfulness of what she and other congressional leaders were

told by Central Intelligence Agency officials about the

agency's use of enhanced interrogation techniques on

suspected terrorists;

Whereas in an MSNBC interview on February 25, 2009, Speaker

Pelosi stated, ``I can say flat-out, they never told us that

these enhanced interrogation techniques were being used'';

Whereas, Speaker Pelosi's public statements allege a

sustained pattern of deception by government intelligence

officers charged by law with informing Congress about the

agency's activities;

Whereas when asked at a press conference on May 15, 2009

widely reported by the news media, ``Madame Speaker, just to

be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you in

September?'' Speaker Pelosi stated, ``Yes'';

Whereas during the same press conference the Speaker

subsequently stated, ``So yes, I'm saying they are

misleading, the CIA was misleading the Congress'' and

further, ``they mislead us all the time'' and ``they

misrepresented every step of the way'';

Whereas in a memorandum to CIA employees released publicly

on May 15, 2009, Leon Panetta, the CIA Director, stated, ``It

is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is

against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated

previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our

contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA

officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu

Zubaydah, describing the enhanced interrogation techniques

that had been employed'';

Whereas national and international media reports on this

controversy have damaged the reputation of the House by

raising questions about whether the effectiveness of

congressional oversight may have been undermined through

false or misleading statements by intelligence officials;

Whereas in order to safeguard the reputation of the House

it is imperative to reconcile as soon as possible the

aforementioned contradictory statements by Speaker Pelosi and

CIA Director Panetta: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) a Select Subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee

on Intelligence shall be established to review and verify the

accuracy of the Speaker's aforementioned public statements;

(2) the Select Subcommittee shall be comprised of four

members of the full committee, two appointed by the chairman

of the committee and two by its ranking minority member;

(3) The subcommittee shall have the same powers to obtain

testimony and documents pursuant to subpoena authorized under

clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House; and,

(4) the Select Subcommittee report its findings and

recommendations to the House not later than sixty calendar

days after adoption of this resolution:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

I appreciate that opportunity, sir.

It is simply an issue that if, indeed, there has been a pattern of misconceptions, misinformation that has been given to the House of Representatives by an agency of government, that is an untenable and improper situation to have; and it is imperative that we try to find the truth of that matter, to make sure that if it has happened, it never happens again.

It seems obvious that a bipartisan committee, two Republicans and two Democrats, who are there to ascertain the veracity of those particular claims, that we have been systematically denied the truth or systematically been told inaccuracies, should be identified. That's the point of this particular resolution. It has nothing else to do except to establish a process whereby the veracity of this particular issue can be identified, and the House can know if, indeed, agencies have specifically had a pattern of misleading this House in information that is required.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here to speak on this particular amendment.

There are, indeed, some in government who are very uncomfortable with the concept of an armed citizenry. That is nothing that is new.

Mr. Speaker, 234 years ago, on a spring day that's very similar to this one, a British commander in Boston sent out a detachment to Lexington and Concord for what he thought was a perfectly reasonable gun control measure. I mean, why would any rational person want to possess a gun on park-like greens and commons in those pleasant New England towns?

Unfortunately for General Howe, the patriots disagreed. And those same patriots were the ones who wrote our Constitution and gave the protection in the Second Amendment to gun rights.

The issue today is whether Congress will insist that the National Park Service live under the same rules that the national forests and the Bureau of Land Management areas have been under all the time.

There's nothing unique or new about this. It is simply a matter of conformity. The real winners in this amendment are law-abiding Americans who will no longer be treated as criminals, even though they're good people.

I give, for example, Damon Gettier, who was convicted of the heinous crime of driving through the Blue Ridge Parkway, which bisects his community towards his home one afternoon when he had a legally owned firearm in his car, which was legal in the State of Virginia, but not in the Park Service land a couple of blocks away.

Even the Federal judge admitted he, himself, had no idea it was unlawful to carry a firearm in a car in National Park Service land, though it was lawful in the State of Virginia. This man, nonetheless, was still penalized.

It is wrong. This rights that wrong. This brings continuity and it brings the National Park Service in line with every other public lands proposal that we have in this Nation. And I urge its adoption.

I'd appreciate that because we have been talking about so many upbeat messages right here on what we can do, that I want to be the downer of the group and present the fear that we have simply because the administration budget for missile defense has been submitted.

And I'm grateful my friend from Arizona is still here, because in our land-based--maybe you can add and flush this out--our land-based interceptors, we have 30, and as short as nine months ago, every expert was telling us we need to have at least 44, and a backup site from the Alaska site down in California to be expanded at the same time. And yet mysteriously in this particular budget, somehow we have now changed the expert opinion that we only need 30 of these instead of 44. Even though in Alaska, where the site is, they are ready to start in the short construction period to building the extra silos that they may need. In fact, one person said it might be cheaper just to build them and use them as storage bays until we're ready for something else.

But maybe the gentleman from Arizona can talk about how significant this issue in the budget is and what this does to our potential defense, not just from Iran but from especially North Korea at the same time.

If I can go back, though, I want to make this a little bit worse than it is, because not only is this program capped at 30 when we need at least 44, the KEI, kinetic energy interceptor, a program where the contracts were let only in 2003, they have gone through seven static tests. In fact, they are on the launch site and ready to do the first flight tests, and the Secretary of Defense has decided to cancel that program, even though the admiral in charge of the Chiefs of Staff says we need more research and development.

This is a remarkable idea to try and catch these missiles coming at us at a different stage in the game, where with the technology that is being developed, it's working, it has been successful in the static tests. We should at least go forward and see how far this program can go. But this program has also been chopped, and at the same time, the old traditional defense of the Minuteman 3 has been stopped and capped. We will no longer refurbish or rebuild these particular rockets.

And indeed, what is scary to me is the Russians have already said they are going to rebuild and redo their ICBM projects so that by 2018, 80 percent of their ICBMs are going to be brand new with new capability, and we do not have the capability in our defense budget to actually meet any of that future need which may be there.

I appreciate that, and I'm sorry to be the downer in this party night. This is one of the ironies. Not only did the Iranians launch something today, but when the administration announced their budget cuts for the missile defense program, on the very day, 7,000 miles away, North Korea's Kim Jong Il was shooting another missile. Now, admittedly this one landed in the Sea of Japan, but it threatens Japan and it was on a trajectory toward the United States. They are not backing down, and they're not backing off, and I want to put in perspective what we're talking about because all of the discussion we've heard so far is these are very expensive programs, we may not be able to afford them.

The entire savings for these programs in 2010 is $1.7 billion, roughly. Now, that sounds like a whole lot of money, until you remember on our stimulus bill we spent $800 billion, supposedly to create jobs we're now cutting here. And what's even worse in that bill is $5 billion for government organizations like ACORN. Now, I'm sorry, that's not my priority list.

That's what I said.

I appreciate that commitment, and you have my commitment at the same time. This is a work that needs to go forward. We have money to do this.

One of the things we also--when Secretary Gates talked to us, he talked about a zero sum game, meaning that if we wanted to improve this missile defense budget we would have to take money from some other part of our military needs to put over here. And I'm sorry, I reject that.

One of the things we need to do is make sure that the military is properly funded. It's really the only constitutional role we really have to do, and make sure that it's not coming from some other--we're not going to cannibalize another area of the military just to make sure that this done. That is simply flat out wrong, and I'm not going to do it.

I'd like to add one other negative since I'm on the role of whining here about things going on. This administration did something that was totally unique in its budget process called a ``gag order'' which simply meant that when the Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program was canceled, it was canceled during the time of the gag order. There is not a single person on Capitol Hill, in any branch of Congress, that knew what was taking place because no one in the Pentagon was allowed to talk about what the decision was. A stop work order had been administered by this administration before anyone knew what was taking place.

And, in fact, when the Secretary of Defense announced his overall view, not one word on this missile program was mentioned in that, even though, 2 days earlier, the decision had been made to cut it.

No, in my definition it's not transparency. Now, I know that some people have said the Pentagon leaks like a sieve. To be honest, that's what President Nixon said about the White House when he came in there, and I hope there's no plumbers left around to try and fix the Pentagon situation.

But it's one of those things that, in a republic, in a republic, we are not devowed by those types of secrets that should take place there. And the representatives of people who make these decisions should be made aware, you can do it in some kind of a system or order in which sensitive information is let out.

But this is not sensitive information. This is what the future direction of this country should be. And I'm sorry, before you put the stop work order, you at least should be able to tell Congress what you're about to do.

I hope we never, never engage in this kind of gag order in any branch of this administration again because, as the gentleman from Missouri accurately said, it is not transparency. It was not what was promised. And it is simply a wrong problem which allows a whole lot of issues to be pushed to the side, which could have been easily fixed, adjudicated, simplified had we simply had some kind of communication as the process was being developed.

Congress is now behind the 8 ball on this. If we want to fix this problem, and I desperately think we should, our options are severely limited because of the way the administration handled this year's budget preparation.

I yield back.

I appreciate that kind introduction. I don't know about the highly respected part, but I will take it for now.

I appreciate what the two gentlemen have been talking about in this particular cap-and-tax plan that is out there. I think it's important to realize that this is not the only issue, the only plan on the table.

The Republican Study Committee in conjunction with the Western Caucus have both come together and have introduced H.R. 2300 last week, which is the American Energy Innovation Act. The goal is to present another idea, another alternative to what is on the table right now coming from this particular administration.

You see, what we really have are two distinct visions of the future. One vision, which is the cap-and-tax policy, is the one that deals with creating everything done by increasing taxes on all. Our vision is not to increase taxes.

The administration wants us to have everyone pay disproportionately, as you have shown on that other map. Different areas of this country will pay higher.

What we realized is that energy and equal access to energy has been the great equalizer in allowing people to escape from poverty in this country. We need to incentivize and create more energy and solve our problems, not less.

The other side does not have a path to an alternative energy source. We do have a path to energy independence and a recognition of other alternative sources.

I appreciate the insight and that perfect analogy of what we are talking about here.

The problem the government has when it becomes involved in mandates is we pick winners and losers in the system. What we're trying to do with this act is give another alternative, another vision that empowers people to solve these particular problems.

I would like to, if I could only, just spend 1 minute on only one aspect, one part. I mean, this is a 200-plus-page bill with lots of ideas. Just one that deals with technology innovation because we all know technology is going to be one of the keys of creating this innovation in the future, and both the public and the private sector have a role to play. But the government, when it gets involved with mandates and massive programs, picks winners and losers. There's a role, but that's not going to be the key role. The real way of solving our problem is to tap the greatest potential this country has, which is the American people, and to do it in an innovative way.

Since 1790, this country has granted 6 million patents. We've got everything from 1784 with bifocals, 1805 with refrigerators. And 1867 is still the best year because we did the typewriter, the motorcycle, and barbed wire and toilet paper all in the same year, all of them important.

In 1896 was the zipper; Scotch tape goes back to 1930; 1945 was microwave ovens; 1960 was the laser; 1982 was the artificial heart. These were not done by government mandates. These were done by Americans responding to the challenges of the day. This country that is smart enough to come up with bifocals and blue jeans and crayons in 1903, along with airlines and lasers and computers, can come up with a source of better and alternative energy for our future.

I need to piggyback on what you just said. Last week Dr. Calzada from King Juan Carlos University in Spain was here telling us the specific problems that Spain is having with their approach of government mandates. So for every new green job created, many of them are administrative.

You've got it right there. They lost 2.2. They're having a difficult time with their economy simply because they decided to do the top-down approach to it.

Now, what America has always been able to do is have Americans come up with these creative ideas if there is an incentive to do it, which is one of the things in the American Energy Innovation Act that I want to emphasize right now, which is the incentive with prizes. That is something that we have always used in the history of this world.

When Britain was trying to control the seas, they didn't know how to map them; so they offered a prize of 20,000 pounds to somebody who could solve the problem. A clock-maker in London got it by coming up with latitude and longitude elements we use today. Napoleon wanted a way to feed his troops, a

12,000 franc prize, and they came up with vacuum packing technology we still use today. When Lindbergh flew across the ocean, it was to claim a prize. The British Spitfire, which won the Battle of Britain, was the result of a technological development price. NASA has used prizes. We use this all the time.

This is the time for us not simply to say come to us and the government will solve all your problems and we will fund all the research and we will decide what's good and we will decide who wins and who loses. Simply put the money out there, and the first person that can actually produce what we want, privately produce it, privately make sure that it's sustainable, give them a decent prize. That has driven America. That has driven the world in the past. It can happen today.

We have got several other guests down here; and before I turn it over to them, let me just give a conclusion to this concept because the cap-and-tax plan is a government mandate that's telling people what they will do, how they will live. What we're talking about is empowering people.

Now, I hate to say this because it's somewhat harmful, but one of the problems I have with our session of Congress is there basically are two approaches we have to everything: we have an administration that truly believes government is the solution to our problems and wants to harken back to the progressive era, the New Deal era, the Great Society era, and build upon that. The other side of Congress thinks that empowering people is the solution. So I don't want to sound cynical, but to be very honest, it doesn't really matter what the issue is; we're always talking about the same thing.

So the Democrat solution to energy is to dictate and regulate, to have bigger government and have higher taxes. And I apologize, but for the Republican side, pick your topic. Today it's energy. Our solution is choices and options, empowering people, and reducing taxes.

Now, what I have been talking about with the prize concept is to simply empower people to come up with solutions that dictate their own lives and their own futures, as opposed to simply having bigger government telling people what they will do, when they will do it, and charging them $600 billion for the opportunity of being told what to do.

I hate to add another wrinkle to this, because there is another problem. We have 6.5 billion people on the Earth today. Two billion people do not have electricity today. They have never flipped a light switch, and they want the same standard of living that we have. We are going to need more energy in the future, if only to be fair to the rest of the world, than what we are talking about today.

In 1977, we tried a national energy plan. It was passed, it was implemented, and the result of that was the government told you how high to put your thermostat, how fast to drive your car, and which day you could actually fill up. Except I think we talked about the one family Newt Gingrich found out about that had two different license plates, one ending in odd and one in even so they could get gas whenever they wanted to.

I should have given him a prize for that.

But we cannot go back to this place, this effort in which the government tells you how to live your life. We need to empower Americans to solve our problems, and we have the capacity to do that.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) was talking about all sorts of different types of programs.

I just came back from a meeting in California where they have closed a lumber mill down there. We talk about lumber mills, but one of the processes you have of trying to thin the forest, to save the forest from burning, is to take all what they call the slash, the extra stuff off the land or the byproduct from the lumber mill, and turning that into a biomass energy source.

They are already funding 30 percent of their energy source from that particular area. Unfortunately, the mills closed down because we have this idea that we can't use our forests for anything other than to look at and watch them burn in California.

This is the part we are talking about. This is the brilliance America has to solving these problems. This is the kind of alternative. And one of the things that's sad is there is no source of energy that doesn't have somebody opposed to it. People are opposed to wind power because of the massive footprint it will take to build those generators. People are opposed to solar power because of the massive amount of land it will take to build those. People are opposed to nuclear because they are afraid of the term. People are opposed to biomass because they don't think it is right to clean out the forests, so they would rather see it burn.

All of these things have to be there. It has to be part of the proposal. We have to unlock the potential of Americans. That's our future. That's what we are talking about. That's not cap-and-tax.

Well, I am doing this from the top of my head, so you can help in here when I forget about what Dr. Calzada actually told us. But in Spain they basically have the government saying this is way we will move forward in the future. This is the energy we will use, even though the wind power and the solar power is not enough to meet the needs of Spain.

So they are having what we call brownouts and what they call blackouts. They are having business move away from Spain because they don't have a reliable source of energy, which is why they are actually losing two jobs for every one they gain in coming up with the government-picked winners and losers.

And, unfortunately in Spain, it's the entire country that becomes the loser. Not only do they not have enough energy to meet the needs of the people, they don't have enough jobs to meet the needs of the people, and they have found a negative loss in their energy output and a negative loss in their economic output.

And it's not them alone. There are other countries in the EU that decided to sign on to the Kyoto agreement, but they were wise enough to pick a very

bad base year. So it didn't matter what they did, they were going to come under the standards of the Kyoto agreement.

Now they are facing the problem that they are going to the EU asking for exemptions for certain of their industries because they can't even meet those same base standards, which always happens when the government says, We know what's best for you; we are going to tell you what to do.

If I could add just another element to this as well, because what we're talking about when we talk about cap-and-tax on certain elements and certain industries is, once again, the government picking winners and losers. And we're trying to sell it--or somebody is trying to sell it to the American people on the idea that this is going to move us into a new generation of ``green'' energy.

What we need to realize is back in the seventies--and I'm going to quote a few lines, if I could, from Keith Rattie's address he gave to Utah Valley University. He happens to be the chairman of Questar Corporation.

He said, ``Back in the seventies, we were told that wind and solar power are alternatives to fossil fuels. In reality, the honest description is they're supplements to fossil fuels. Taken together, wind and solar power accounts for one-sixth of 1 percent of Americans' energy use,'' which means when he asked Power Point to do a pie chart for him, they couldn't come up with a wedge that small. It was a thin line.

After 30 years, we have pumped $20 billion into subsidies for wind and solar power--and we have a thin line. The Obama administration is hoping to double that, which is a great goal. I think that's perfectly advisable. We should try and double wind and solar energy.

You should know that the last 3 years of the Bush administration, we doubled the amount of wind and solar energy we produce. But what comes in that----

No.

Which is why we're coming back here, because all we're doing if we double is making a thicker thin line--going from one- sixth to one-third of 1 percent, which is why this cap-and-tax approach is so insidious because, once again, there are winners and losers in industry; also, winners and losers in the American people.

Mr. Latta's constituents in Ohio are going to be hit very, very hard. If you lived on the West Coast, which is more hydropower than coal- fired power, you don't have that much, do you? It also makes a difference in the economic level of individuals.

If you're rich, this cap-and-tax policy is going to be an annoyance. If you're poor, as I have said on this floor before, if you're poor, this approach makes the difference on whether you can have a luxury like tuna casserole at night. It's going to hit the poor people harder.

In different areas of the country it's going to hit them harder. And that's why it is such an unfair and such a dangerous proposal, especially when you have been talking about other countries which have gone down that path--and it has not worked.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to be able to sponsor this resolution commending Charter Schools for their contributions to education, and designating this week as National Charter School Week. Successful businesses don't build a product and then find a target group to which to market their product. Successful businesses pick a target group, find a need, then build a product that satisfies that need.

When we talk about reforming education, we must remember that parents are the target market. Kids belong to the parent, not to an educator or a legislator. We unfortunately forget this too often. There is sometimes an institutional attitude of antagonism toward parents. In a 1910 essay entitled How We Think, even John Dewey wrote that one inhibitor to problem solving was parental values. One could ask whose values would have been more appropriate. A school's direction ought to be agreeable to parents. The final word ought to be with parents. If the parents are satisfied, who else cares and what else matters? Schools are for the kids and the parents and no one else.

Charter schools take us a large step in that direction--the direction of treating parents as the customers. In Utah, there are currently 67 charter schools serving 27,000 kids, and there are several more slated to open this year. Several have a specific emphasis on math and science, and several others focus on the arts. The curriculum is often selected by parents. There are no geographical boundaries to any of them. Some charters belong to a school district, and others are their own district.

There is often a higher demand than there is supply of seats in a charter, so in Utah those seats are generally awarded by a lottery system. Nationally, there are more than 365,000 kids on charter school waiting lists. Why is it that parents want their kids to attend charter schools? It's because a charter school meets their needs better. Charter schools take us closer to the goal of treating the parents as the customers. In many cases charters have a large percentage of students who are either minorities or economically disadvantaged--in one Utah charter, 70% of the students fall in this category. Many of these are kids who haven't done well in traditional public schools, but who thrive in the charter school. Several studies have backed this up by showing that kids who are behind academically do better in a charter school than they would in a traditional public school. Charters are able to innovate, find creative ways to meet the needs of parents and kids, and the customer is satisfied.

In that sense, charter schools are the most accountable of all our public schools. They're directly accountable to parents, because if the parents aren't satisfied, they'll take their kids elsewhere. In Utah, it's working. According to one study, 94% of parents gave their children's charter school an A or B grade. The success of Charter schools should also teach us the potential of the public education system. Charter schools are not private schools. They are public schools. Public schools can easily compete with private schools when the public schools are released from bureaucratic restrictions and allowed to be creative. Only with the freedom to be creative can any school meet the individual needs of students and parents. Without choices and freedom to be creative, kids become a widget on a conveyor belt to the local school ``factory.''

There are a number of things we can do to allow charters to continue to grow, including eliminating the caps on the number of charter schools, and addressing inequitable funding treatment. We will continue to encourage these reforms, and we'll continue to lower the barriers to innovation and creativity in education.

One member of the Utah State Charter School Board said, in many ways, charter schools are doing for education what the printing press did for the world of communication. Charter schools have promised creativity, innovation, inspiration, and motivation, and I believe they have delivered.

Charter schools have ignited the desire to rethink aspects of our nation's education system. They have shown how involved parents can and will be in their children's education. They are finding ways to reduce class size, deliver the Core Curriculum to smaller school communities, and increase individualization of instruction.

Charter schools are helping our public education system to be the best it can be for every child. I commend the parents, teachers, administrators, and creative innovators involved in charter schools throughout the country.

Congressman Gingrey, I appreciate that introduction. You know there's no way I can possibly live up to that now. But I did want to come down here and talk not about health care specifically, but about some of the things we're doing differently and uniquely with energy.

I realize there is somewhat of a connection because what Dr. Gingrey was talking about is a vision of another approach to try and solve the energy crisis. What we are talking about as Republicans is trying to give options to individuals and choices to individuals. And when it comes to energy, it is the same kind of concept. We are talking about a vision for America and a road or option that can be taken. It's not just simply one.

So I appreciate very much the concept of health care. In fact, when I leave, I expect Dr. Gingrey will come back again to that area and show once again how these are all the concepts that have to be in there.

But I did want to take just a moment, if I could, because today the Western Caucus as well as the Republican Study Committee did introduce a new bill that deals with energy. And it is, once again, with the same purpose or overall vision that Dr. Gingrey was talking about, because our goal is to say there are two competing visions of where America is ready to go. It's kind of like the Frost poem of two paths in the woods that are diverging. We have to choose which one we want to go.

The Democrats have already offered a proposal of cap-and-tax. And the Republicans are now coming up with a different proposal of trying to take the cap off our energy development so that we have the choice of which of these two paths Americans want to take.

If we go with what the Democrats are already proposing, there will be an increase in the energy costs of every individual. It can be as high as $3,000, which is a legitimate number. But the problem is it is also disproportionate. There are some parts of the country that will have a bigger hit than others. And it is worse on the poor than any other segment.

If you're rich, this is an inconvenience. If you're poor, this is a decision on whether you can celebrate with Hamburger Helper that evening or not.

The Republican option, on the other hand, the Republican road, is to try and increase and grow our energy supply so we reduce the cost because there is more available. It also recognizes that energy has always been the vehicle for those in the lower classes and poverty to raise themselves up. Their ability to increase our gross domestic product and our wealth has been based on the concept of having affordable energy.

The Democratic approach, once again, will cut jobs. The greatest estimate, most conservative estimate, is at least 3 million jobs will be taken. The Republican one is not to increase jobs, it's not to increase taxes, but rather, instead, to create increased royalties we will get from increasing production, and put that into a trust fund to attack the deficit that this country has and take the cap off of our production so that we can actually succeed as a country.

The Democrats would have us go down the approach where there is no real reward for conservation; only mandates. The Republican option that will be before that is to reward people for their efforts at personal conservation, which is what we should be doing.

The Democrat road would take us down to the approach in which government starts telling people how to live their lives. We will harken back to the era of Jimmy Carter, where the government told you how fast to drive, how warm your house could be, and when you could buy gasoline, unless you're like the one family we knew about who had two different license plates--one odd, one even--so he could buy gasoline whenever he wanted to fill up his car.

The Republican approach, though, is different. It is trying to reward innovations, giving prizes for ingenuity. What we realize in this country is there is within Americans the spark of creativity, the ingenuity, the ability to come up with new solutions. We don't need the government to pick winners and losers and tell us how we shall live. Open up the options for individuals and reward them for taking the risk to come up with those options, and we can create a better world.

There are ideas that are out there--new ideas in this particular bill which gives incentives for every kind of energy, from solar to new algae production, and some old ideas that have been around which have never been done. And they are going to be new ideas until we actually do it--and there is no better time to do it.

In fact, the Democrat approach is simply saying: We can't do it, so why try? The Republican option is saying: There is limitless opportunity in this country. We should do it, and we should simply do it now.

It's kind of like the tale of two cities: one city where the lights are off; the Republican city, where the lights can be turned on. Actually, a better one is if you remember the sequel to ``Back to Future'' where there were two options in which civilization could develop. The Republican one takes you down to where the McFly family is happy; the Democrat option takes us down to where Biff is still ruling the world.

We have a chance of making the choice between those particular options.

The bill is basically about all the energy that we can create. It says that there is, in this country, a better dream and a better vision of what the future can be. The Republicans want to take us down a better road for America's future, a better vision, by creating a bill that, once again, does three things:

It rewards Americans for efforts of conservation. We are talking about a lot of mandates, but not allowing Americans to voluntarily conserve and be rewarded for it. And for every gallon that we can conserve, it is a gallon that we don't have to try to import from a country that basically doesn't like us.

To increase significantly the amount of production we have so there is more energy, it is more affordable, it is more useable, it is more helpful, and, that it can be that type of thing that will allow those in the lower classes economically to rise above their situation right now.

And, third, reward Americans for innovation. Prizes for innovation have always been the way the world has made quantum leaps forward. When the British were trying to become the maritime power, they didn't know how to map the waters, so they offered a 20,000 pound reward for anyone who could solve the problem, and a London clock maker came up with the concept of latitude and longitude we still use today.

When Napoleon needed to have his troops fed, he offered a 14,000 franc award for the first person who could come up and solve his problem, and the result was the concept of vacuum packing that we still use today.

When Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic Ocean, he was responding to a prize offered by a newspaper.

The ability of Americans to solve our problems and come up with creativity and new ideas and new solutions far and beyond what we are thinking about today is something that has never been driven by Washington. It has been driven by giving Americans the opportunity to use their native abilities, expand the horizons, be creative, and then be rewarded for that kind of creativity.

We are talking about two potential roads: one road which leads to more control of government; one road that leads to greater innovation and acceptance, and the ability of Americans to dream new dreams and create new visions.

Dr. Gingrey was talking about that same concept in the field of health care, that what we need is to look at the two roads that we are taking, and perhaps even look at--I think the word in the vernacular in the medical community would be trying to come up with a second opinion of where we should be moving and where we should be going.

I do thank Dr. Gingrey for allowing me to intervene here, because, like I say, there is a new energy bill that has been produced. It is an energy bill that I think is positive. It is one I want Americans to deal with, because what we are trying to say is there is a better path, there is a better future for this country, and we want this out here as an option so people can understand it.

On the issue of health care, I think the good representative from Georgia will also admit there has got to be a better path and a better option that is out here, one that ennobles and empowers Americans. I think he has some great ideas on how you can steer this country down to that correct path.

If I could ask to interrupt for just a second with my good friend from Georgia, because I do have to leave in a moment or two, but I think you were talking about something that is very significant. There have been over 950 bills introduced by Republicans so far this session; 59 of them have been allowed to be discussed on the floor, most of them suspensions.

It is not that we are wanting for ideas. It is we are wanting for a vehicle in which they can be debated and discussed and be presented to the American people.

I have one other analogy. I have grayer hair than you do. I am older. But when we were growing up, remember those old records you had to buy? If I wanted a song, I had to buy the entire album or the entire 8- track. We won't even go how far back that has to be. My kids, though, have these little iPods, which I still don't know how to work. But if they want a song, they don't have to buy the entire album. They can download their song on their iPod. They get to pick and choose.

Every aspect of American life now, we have been given Americans' options. The business world gives Americans options. The American Government, the Federal Government is the only place where we are still talking about one-size-fits-all mandates on people. What we need to be doing is giving Americans choices and allowing Americans to choose for themselves how they wish to live their lives. And that is the message. That is the Republican option that happens to be out there. That is the vision that we are trying to present.

And I appreciate it, as I am going to have to leave the gentleman from Georgia, especially with his expertise in the field of health care, that he recognizes this is the same solution: not telling the Americans how to live, but giving them options and allowing Americans to choose their own future. They get to buy the song they want and put it on their personal iPod.

I appreciate him for allowing me to join him here this evening as part of this hour, and I appreciate Madam Speaker's consideration and toleration in us taking this time to try and give a new vision, another road, another option for Americans. I appreciate the gentleman's time, and I return back what is left to him.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri for allowing me to be part of this.

I am probably the oldest guy here right now; I've got the white hair. I grew up in the era when our missile defense was ``duck and cover.'' I was one of those elementary kids that had to hide under the desk, except I only lived a block and a half away from the school, so I got to run home as long as I could run home soon enough. And I was dumb enough to realize I should have just filled out my time so I could go play, but I didn't, I actually ran home.

Somehow, I think we have moved past the idea that our defense of this country is merely hiding under a desk. This is the defense of this country, as has been mentioned by my good friends from Colorado and Arizona, who know a whole lot more about this. And you have probably said some of the things I am going to say, so if I am repeating it, just nod your head and I will move on, but just know I am reinforcing and agreeing with the comments that happen to be here.

It is significant that the commission with former Defense Secretary Schlesinger and Perry both said the same thing, we still need a strong military defense for what North Korea can do. If Iran is already testing the ability of exploding something at the apex of the trajectory, we know we need some kind of defense system against that. It is common sense that we have. And for us to really talk about cutting $1.4 billion from this defense system is a frightening concept.

Let me just go into the weeds with one last area. In my area, we do the solid rocket motors for the ICBM. This is the last year for the Minuteman III propulsion system that they will make any more solid rocket motors. There will still be some maintenance to it, but it is the last time we do anything that is associated with that large-scale fleet.

This becomes a very specialized manufacturing line. Now, one of the problems is, as soon as you let go of that line, we no longer have the expertise if we wanted to bring it back. And the biggest problem we face in this country, especially with defense, is in our manufacturing base. In the sixties, when we started doing the F-16s and these missiles, and a whole bunch of other things, and our NASA space program, we had some exciting new things this country was doing that brought the best and the brightest into our manufacturing sector that thought these things through. If we only build one airplane every 20 years, if we decide not to try and improve on our system and simply maintain what we have, where are the best and the brightest going to go and where will that expertise and creativity when we need it take place? Because what we are doing is not for today. If the North Koreans attacked us, we have a defense today. I am talking about 15 years from now and 20 years from now. You don't just restart up again. Twenty years from now, our defense and our diplomacy options will be defined by the decisions we make today, this year in this bill with this particular area.

I appreciate everything that has been said. And, Mr. Akin, I appreciate your using this time especially with the expertise of those on the subcommittee to try to explain to the House exactly the details of what we are talking about because too often we slosh over this. I know I don't know the details as much as I can. What I do know, of course, is that Russia, even though it may not be our biggest threat, is driving much of our decisions and they're totally revamping their ICBM program: by 2016, 80 percent new missiles.

And the key element here by everything is still the concept of the deterrent. There are a lot of people asking why are we investing in this kind of stuff when we might not ever use it. And that's the wrong question. The right question is, When is that deterrent used? And the answer to that is, every day, whether we actually fire anything or not.

Mr. Akin, I appreciate that and I can't claim credit. I stole that line from the commission, who gave their report today. That is what they have said. A deterrent if it's effective is in use every day, and that's still important. I wish I could claim credit for having come up with it, but I stole it. It's still true.

You're exactly right. They were made in our district. We are done with that phase right now. The problem is what do we do for the future?

And I actually would like to ask any of my colleagues right here, when Secretary Gates announced his blueprint for this budget, that was the very day that North Korea fired another long-range missile test that endangered Japan. And I would like somebody to express is this a legitimate fear for us. Is that something for which we should be concerned? And what approach is the best for this kind of future threat that comes from North Korea?

I do just want to add one thing, and I am so appreciative of what the last comment by Mr. Lamborn was, and what you have simply said. We have been talking a great deal in this Congress about jobs. Every one of these programs creates jobs. It creates a work line. It creates the knowledge that we need. Everything Mr. Lamborn was talking about are jobs. These are critical jobs for our country, and we need to do it.

I appreciate so much the experts here, the ranking member on the committee, Mr. Franks, who knows so much about it, your input into this thing, because as I said originally, when I was growing up, our defense was duck and cover. I don't want to have to go back to that.

And if we are not ready to build this program and to multiply and expand what we are doing, I am back to going under desks. And you can see there are only four desks in this room and there are 435 of us, and I am big. There is not enough room for my cover right here. This is essential and important.

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

During hearings on this bill, the committee heard testimony from historian David Hackett Fischer whose writings on the Revolutionary War pointed out General Washington's support for property rights and the strong actions he took to ensure that his soldiers respected the property of civilians, even when that property belonged to Tory sympathizers.

Washington personally gave strict orders to forbid looting, even though plunder was the norm at the time and many of his men were hungry, they were dressed in rags, and they marched barefoot in the snow. It is remarkable in such a desperate situation and in such a noble cause, Washington imposed on the Patriot side such a high standard of conduct.

Washington's honorable policy stood in stark contrast to the routine seizures by British and Hessian troops. It is no accident over the course of the early years of the war, in the battleground State of New Jersey, home of the sponsor of this bill, a population that was once evenly divided in its loyalty threw its support to the American cause.

There are lessons that we can learn from Washington's example. In earlier battlefield protection efforts--not this one but earlier ones-- the National Park Service misused its eminent domain powers to seize land from unwilling sellers. The justified resentment this caused hurt subsequent efforts. Our enthusiasm for battlefield protection notwithstanding, it is definitely our hope that as we set out to preserve historic sites, we will emulate George Washington and not George III.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I want to be both partisan and very clear on this thing. This is the third time we have actually had this bill before us. I voted for it the first time; I am going to vote for it again; and I will urge my colleagues to

support this legislation at the same time. However, in fairness, I guess in fairness to the sponsor, we should do that again since his original bill did pass, and by machinations then over in the Senate, his bill was stripped and sent back to us in his title, with his number and name, but not with his bill.

Had the Democratic Party leadership not tried so hard with so many machinations to make sure that Republicans were not allowed to try and make amendments to the omnibus land bill, his bill would have passed the first time, legitimately, and it would be done and passed by now. So let us remember that, unfortunately, the good representative from New Jersey lost out because of games that were played on a bill totally separate to this particular one, and I find those games were unfortunate. This bill, however, I once again want to make very clear that I support this bill, and I will urge my colleagues to support it. We passed another bill dealing with Civil War battlefields with a Republican chief sponsor. It is only fair and appropriate that we now look at Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefield sites with the Democratic sponsor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to actually speak on this particular bill, H.R. 388, the Crane Conservation Act. Under this legislation, a new international conservation fund is going to be established to assist up to 15 species of cranes that are in Africa, Asia, Australia, North America--I guess everyone except South America.

There are currently seven crane species that are protected under our Endangered Species Act. The two most imperiled species reside here in the United States and are covered.

The United States already has several laws on the books which can help conserve domestic cranes and their habitats, which includes such things as the Migratory Bird Treaty, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, wetlands conservation statutes, and the Endangered Species Act.

With the current economic crisis the United States finds itself in-- exacerbated by our spending bills in the stimulus, in the budget, and the omnibus bills which simply spend too much, tax too much, and borrow too much--it is highly questionable whether this is the time to once again create another multinational fund to spend taxpayers' money overseas. Other countries should be required to step up to the plate to save their own wildlife without relying on American funds going there.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas, who is an expert not only in cranes and whooping cranes, but on whoopings themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude simply by saying this is a noble concept, but what Dr. Christensen argued is exactly the problem inherent in this noble concept. What we are continuing to do more and more is carve out specific funds for specific animal species that then add up to the total that we are doing rather than realizing our common goals and what we need to deal with. There are seven species that are covered already, two of those in the United States already covered on prior pieces of legislation. This is simply extra funding that is not going to assist necessarily on the American side; it is going to assist overseas in other countries where, quite frankly, in these conditions they should be stepping up to deal with their own wildlife problems, not relying on the United States simply to bail them out once again with another special fund crafted out for American money to go overseas.

This is simply another one of several funds that keep growing all the time without any coordinated policy to it. And that is the danger of this bill. It's not the issue at hand. It's not trying to protect these species. It is the haphazard way we go about creating these funds to try to fund specific entities rather than coming up with a comprehensive overall plan and not requiring our friends in other countries to step up to the plate as well.

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

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

While this legislation is similar to a bill that was approved by the House last year, and I did, in fact, vote for the bill last year, we have Members who still continue to have concerns with H.R. 411, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act.

During consideration in the Natural Resources Committee during the last Congress, this bill was amended by Congressman Henry Brown to target only 12 imperiled big cats and rare dog species. That was an appropriate amendment especially considering the beginning stages of this particular bill, which had well over 50 different animals listed. However, by the time it went from committee to the floor last year, this bill was expanded, and several other species that are protected under this bill but do not reach the criteria used to create the other five existing wildlife conservation funds under law were added.

I am particularly troubled that the inclusion of things like the Iberian lynx, which lives exclusively in Spain and Portugal, is added. These are clearly two countries that are not impoverished European nations. They could easily afford to conserve their own native wildlife. In addition, I note that few of the species singled out for special treatment under this law could be considered ``keystone,'' unlike the African elephant, the tiger, the rhino that are considered keystone criteria. Under H.R. 411, this bill, these 15 cats and dogs will now be competing for limited funds with the other iconic species.

More importantly, at a time when America has a national debt in excess of $11 trillion, you still have to question whether this legislation is the proper priority for right now. With Federal spending, bank failures, and home foreclosures reaching historic levels, is it really appropriate to spend our constituents' hard-earned tax money to conserve an African wild dog, an Ethiopian wolf, or a Borneo bay cat in Asia? We still are taxing too much, spending too much, and borrowing too much. And this particular bill once again goes at elements and species that are not considered reaching the criteria of needing this kind of protection. If it were to go back to the original bill that came out last year from the Natural Resources Committee with the Brown amendment intact, then you would have a decent standard bill which I would firmly support. But as long as we are still expanding it to areas that don't meet the criteria that should be used on these types of issues, then I need to urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify on the record, for any kind of species to be included, they have to be included on the endangered species list, the appendix I and appendix II in the red list. Three of these 15 do not meet that criteria. Twelve are legitimate. Three don't meet that criteria.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

May I inquire, Doctor, do you have other speakers?

Just in conclusion, once again, the grants that we have pervaded in the past for things like the African elephant, the rhino, the tigers are on all three lists, not just one of the three lists. Twelve of the fifteen categories included in this are on all three, not one of the three, which is why, if you were to go back to the bill that was actually passed in the Resources Committee, the Brown amendment, and take that standard, that is one that I think is clearly defendable here on the floor.

But the fact of the matter is, we have expanded it. And once you expand it, taking not all three criteria, but any of those three criteria, you set the standard for what may or may not happen in the future. And once again, we start moving into the direction of having dedicated reserve funds going to specific areas without having a comprehensive plan of how we want to spend that money overseas.

In our situation, in the budget crunch here that we are in, we should be much more systematic in the way we try to deal with these kind of endangered species and at least demand that everything on that list is covered on all three of those categories, not just one or two, but all three of them.

Let me just say once again, I did vote for this bill last time. And, once again, I think we could make it better and should be making it better.

I do actually want to thank the majority party for putting back an amendment that was inadvertently omitted last time that had been placed in the bill in committee and making sure that that was added in there before this bill came to the floor. That was very kind of them. I appreciate them doing that.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the author of this piece of legislation, this bipartisan piece of legislation, as much time as he shall consume, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

May I simply say in closing on our side that I have to commend the gentleman from California for coming up with this water recycling project that would basically pre-treat the impaired surface of Lake Hodges, California, so that consumer water needs are going to be met.

The drought has largely been man-made because of litigation to protect a 3-inch fish, and it will decrease Southern California's water supplies. As a result, there will be water rationing in some areas and water rates will increase for working families and businesses.

There will be less imported water to recycle. However, water recycling is still, in the long term, a necessity for California and other arid regions in the West. And all these projects together will help ensure that there will be no such thing as a waste of our water. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to support this bipartisan legislation that was authored by Senator John McCain. This bill would end more than 40 years of Federal restrictions placed upon native people living in the western area of the Navajo Nation. These restrictions have barred area residents from making any improvements and repairs to their homes and property.

Once this legislation becomes law, both Navajo and Hopi people will have the opportunity to move forward with critical development projects aimed at providing relief to their region. This

means homes without electricity can now be wired, modern plumbing fixtures can be installed and recent health and safety improvements like smoke detectors and water filters can be realized.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is identical to a bill that was introduced in the 110th Congress by Senator McCain. Unfortunately, we delayed consideration of this bill during the presidential election, for whatever reason. Hopefully, we are prepared to move ahead with this good public policy.

I am grateful that we are finally able to move forward this legislation that will help both the Navajo and Hopi people. I support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady from Arizona's work on this particular issue. I appreciate Senator McCain's sponsorship of this particular bill. This is indeed a fresh approach that will produce positive benefits for the people in this particular State, and I appreciate it being brought to the floor by the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, none of us in the delegation had the opportunity of serving with Mr. Orton while he was in Congress. I did, though, have the opportunity to know him, as a result of being majority leader and speaker of the House in the Utah legislature in his first two terms, and as such got to know that Mr. Orton was indeed someone committed to public service. We offer our deep condolences to him and his very young family at this tragic occurrence and remember him with fondness for his commitment to his country and his State.

I appreciate the kind words from the gentleman from Indiana. And I understand not only the passion, but the desire to be able to have some kind of strong, stable numbers that you can grasp to try and discuss the debate. No one really knows what it is going to do when you are trying to go into the darkness of a room that doesn't have the lights turned on--maybe because there is too much of an energy tax--but doesn't have the lights turned on to tell us what those numbers actually are.

We have heard a great deal about the cap-and-tax proposal. I would like to take the debate maybe one step backwards slightly and just talk about a few basic principles if I could. For we have been engaged in this Congress in something I find very unique, something we haven't had in the last 15 or 16 years in either the Bush or Clinton administrations. We are truly involved in a philosophical, fundamental debate in this Congress. There are those in this Congress and in the administration who truly believe that the best solutions to our problems lie in increasing the role of government. And there are others who truly believe that the best way of finding those solutions are in empowering individuals. And on every issue we have had to date in this Congress, that is truly the crux of the debate. I mean, we may be talking about energy today, or we may be talking about health care tomorrow, or we may be talking about bank bailouts, housing, the budget yesterday. But in each of these issues, that was the same debate; is the better solution empowering individuals or growing the size of government? And in each of those debate areas, in all sincerity, the Democrats basically gave us three options. And it doesn't matter which issue you want to use, you can just put it in there and it is basically the same concept, that in each of these issues they decided, first of all, that it will be the government that will dictate and regulate.

In this cap-and-tax or cap-and-trade policy, if it goes through, every person will use the kind of energy and the style of energy as has been dictated by Washington. And in so doing, it would create bigger government, when the EPA will already say without additional legislation they have the power to control the air that we breathe just as they have said they have the power to control the water so they can illustrate or demand that an irrigation ditch be classified as part of the navigable water system of the United States. That is essentially big government.

The third element is that it will involve higher taxes. By the President's own budget numbers, this program is identified in his budget as adopting $600-plus billion of new revenue coming from this cap-and-tax. And it is revenue that is not going to the production of alternative energy; it is revenue that would go into the paying for the increase of government that we have done in other bills that we have debated already. And any time that we actually talk about higher taxes, they become winners and losers, as the gentleman from Indiana showed you on his map.

If you go to the west coast, the Speaker's district, for example, with a great deal of hydrogen power, there is less of an impact than if you go to the heartland of this country, into the Midwest, where almost all their energy comes from coal-fired sources. There are winners and losers in this type of approach. And even the President's budget director simply said that this program will impose costs on the economy, and we need to know what those costs are in very, very specific numbers.

You know, last week we had the TEA tax protests that were going on. And as an old history teacher, I'm sorry, I had to think about this, history does repeat itself. Back in 1773, the British East India Company was in financial trouble, and so the Parliament decided the British East India Company was too big to fail and, therefore, they entered into a bailout agreement. And in this bailout agreement, they imposed a one-size-fits-all mandate on the colonies that the only tea they could drink would be imposed and come from the British East India Company, and the only tax they would pay had to go back to one specific source. It is amazing sometimes that we actually do repeat what has happened in history.

Now, I said this is a basic debate and the Democrats have three positions. Well, so do the Republicans, and a vast contrast to them, whatever the issue you want to put in there. But the first one goes back to the idea that the fundamental difference in the solutions that Republicans have proffered--whether they were actually heard on the floor or not, but have proffered--the first one is to go back to the concept that we believe there should be choice and options for Americans. The Founding Fathers in 1773, when they were dumping tea in the harbor, were not just upset about a tax--which, actually, technically, had been lowered--they were upset about the fact that they were eliminated the choice to drink whatever tea they wanted to; that if they wanted to pay for a more expensive Dutch brand, they could not have that option.

You know, when I was growing up and I wanted a particular song in the age of plastic records, you had to buy the whole album to get the song. Now, I don't know how iPods work, but my kids tell me that it's cool enough right now that you can actually download the particular song you want. You look around in the world we have today, and everybody, in almost every aspect of their lives, is able to select and make choices and options except when you deal with the Federal Government. And maybe it is time the government needs to realize that, rather than giving a one dictate, one solution and regulate it, you allow people the choice to have options, and in so doing, you empower people with those choices.

We have already had different concepts placed on the table that are out there for debate. The No-Cost Stimulus Act is one that I sponsored with Senator Vitter that deals with developing energy sources across the board. The Western Caucus will join with the Republican Study Committee in coming up with an option. There will be more options that will empower Americans to be able to make choices by using all of the above, not taking some energy sources off the table, not trying to use a tax that will pick winners and losers, but simply trying to give those. And those will be alternatives that we will be throwing out.

There are some people that say my party is the party of ``no.'' I have to admit, with some of the bills we have had on the floor, it is very easy to vote that way. But if you were to ask me if the bailout bills excessively entangled business and government, I would say yes. If you asked me if the stimulus bill stimulated the growth of government more than jobs, I would say yes.

If the GIVE Act actually paid people to volunteer and allowed groups like ACORN to get Federal funding? Yes. If the omnibus land bill made a difference in making it more difficult for the Park Service to fulfill their mission, I would say yes. If the AIG bonus tax was an unconstitutional tax that was a regressive cumulative tax to try and get even with somebody, I would say yes. But if Homeland Security, when they implied that veterans may be part of a right-wing group that needs to be watched carefully, and you asked me if that was outrageous, I would say yes. If you asked if the budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, I would say yes. In all due respect to my colleague from Indiana, I think we are the party of ``yes''; it is just the media is not asking the right questions.

And if you were to ask whether empowerment of people and giving them options and choices is the right thing to do, emphatically yes. Because when we try to lower taxes, we take the winners and losers off the table and realize that far too often when we raise taxes, it is people who are on the margins are the ones who are most likely to be harmed.

If you were rich, a cap-and-trade policy, or a cap-and-tax policy, will be merely an annoyance, just as the $4-a-gallon gasoline was last fall. It kind of takes you back to the medieval time period where the aristocracy knew that there were sins out there but they could simply go down and buy an indulgence and thereby simply continue on with the same lifestyle without any kind of inhibitions or disruptions whatsoever because they simply bought their way out of it. Poor people could never do that. People on the poverty level today where 50 percent of their income goes to energy, when they hear us talk about energy processes or energy policies, for them that debate is how they heat their homes and how they cook their food and whether they'll be able to afford a luxury like tuna casserole this evening.

Affordable, comprehensive, and available energy has been the great equalizer in the history of this country, allowing people to escape poverty and move forward. When we talk about programs that are either going to take money away from those people and then maybe even return it, that is a ridiculous concept. If we talk about programs that are going to increase the prices for those on the margins to survive and to live, that's the same thing as a direct tax on those individuals. For, indeed, if we get to the point in those different parts of this country where you go into a room and you have to flip on the light switch, and if you're rich, it's okay, you can handle it; but if you're poor, you have to determine where flipping on that light switch today makes a difference on whether you can afford Hamburger Helper tonight, we have reached the point where we are no longer taking care of the needs of our people, and we are putting a great slice of the American population at extreme risk.

That is a dangerous situation in which to move, and it should be done carefully and it should be done realistically with, as the gentleman from Indiana has said, the numbers and the debate all on the table. That's the future, and that is the fundamental debate that we will be having on this issue and with every other issue, transportation, housing, budget, that we will come up with. That's all there.

With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Madam Speaker, the gentlelady from Texas, who is still here on the floor, had inadvertently put me as one of the cosponsors on H.R. 265. I would ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from that particular bill.