Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I sadly rise today to oppose this Important legislation. Unfortunately, in a kickback to Unions, the Majority has decided to include in this legislation provisions that will drive up the cost of state water projects and are particularly harmful to small rural communities.

As a New Mexican, I know the critical role water plays in economic expansion and the daily need of our citizens. We in New Mexico struggle to find good clean water for our communities. The reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program is an important step to meeting the needs of my communities.

Communities in my district like Columbus, New Mexico, a small community of 1700 people which has no clean running water in its community, is desperate for assistance from a

program like the one we will authorize today. Sadly, the majority has decided that this poor community should have foisted upon it Federal Davis-Bacon requirements which were never intended to be applied to non-Federal funds. Instead of helping communities get clean water projects the majority has decided to inflate the cost of these projects with unnecessary provisions that will result in fewer clean water projects, fewer jobs and less clean water.

I don't understand how the inclusion of these provisions that inflate costs will benefit the small rural communities who can barely afford clean water projects in the first place. Sadly, those provisions prevent me from supporting this otherwise good legislation.

Madam Chairman, today the Democratic Majority has brought to the House floor legislation chairman representing one of the greatest assaults ever on the American worker. Today the Majority in Congress will strip American workers the right to a secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to unionize. This freedom stealing legislation, complete with a misleading title, does nothing to enhance ``free choice''--rather it undermines workers' freedom of choice to vote by secret ballot.

Our country is a democratic society committed to preserving and protecting the rights of American citizens to vote for those who represent them. Secret ballot elections are conducted when electing our state legislators, our congressmen, our senators and our President. Secret ballots are used by Unions to elect their own leadership and pass resolutions changing their bylaws. Yet the Democratic Majority wants to strip that right away from Americans in their own place of work.

More accurately characterized as the ``Secret Ballot Elimination Act'', this legislation opens the door wide for union organizers to use intimidation, coercion and compulsory tactics on workers who hesitate to join their efforts. In fact, the Fraternal Order of Police, a union representing thousands our nation's law enforcement officers, has urged opposition to this legislation stating, ``The scheme proposed by the legislation would replace the current democratic process of secret ballots with a `card check' system that invites coercion and abuse.''

It is clear that Big Union organizers said ``Jump'' and the Democratic Majority asked ``How high?'' as they crafted this legislation that panders to their Big Union bosses by allowing them to force workers to join their unions.

Today, Democrats are trying to justify their support of allowing union organizers to intimidate workers by debating the pros and cons of unionizing. Not only does this further the agenda of Big Union leaders, it avoids the true issue at hand--the basic right of American workers to vote by secret ballot when choosing whether or not to unionize.

Working families in New Mexico and America deserve to decide whether or not to join a union without the threat of coercion and intimidation. The denial of secret ballots is something you only expect in nation's like North Korea, Cuba or other Dictatorships where citizens and workers don't have the right to organize at all. The Democratic Majority is once again chipping away from the freedoms of our democracy and I stand in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today the Democratic leadership has brought to the House floor legislation that will effectively create permanent tax increases on many American taxpayers in order to create temporary tax relief for a few.

Though this legislation does not mention a minimum wage increase, we all know this bill is intended to be paired with Senate legislation including a wage hike. While I am pleased that the Majority has finally listened to the Republicans and recognized the detrimental impact a minimum wage increase would have on small businesses, this legislation is nothing but an example of the Majority's plans to deceptively increase taxes on Americans.

In the last Congress I voted for a balanced minimum wage bill that increased the wage rate from $5.15 to $7.25/hour over three years and included important tax and regulatory protections for small businesses and their workers, ensuring they are not over-burdened by high labor costs and can stay in business.

However, I believe it is unfair to create permanent tax increases for the sake of temporary tax relief. This is a perfect example, and I predict many more are to come, of the Democrats using covert tax increase maneuvers to adhere to their misguided PAYGO rules.

The Majority has forced this legislation to the House floor under the suspension of the rules, cutting off debate time and forbidding any amendments to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I can not in good conscience support this bill because of the misleading, permanent tax increases it places on many Americans.

Mr. Chairman, this urgently needed bipartisan legislation constitutes an important step forward in our efforts to improve homeland security. H.R. 556 injects significant doses of transparency, accountability, and oversight into how our government reviews and approves U.S. investments by foreign government-owned companies.

Before the proposed transfer of six major eastern shipping terminals to Dubai Ports World came to light last year, very few Americans had heard of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. The concern that greater scrutiny was not applied to this transaction and its potential impact upon the security of our ports became a source of shock and outrage--and CFIUS became synonymous for bureaucratic failure in the face of the post 9-11 challenges America confronts.

Congress began investigating the CFIUS process immediately following the resolution of this controversy. The House and Senate passed legislation last year which enhanced reporting standards while strengthening congressional oversight; yet a final conference agreement was not reached before the end of the last Congress.

H.R. 556 builds upon last year's efforts, providing the comprehensive CFIUS reform that our national security requires without overburdening the flow of commerce and capital upon which our prosperity depends.

I have listened to American business owners as they urged us to act for the sake of certainty and stability in international investment markets--and I am pleased that acting together as Democrats and Republicans, we are poised to pass legislation today that constitutes real progress toward addressing their concerns.

We must remain vigilant in our oversight of CFIUS and other long- established bureaucratic processes that can fundamentally impact our economy and our security. We can--and we must--protect our homeland while ensuring that foreign investment remains strong and New Mexico and America continue to be the best places in the world to do business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this stay-the-course resolution, because it is, indeed, a stay the course. It says, blithely, that we support the troops, the troops are in Iraq, they are fighting. We support the fight.

We do not, on the other hand, support an escalation, which would be another course of action, nor do we present the other alternative that says bring them home. We can bring them home, increase or stay the course, and so this stay-the-course resolution is one that is very curious indeed today.

The last two speakers that I have heard say that there is no good military action left. That is a credible viewpoint. It is one that is expressed, and yet I ask my friends why did you not have the courage to simply say, if there are no goodwill alternatives left for the military, then bring them home. That is fair and adequate.

I have also heard that it is a misguided conflict. I have also heard that our soldiers' work is done. If their work is done, please have the courage to bring them home.

I want to speak today on behalf of our soldiers, the soldiers of today. I will do it while remembering the soldiers of yesterday. Through no fault of my own, I served in the Air Force during the Vietnam conflict. I say through no fault of my own, because I was not a volunteer. I got there because I drew a very low draft number. As time has proved, it was going to be the only lottery that I am going to win, but that lottery gave me a free pilot's certificate and sent me to Vietnam to fly in 1971, 1972 and parts of 1973.

I was in Vietnam during the time that Jane Fonda made her trip to the North, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I was in Vietnam during the time that there were demonstrations in the streets back home. I was there during the time that our soldiers were cursed at and spit on. Today, as I beat around the back dusty roads of New Mexico, I encounter those same soldiers that I encountered back then. For those soldiers who are my age, who are on walkers, life has been difficult.

There is a common greeting for soldiers of that era. It is welcome home, brother, or welcome home, sister, because they were never thanked for their duty and they were never welcomed home with parades with yellow ribbons. We were snuck back into the country.

I have brought a couple of photos to help us remember, to remember the people who were trying to get out of Saigon, not just Americans, but those people who had sided with us. They are crawling up the ladder trying to get into the helicopter. The helicopters proceeded out to carriers, then the helicopters were pushed off the side of the carriers. This is the way we left Vietnam.

I bring this up because I am beginning to see the same thing today. My colleague yesterday spoke of this resolution and mentioned that the resolution was vague, where people of very different beliefs could believe that it represented them. If you support the war, you believe that it supports your position. If you are opposed, you will somehow believe that this is the one step that is going to stop us.

Yet it really does nothing, the vague language, that clever language points out, this is not a time for cleverness, it is a time for decision, because I will be a constant voice for our soldiers. I read and I hear the comments today.

I read when Chrissie Hynde says, ``Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on. I hope the Muslims win!''

I hear from the left, William Arkin, ``Those soldiers should be grateful that the American public . . . do still offer their support to them, and their respect . . .

``So we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead.''

Our friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not discount their intent, but I know what they are trying to do. They are doing the same thing that was done in Vietnam: they are trying to feed that hungry tiger that lives on the left, that hates the American way of life, that hates the American military, that will do anything to discredit, disrespect, and discount the service of our soldiers.

My friends, you will not be able to appease the left with this toothless resolution that you are presenting. You know that your own Members, some of your Members, have called for defunding; but defunding is going to allow the exit that looks like this, and it is going to allow the mass catastrophe, the mass killings that are going to occur, and that is all part of the problem.

But before you allow your friends, who would never vote for me, who disrespect our soldiers so much, before you empower them and before you encourage them, I would recommend that you think carefully about just cleanly bringing our soldiers home.

If you are going to do nothing in the resolution, you have an obligation to do no harm. This resolution does no harm. This resolution empowers our enemy, encourages our enemy, and encourages people who are going to disrespect our soldiers. I recommend a vote against the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very dark time for the Nation. The President is at an unpopularly low rating, unprecedented in our history. We are involved in an unpopular war. Elected officials on both sides are calling for us to get out of the war. I am not talking about this war, I am talking about the civil war, when President Lincoln had the courage and the vision to hold onto that concept that we must

let liberty triumph. And because of his courage, we have a Nation that has set the course for liberty for the entire world.

Exactly what are we involved in here? This is far broader than a war in Iraq. This is a war with radical Islam. It is not the first time we have engaged with radical Islam. The first time that comes to my attention was 1786.

Thomas Jefferson goes to find out about the Barbary Coast. He comes back and he reads the letter about why the Barbary pirates were fighting everyone in that region. He buys his own book of the Koran to understand, but that letter that he had and brought back says that it was founded, he is talking about Islam, it was founded on the laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found. That same principle is holding today. We read it on all the Web pages of the radical Islamists.

Now, we can wish that it weren't true. We can wish that the attacks on the Cole did not happen. We can wish that 9/11 did not happen. But they did. And now we are involved in a very difficult, unpopular war with the President, again, at historic low ratings.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to this dangerously misguided resolution which will only embolden our enemies and demoralize our troops.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle claim to support our troops, and I do not discount that. I do not question their sincerity. I question their judgment.

I will tell you that the political gymnastics that are required to come this soon after they campaigned against stay the course, to present a resolution that supports our troops who are in Iraq, and yet says that we will not change the tactic, we will not increase, if we are not going to get out, if they have turned down those resolutions which would bring us home, and if they do not want to declare to defund the war, if they do not want the surge, then we are involved in a resolution today that is nonbinding, but says stay the course.

Do tell. Stay the course is what they had to campaign so hard against in the last elections.

I served in Vietnam when elected officials were on the floor of this House having these same conversations, and I will tell you it is extraordinarily distressing from the point of someone serving in harm's way to have the elected officials playing games.

My friends, if you don't want to support the effort in Iraq, you have the majority, call the troops home. It is within your capability. Have the courage of your convictions. Stand for what you believe. Do not put this resolution in front of us that simply encourages our enemies and distresses our troops.

There are those who claim that General Abizaid has said we can't win the war. President Lincoln was faced with the same thing, generals who listened too much to the public. He had to fire General McClellan and replace him with General Grant.

Many recall those words of President Lincoln saying, if you will not use the troops, sir, can I borrow them?

We have replaced the general who was in charge of Iraq with a new general. I am sorry, but he is a troop. He is a commander. He is the commander, he is the supreme troop in Iraq, and he says, I could use more troops. Please, don't leave me dangling.

And yet, this Congress, with this leadership, is going to say, we support the troops but we are not going to support the troops. The mental gymnastics, the political gymnastics are to appease the very shrillest of their proponents, the very shrillest of their supporters. But everyone knows they will not be content with this nonbinding resolution. Those supporters will be like the tiger at the door, eating their own if it does not escalate from here.

Have the courage to bring the troops home, my friends, if you are not going to let the generals run the war. Let the military run the war.

The greatest mistake we made in this House in Vietnam was trying to manage it with people who are elected rather than military leaders, and it was an abysmal failure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. I commend the Chairman of the Science Subcommittee for bringing this legislation forward.

Last year under the Republican Majority, the House passed this same legislation as part of a more comprehensive bill offered by the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. This legislation, called the ``Alternative Energy Research and Development Act,'' died in the Senate. But it's never too late to take bipartisan action on good ideas.

Reducing America's dependence upon foreign oil is an economic and national security

imperative. Achieving this goal requires us to exercise creativity and common sense. In particular, we must find ways to expand our use of biofuels in a safe and cost-efficient manner.

H.R. 547 provides very specific mechanisms to address the challenge of integrating ethanol and biodiesel fuels into our petroleum-based transportation system. In particular, this bill directs the EPA and the NIST to mitigate the harmful effects caused by the physical and chemical incompatibility of these fuels within the current infrastructure. H.R. 547 also tackles the quality concerns associated with Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and biofuel production.

As the Ranking member on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee I remain committed to working with my colleagues across the aisle to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. In contrast to H.R. 6, the regrettable measure the House passed a few weeks ago that increases our dependence on foreign oil, this bill constitutes a productive step forward--and I look forward to supporting other measures like it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Research Remediation Act. Methamphetamines represent a tremendous growing threat to the fabric of our society. Last year, I held more than 40 town hall meetings across Southern New Mexico, listening to law enforcement, health officials, recovering addicts, and other experts. Time and time again I heard horror stories about whole families in my district destroyed by methamphetamines. It is our duty as members of the United States Congress to protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic. Mr. Speaker, methamphetamines are one the greatest domestic threats that our nation faces. We must confront its production, its trafficking, its abuse, and its effect on the land itself.

Meth is a problem concentrated in the West and Southwest, but be aware that this great evil is moving across America, and soon no one will be able to say it is not their problem. As meth spreads across our nation it leaves a trail of destroyed lives, families, homes, communities, property and public lands in its wake. H.R. 365 the Methamphetamine Research Remediation Act of 2007 will set needed standards for the clean-up of property and public lands destroyed by methamphetamines. Unlike other drugs, the cooking of methamphetamines is hazardous to everything that it touches and can render houses and property uninhabitable. H.R. 365 will address the environmental impact of methamphetamines, and how to recover our properties and lands.

In the Second District of New Mexico half-million dollar homes have been left uninhabitable, and state parks have become unusable. This destruction occurs because of methamphetamine cooking and the dumping of meth related chemicals. I fear that unsuspecting New Mexicans will encounter these environmental hazards and endanger their lives. H.R. 365 The Methamphetamines Research Remediation Act of 2007, will provide communities across America with the proper information and procedures on how to clean up meth labs and reclaim the land they have poisoned.

This bill is the first in many steps we should take to track and fight Meth in our communities. I have introduced H.R. 304, the CLEAN TOWN Act to help in our battle against meth. As we talk about this bill, I hope my colleagues will examine my legislation that has tremendous promise to help change the way we fight drugs and drug dealers. I urge all my colleagues to join me in fighting Meth and help us save America's families.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the group today. I represent the southern district of New Mexico, New Mexico 2. I come with a chart today, and with a map of the district.

Now, if you can visualize, I live all the way on the east side of the State, Hobbs, New Mexico. We are about 3 miles from the Texas border and represent all of the way to Arizona. Now, it is almost a 9- to 9\1/ 2\-hour drive to come across to the Silver City area, and then if we have to go further north up into the Zuni area, it takes an additional 2 to 3 hours.

So each time I go home is a lot of miles. On a 3-day weekend, we have made up to 1,000 miles. On the 10-day breaks, we have been known to make up to 2,500 miles with events all of the way across. And then on our first 30-day break, our August break in my first year here, we had 29 different motel rooms and about 6,500 miles that we made to cover this large district.

Now, my particular approach today is to talk about a rule that the new majority put into place when we voted on January 4, 2007. I will read from those rules, House Resolution 6, section 207, rule 23, item 15(a). A Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner may not use personal funds, official funds or campaign funds for a flight on a nongovernment airplane that is not licensed by the FAA to operate for commission or hire.

Now, in the FAA there are basically two categories of operating for hire. There is the category of airlines. Those operate under section 121 of the FAA rules. The second section that is predominately used is section 135; that is, the charters. Those are the private aircraft that are used that you call, and

they are like a taxi. They show up so they are called air taxis or air charters.

Now, these are the only two categories who live in the West, in these broad, sprawling districts. We all represent about 6- to 800,000 people. That is determined by our districting process. So everybody represents the same number of people, but it requires a lot more ground for me to represent 600,000 people, so I have a small aircraft, a four- place aircraft, single engine, that I use to fly around the district.

Now, when it takes me 9 hours to drive across this district, I can make it in about 2\1/2\ in that small aircraft. That is about the size of a Volkswagen. If I get in, the ceiling is just barely above my head. My knees are touching. And if people get in the rear seats, their knees are absolutely up against us. So this is not like some limousine service.

This is just basically a small aircraft with a 210 horsepower engine, very economical. I would use the same gallons of gas to fly across the district as I would to drive across it. But according to the rules that are adopted by the new majority, we cannot any longer use this. I cannot even pay for this out of my own pocket to serve the constituents of New Mexico. It is against the rules. I will be held in violation of House rules. And why they did it, I do not know. It affects as many people in their party as it does ours.

Now, given that backdrop, it is very interesting to see that the Speaker of the House now wants a 42-place aircraft to transport her. She was given the access to a Lear jet-type aircraft that the former Speaker used, 12 seats, 5 crew members, and those are very comfortable, plush seats. But now then she is wanting a 42-person aircraft with a crew of 16.

The cost of flying that aircraft is $22,000 per hour. The cost for her to round-trip back and forth to California is going to be an astounding $420,000. Now, we just voted for an omnibus where we took funds away from our military, and yet she is asking the military to not only take funds away from the troops, but also to fund this $420,000 trip, presumably every weekend, because all of us try to go home every weekend.

At the same time she has taken a constitutional provision for me to use my private property, to use my own funds, my own aircraft, and I cannot do that because she has made it against the rules.

Now, we were told when the Democratic majority took over that there was going to be a new way of doing business, and we are finding out what that way of doing business is today. We are finding the willingness to limit people from using personal assets, while on the other hand reaching for these extraordinarily large perks.

Madam Speaker, I would request unanimous consent to submit for the Record the actual words of the rule. Also I would like to submit for the Record the Washington Post article which brings out the observations about this new Speaker requesting these. It is dated February 6, 2007. And then I would like to submit for the Record the Lou Dobbs comments last night that she could take a circus with her. So we will submit those.

H. Res. 6 Rules Restrictions on Members Travel

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this massive $463 billion dollar spending bill because it fails four critical tests: the accountability test, the common sense test, the compassion test, and most of all--the smell test.

Hatched behind close doors by the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees with no input from Members or their constituents, H.J. Res. 20 levels a devastating blow against New Mexicans and their communities. Our most vulnerable low-income residents will pay the heaviest price.

As Deputy Ranking Member of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, I wish to point out that the Majority's arbitrary choices are ripping nearly one million dollars away from the public housing authorities in my district and the people they serve; including $272,428 from the Las Cruces Housing Authority; $158,355 from the Dona Ana Housing Authority; $30,461 from the Gallup Housing Authority; $40,717 from the Truth or Consequences Housing Authority; $15,076 from the Bernalillo Housing Authority, $43,596 from the Los Lunas Housing Authority; and a combined total of $416,173 from the Region V and Region II Housing Authorities.

A Section 8 voucher manager of one of my District's housing authorities described these drastic cuts as comparable to losing an entire month's worth of vouchers to the poor and needy families she serves. Another New Mexico housing authority representative stated that 100 families per month could lose access to vouchers in the region that housing authority serves.

The Majority's carelessly slung meat cleaver doesn't stop there. H.J. Res. 20 strips critical funding from the restoration of the Our Lady of Guadalupe Mission; essential economic development funding for a Business Park in Anthony-Berino; and desperately needed emergency ambulance services for the citizens of the Village of Columbus.

Two weeks ago, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and I announced our bipartisan determination to fight the dangerous scourge of methamphetamine use, production, and distribution in our state. Tragically, the Majority's ill-considered cuts will slash funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET) by $30 million and 134 agents and Regional Enforcement Teams (RET) by $9 million and 23 agents. Our local and state law enforcement officers depend upon the MET and RET initiatives as two of their most effective tools in this fight. Many officers in my district have told me that even at current levels, MET funding is insufficient.

Perhaps the Majority's leadership has decided this battle isn't worth fighting. A few moments with the individuals and families whose lives this evil drug has destroyed might change their minds. But they don't seem to have the time to stop and think about how their choices will affect the safety of real people.

H.J. Res. 20 also reduces the funding associated with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) process by nearly $4 billion, causing delays in the scheduled repositioning of the 1st Armored Division from Germany to Fort Bliss and the Air Force Special Operations Command from overseas to Cannon Air Force Base. The Majority's decision not only perpetuates inefficient overseas bases; it severely impacts the painstaking community development plans devised by cities like Las Cruces, Alamogordo, and Clovis in New Mexico.

Last, but certainly not least given the Majority's lip service in support of supplemental and alternative energy technologies, H.J. Res. 20 shreds funding for promising initiatives in this area. Consider, for example, a letter I submit for the Record from Karl Gawell of the Geothermal Energy Association. Mr. Gawell states that this legislation ``will be a serious setback for efforts in the House and Senate to restore the DOE geothermal research program.''

I have worked with Mr. Gawell to explore opportunities for expanded geothermal energy development in Southern New Mexico and I take his concerns very seriously. I hope that my colleagues will, too.

Mr. Speaker, as one who remains committed to vigorously fighting wasteful spending, I understand--and share--the Majority's desire to eliminate unnecessary earmarks. A rushed and ham-handed bill designed for appearances isn't the right way to do it. My constituents deserve the chance to have their voices heard--an opportunity which the normal process of public hearings is designed to provide.

Certainly, H.J. Res. 20 contains positive elements, such as the significant increase it provides in funding for veterans. I wish I could vote yes for that reason alone--but I cannot support a bill that inflicts so much pain on so many New Mexicans in an indiscriminate and slipshod manner.

I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a ``no'' vote.

Geothermal Energy Association,

Washington, DC, January 30, 2007.

Dear Representative: I am writing to express our serious

concern about the direction being set by the FY 07

Appropriations bill, H.J. Res. 20, that the House will be

considered tomorrow. This bill will be a serious setback for

efforts in the House and Senate to restore the DOE geothermal

research program.

While the bill includes a generic $300 million increase in

funding for renewable energy, it allows the Secretary of

Energy to distribute those funds. Meanwhile, we are told that

the base for funding will be the Administration's FY 07

request, which for geothermal energy was ZERO!

The House adopted an amendment last year to the Energy and

Water Appropriations Bill sponsored by Representative

Millender-McDonald appropriating $5 million for geothermal

research in FY 07, and the Senate Appropriations Bill as

reported by Subcommittee and Committee would have restored

the entire $23.5 million geothermal program.

There is simply no justification for terminating geothermal

energy research at the Department of Energy. Recent studies

by the National Research Council, the Western Governors

Association Clean Energy Task Force, and MIT all support

expanding geothermal research funding to develop the

technology necessary to utilize this vast, untapped domestic

renewable energy resource.

We urge the House to take action to address this tragic

situation as it considers the

FY 07 Appropriations bill and ensure continued funding for

DOE's geothermal research efforts.

Sincerely,

Karl Gawell,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Republican motion to recommit.

Last year, I held nearly 40 town hall meetings across New Mexico talking to our local communities about combating methamphetamine use in our towns. Twenty of these meetings were in schools with our school kids, and we found that five times the national average of kids in New Mexico are addicted to methamphetamines, up to 15 percent of our elementary and high school students are already addicted.

Two weeks ago, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and I announced our bipartisan determination to fight the dangerous scourge of methamphetamine use, production and distribution in our State. Tragically, the majority's ill-considered cuts will slash funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration Mobile Enforcement Teams, the MET teams, by $30 million and 134 agents, and Region Enforcement Teams, the RETs, by $9 million and 23 agents.

Our local and State law enforcement officers depend on the MET and RET initiative as two of the most effective tools in this fight. Many officers in my district have told me that even at current level of funding, MET is insufficient.

Perhaps the majority leadership has decided battles against illegal drugs are not worth fighting. A few moments with the individuals and families who I met with in my 20 school meetings and 19 additional town hall meetings might change their minds. But we did not seem to have time to consider the people and the effects on the lives of kids in the real America that we face today. We were explained, well, maybe we made a few mistakes. Do tell. We made mistakes that affect the lives of the young people of this Nation and the heart and the soul of this country.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. Work with us to protect and defend the families of New Mexico and all of America.

I would thank the gentleman from Iowa, and consider his comments to the fullest.

I would congratulate my friends across the aisle for their attempts at activity in the first 100 hours. The truth is that, like my friend from Iowa, I am in business. My wife and I had a small business that we bought in, and we had four employees; 14 years later we had 50 employees. We sold that business when we came here. But I understand the creation of jobs and I understand the impact of taxes, the impact of what we do here in Washington. And I like the idea that we would move to bold action. I like the idea that we would compel these United States to be different and new and think differently. But I will tell you, there are some things that in the last 2 weeks have concerned me greatly.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to visit Egypt. When I was in Egypt, I noticed that almost every building had rebar and unconstructed pieces on top. So I mentioned to a friend of mine who was in the embassy that, why are all the buildings unfinished here? His comment was that they do not tax the buildings until they are complete, and so no one ever finishes their house, their home, the building they live in. The top floor is always under construction. And if they get that floor finished, they continue on and put rebar out onto a new addition that may never actually take place.

The truth is, that is a great example of one of the fundamentals of economics: The things that we tax more of, we have fewer. We tax complete houses, so in Egypt we have fewer full, complete houses. That same principle works here.

Now, yesterday on the floor of the House we heard much language that certainly appeals to many people in this Nation, that we are going to get back at those big greedy oil companies, that we are going to tax the people who have taken advantage of the American consumer. I would just point to the photograph on my right, this is what we are taxing. If the principle holds that we have fewer of what we tax, then we would understand that there are going to be fewer of these monstrous oil rigs. This is about a $1 billion to $1.5 billion project that sits out either in the Gulf of Mexico or off of the California coast and they produce tremendous amounts of oil.

I am from an oil producing State, New Mexico, but our oil wells are single wells coming up out of the ground. This one may have 20 or 30 wells that diverge out once it gets under the ocean. Our single wells may produce 50 barrels a day, and that would be a good well in New Mexico. These billion dollar investments might produce thousands or tens of thousands of barrels of oil per day. So like my friend from Iowa said, they contribute greatly to lowering the price of oil and, therefore, lowering the price of gasoline.

Now, in our friends' enthusiasm across the aisle to raise the taxes on those oil companies that have produced so much, what they are actually going to do is raise the taxes on these facilities so that we produce fewer of these and fewer gallons and barrels of oil and gallons of gasoline, which means simply that the price is going to go up at the pump.

Now, I am struck when we are faced with the comments that my friend from Iowa made; I am struck by the comments that he found issues in almost every bill that were like this, that had been poorly thought out yet not subject to the full complement of congressional hearings that they should have gone through, not subject to any amendment. And as I am thinking about his observations, I am drawn to a comment in the Detroit Free Press, and I would submit for the Record this entire document. But let me highlight this one quote. This is

Mr. Dingell speaking, talking about the new greenhouse special committee that is being suggested by the new Speaker. And Mr. Dingell says, ``We should probably name it the Committee on World Travel and Junkets.'' Mr. Dingell told the Associated Press, ``We are just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor.''

[From the Detroit Free Press, Jan. 19, 2007]

Dingell Is Overstepped on Climate

(By Justin Hyde)

Washington.--The battle among House Democrats over global

warming heated up Thursday as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

announced the formation of a special committee to hold

hearings on climate change, a job that had been under the

watch of U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.

Dingell, who has long opposed tougher fuel economy

standards because of concerns about their effect on Detroit

automakers, will still maintain significant control over any

global warming bill through his chairmanship of the House

Energy and Commerce Committee. He has already asked former

Vice President Al Gore to testify on climate change and told

members last week that climate change would be a top priority

through a series of hearings to be held soon.

But the special committee reflects concern by Pelosi and

other Democrats who want fast action on global warming that

Dingell might object to provisions they support. Many House

Democrats support setting higher fuel economy targets on

vehicles as part of any effort to reduce carbon dioxide

emissions linked to a warming of the Earth.

Dingell said he had not seen a detailed list of the

committee's responsibilities.

Pelosi's move increases the likelihood that Democrats will

propose far tougher constraints on greenhouse gas pollution

than the Bush administration wants. She also has outflanked

for now--and angered--a few Democrats who head important

House committees.

``We should probably name it the committee on world travel

and junkets,'' Dingell told the Associated Press. ``We're

just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around

and make speeches and make commitments that will be very

difficult to honor.''

Pelosi announced Thursday that she would form a Select

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which

would hold hearings and seek suggestions for ways to address

climate change. She said Congress needed the committee ``to

communicate with the American people on this important

issue,'' and that Democrats would come up with bills by July

4.

``The science of global warming and its impact is

overwhelming and unequivocal,'' Pelosi said in a statement.

``We already have many of the technology and techniques that

we need to reduce global warming pollution, and American

ingenuity will supply the rest. With this new select

committee, we demonstrate the priority we are giving to

confront this most serious challenge.''

Pelosi and her aides did not disclose who would head the

committee or how many members it would have, but no members

of Dingell's Energy and Commerce Committee will apparently be

included. While the committee will hold hearings around the

country, Pelosi told members Thursday it will not have the

ability to write legislation--the key power of the Energy and

Commerce Committee.

What concerns Dingell and his allies is that Pelosi is

using a select committee rather than a simple task force to

highlight climate change. Under House rules, a select

committee will have to be created by a House vote, and Pelosi

aides say the committee will have Republican members--

features that sound more like a legislative body than a

Democratic communications tool.

The California Democrat has long backed environmental

issues and has asked Dingell and other committee chairmen to

submit their ideas for climate change legislation by June 1.

But once the select committee issues its findings, Pelosi

could rely on that for legislation or use it instead of what

Dingell's committee produces.

Energy issues already appear to be the hottest topic on

Capitol Hill. House Democrats celebrated the end of their

100-hour legislative blitz by passing a bill raising about

$15 billion in fees and royalties from oil companies. The

revenue is aimed at financing research for alternative fuels

and energy conservation.

President George W. Bush's aides have said energy issues

will play a key role in Bush's State of the Union address on

Tuesday.

White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters Thursday

that the President's speech would address the ``needs of

security and, at the same time, also the environment.''

U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Menominee Democrat and member of

Dingell's committee, said the select committee could be

useful to ``highlight the importance of global warming'' and

that it won't prevent Energy and Commerce from holding its

own hearings.

``However, the legislative writing ability has to remain

within the Energy and Commerce Committee,'' Stupak said. ``If

suddenly there was a special committee . . . that had

legislative writing powers, I'd be very concerned because

that's a direct assault on a sitting committee.''

Now, when I see our friends who I know don't intend to undermine the economy of this country make decisions like they did yesterday, I am concerned that Mr. Dingell is very accurate, that we have empowered a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs, that they do not understand the full consequences of their actions.

If we look at the Tunagate scandal where we have now exempted from all of America just one piece of America, SunKist and Del Monte as the parent corporation; every corporation in America, according to the minimum wage law, must, whether they can afford it or not, pay a new higher minimum wage. That is the potential of the majority. And yet they came in, the Speaker gave an exclusion to one company, one company based in her district.

Now, we have heard a lot about the ending of special favors and ending the culture of corruption, and yet one of the first things we do is get a special interest. That does not speak so well for the full intent to follow through in this new beginning that we have been given.

I would also point out that one of the greatest arguments made in the renegotiation, allowing government to negotiate the prices on medical prescription drugs, I would point out that one of the harshest criticisms of this bill yesterday, the energy bill, H.R. 6, was that government negotiators failed to get it right; that government negotiators failed to put the provisions in. They did not even ask the oil companies to put those provisions into the contracts, and yet it is the same type of negotiator who we are going to turn loose and say that now we are going to get better prices than what the private negotiators have. I simply don't believe it. I voted the other way. But we will see if our enthusiastic amateurs have gotten it right, or if we in fact do not increase revenues to the Treasury and in fact begin to limit access to prescription medications, which is what I have been told.

For an example, we can go and look at the Veterans Prescription Drug List, and we see that I think the number is only 30 percent of the drugs that have been introduced in the last 5 to 10 years are actually on the list for veterans. They don't have the same access that people on the Medicare prescription drug program do. So that would be a terrible shame if, in their enthusiasm to create a better plan, our friends have instead created a worse plan. I am certainly willing to work with them and see, but in the meantime I do worry.

Now, there is a piece of the legislation yesterday that we all must read. If you have access to your computers, you can always look up H.R. 6, and go to page 10. That is section 2, title II, and we are under the section 204 and we actually then begin a long series of pages and we come to page 10 under section 204, item C. And I will read this, because you as colleagues will find this stunning that it is actually in print. That transfers item C, line 4, page 10: A lessee shall not be eligible to obtain any economic benefit of any covered lease or any other lease.

So President Clinton's team had negotiated bad leases, and now our friends are saying that those bad leases must be stopped. We simply need to stop them. We don't need to unravel them. We don't need to go through the thorny process of making it right for both sides as we unravel. We simply are going to punish you by not allowing you to derive any economic benefit from this type of installation. I will tell you, that undermines the full faith and credit of the United States. If we cannot depend on the word of the United States, then what do we have? I would draw parallels to things that other countries have done.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez in 2001 raised the royalty rates from 1 percent to 16 percent just like that. Now, I will tell you as a business guy, if you know that a cost is going to be 1 percent or 16 percent, it is sort of irrelevant, but you must know that the cost is steady. When he raised those rates just at a single point with no ability to redesign these types of infrastructures, then he severely limited the interest of people to invest in that country, and certainly

that is exactly what is happening. Foreign firms are already curtailing their investments in that country.

So in Venezuela we see that there is an attempt to change existing contracts, very similar to the way that we changed yesterday on the floor of this House of Representatives, and it has affected the desire of people to invest in Venezuela.

In Bolivia we have the same thing. The Bolivian government threatened to expel oil companies from that country in 2006 if they did not agree to new government terms on existing contracts. What has happened? I think you could forecast what has happened. What is done is that foreign investors are now beginning to reconsider whether or not they will actually be a part of the Bolivian economy or not. This is the thing that all shareholders, they will live with any certainty in life, but they will not live with uncertainty. And when we begin to change the contracts, they begin to pull their investments out and go to places where certainty is more of a potential.

In Russia we have seen the same thing. Companies such as Shell, Exxon, BP have had valid oil and gas leases in Russia for years. President Putin had a number of government agencies threaten to pull these leases for a number of suspect reasons. By threatening to pull these leases, Shell was forced to give up assets that were worth billions of dollars. So we see in Russia this attempt to maneuver contracts, to manipulate contracts much as what we did yesterday, and the effects are very bad. Long term, Russia will not have people who are willing to come and invest in that country.

In 2001, I had the opportunity to go as a company; my wife and I had a small company that dealt in oil and gas, repairs of oil wells. Russia was looking for such capability. So in 2001, I went with a team of people who did various different projects. We were the ones who did down hole repairs on oil wells. They took me, they showed me files of maybe 6,000 or 8,000 wells that were simple to correct, yet they in their technology in 2001 did not have access to even the basics that my father had seen here in the United States in the early 1950s when he was working in the same industry. My father retired from Exxon; his whole life was work.

So when I went back, I showed him the videos of the equipment that was in Russia in 2001. He said, ``Son, in 1950 we were more advanced than what we are seeing here.''

When countries are unwilling to allow people to have stable returns, it doesn't have to be high returns, low returns, but there must be stability and there must be predictability. When countries do not allow that, there will be no investments. And so here Russia was with over 6,000 wells asking me in 2001 to come and fix because they did not have anyone that was capable of fixing them.

I determined that the environment was very, very unsettling in Russia, so we actually opted not to become a part of the team that went there. There was a company that was about 10 times our size located in Abilene, Texas. They did go. That was about maybe a $50 million company, maybe a $100 million company. Within 2 years, they were selling everything at bankruptcy because the Russians, as you can predict, said, ``No. These assets are going to belong to us.''

So this contracting problem that was attempted to be cured yesterday in legislation I think is going to be, instead of a fix, is going to cause prices to be higher at the pump, investments to be less, and at the end of the day we are going to wonder if maybe we did not empower a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make commitments on behalf of the Federal Government. We shall see. I wish my friends well.

I would say that I am not the only one who wonder about the contracts. Just day before yesterday the Washington Post had an editorial which declared that these elements that are included in the bill, the ones that begin to undo the contracts that we voted on yesterday and pushed by the majority in this House, the Washington Post declared those solutions to be ones that Russia and Bolivia would be proud of.

Now, that is not exactly the new direction that the American people were promised as we came into this session. So I would encourage my colleagues to please open the process up. With debate in committee, these shortcomings in bills could have been brought out. The rough edges could have been knocked off the bills. Instead, we have been faced with bills that have no amendments allowed, no debate in committees, no consideration in committees. And so I worry that our friends are circumventing democracy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and salute my colleagues for working at a concept really that we all agree on: Energy independence. I refer only to the second title in these comments, where I oppose the rule which says there will be no amendments.

Title II is the one where the Washington Post says ``This House bill would break its deadlock by imposing heavy penalties on firms that do not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.'' They go on to say, ``This heavy handed attack on the stability of contracts would be welcomed in Russia and Bolivia.''

Let's look at just a couple of things that have occurred recently. In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated private oil firms to cooperate with new contractual changes, much as we are doing in section 2. The investment from foreign firms, which is vital for Chavez's economic plan to succeed, are already being curtailed due to the uncertain investment environment.

In 2006, Bolivia threatened to expel oil companies that refused to agree to new terms on existing contracts. These actions were done for short-term increases in revenue, yet they are leading to massive economic problems in the country through the oil and gas industry.

Also, in Russia, 2006, companies such as Shell, Exxon, and BP have held valid oil and gas leases for years, yet Putin has declared that the agencies are going to pull these leases for a number of suspect reasons. In section 2, title II, we have those same sorts of heavy handed approaches that the Washington Post editorial complains about.

Our colleagues have said that President Bush refused to get serious. If getting serious is undermining the full faith and credit of this government, then I will agree that President Bush failed to get serious.

I had also heard a comment from one of my distinguished colleagues on the other side that this agenda includes things that the minority would not do, and I will agree the minority would not do those things which undermine the contractual basis of this government.

I think this bill should be back in committee to have the hearing and the amendments that would occur, because you know that these things are not valid and will not promote more production from U.S. companies but less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will join with the distinguished chairman in bringing actions to terminate employees who are incompetent in the Interior Department and bring legal malpractice actions against those firms negotiating for the U.S. Government and creating the problems.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Resources Committee, the distinguished and honorable gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a couple of points up on this in response to the gentleman who was just making the points.

First of all, we talk about the $440 million that the head of Exxon makes. If we divide out the numbers of millions and billions of dollars that Exxon pays out to shareholders and compare it to Tiger Woods, for instance, Tiger Woods made $25,181 a stroke. Shaquille O'Neal made $18,300 per minute that he played. A-Rod made $180,000 per run batted in.

And the people who provide gasoline and oil at the price, $3 for gasoline, you will pay more than $3 for this fingernail polish that comes out to $25,000 per bottle. This bottled water is over $400 per barrel, and it does not require an investment in an operation like this. These offshore platforms are over $1 billion investment, and you are saying that oil is overpriced and we are gouging the American consumers. Next, you should go after bottled water and after fingernail polish because this is $25,000 per barrel.

We need to understand that it takes a lot of investment to put gas in the pumps. It cannot be done. I have heard today that we are going to provide wave energy. Wave energy on our F-16s, I can just imagine it now. The investments to power this Nation are extraordinarily high, and we are not overcompensating the companies that do that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes on this new energy policy for the Nation that some are calling the Hugo Chavez Competitive Rewards Advantage Program to Mr. Shimkus from Illinois.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize one of our new Members, Mr. Lamborn from Colorado, for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my friend from Texas, Mr. Conaway, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there are three titles in this bill. First deals with ways and means problems, those problems that have to do with taxes. We can have legitimate discussions on whether to tax or not tax corporations.

The third title deals with the renewable resources. Being from New Mexico, I think we should be exploring and investing in renewable resources. New Mexico is one of the few States that would be self- sufficient in wind and solar. We are making heavy investments in nuclear energy and in biomass, hydrogen, and geothermal.

I am very committed to the section that the Democrats have on title III. The one I have deep reserves about is title II. In that title, page 10 says a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain the economic benefit of any covered lease, or any other lease.

Mr. Speaker, what is occurring here is the piece that is referred to in yesterday's Washington Post editorial where the Democrats are described as being heavy handed. The stability of contracts that would be recognized and welcomed in Russia and Bolivia, I do not think that our friends on the other side of the aisle intended to do this. Therefore, I recommend that we kindly send this back to committee and we could take out these offenses.

Mr. Speaker, the quality of a nation and its government depends on the full faith and credit of that government. This government depends on making promises that are not written to its seniors, to its veterans. Those promises are honored. But it also makes contractual promises, promises where companies are spending billions of dollars based on the contractual agreement that is there. If we are going to find a way out of those foolish mistakes made by the Clinton administration, I agree we need to do it, but we do not need to do it in the way that they did in Venezuela and Bolivia and Russia. We need to go about it in a proper way. If we are going to punish people who did not voluntarily change a contract, we are no better than those countries that nationalize their industries.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not energy policy, it is industrial policy. The San Francisco wing of the Democrat Party is switching from blaming America first to blaming the American way of life first for all the ills they conjure up.

San Francisco Democrats want to tell the American people they should be running their cars off wind, yet I will tell you that there is only one institution in this Nation that runs off wind and that is the hot air that fuels this institution.

Mr. Speaker, energy is the largest business in the world, not because governments make it so but because 6 billion people demand the freedom and quality of life that its use provides. When America went from horses to cars it was because cars were more efficient and faster than horses, not because government deemed they should be driving in cars. When America went from dirt roads to asphalt it was because asphalt was the more efficient surface that could withstand rain and snow, not because government told people to use it.

Just because we say people should be using wind and solar to power their cars does not mean it is going to occur.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would observe that it is my intent to reserve the balance of my time until the closing of the entire bill, if that would assist the gentleman in planning his time.

I am just going to reserve my 5 minutes of debate time until after the next two committees have gone.

I appreciate that clarification from the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out that the conservation fee in this bill, contrary to the testimony we are hearing, applies to all leases, according to the language in the bill, and that clarification is a very important distinction.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate after the other committees have used their time.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker and fellow House Members, let's take a look at what we are doing here today. The Democrats say that they are reducing America's dependence on oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative resources. Both goals, I agree, are admirable.

In the process, they are trying to unravel a very thorny problem of contracts that were badly negotiated by the Clinton administration, contracts that the Clinton administration made no attempt to remedy. But let's look at what is actually occurring.

In title I, we are penalizing American oil and gas companies and rewarding foreign companies by taxing them differently. That is, we are going to favor foreign jobs and foreign oil over domestic jobs and domestic oil.

The second thing we are doing is charging a conservation fee on U.S.- produced oil while protecting foreign oil from this tax. Now, again, this is $9. If I could get the House to focus on the percentages for just a moment.

If $9 is added on top of the $70 charged to a production company that is making $70 a barrel, that is about 12.8 percent. But already the price of oil has fallen to about $52. And if $9 is assessed into a $50- a-barrel revenue stream, then it is 18 percent.

But what happens if the price of oil falls to $30? I would remind my constituents that as little as 3\1/2\ years ago the price of oil was actually at $20. And there, you now have a fee on top of the taxes that is 45 percent. A 45 percent fee will begin to move exploration away from this Nation.

In 1999 and 2000, I was in an oil and gas company that did repairs for oil and gas wells. The price of oil fell to $6. At that point, our fee is going to be 150 percent.

This bill is extraordinarily prescriptive in declaring not a percent, but instead a fixed fee. It disadvantaged tremendously the production of oil and gas.

But probably the most serious consequence of this bill is where, on page 10, it describes that ``a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain the economic benefit of any covered lease or any other lease.''

This is the piece of the bill that The Washington Post declares to be heavy handed, the heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts, a process that would be welcomed in Russia and Bolivia.

In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated that private oil firms cooperate with new contractual changes. Those firms that did not agree had their assets nationalized.

This bill does not nationalize, but it prohibits firms who do not agree from participating in future contracts. It is a very serious contractual problem.

Bolivia in 2006 threatened to expel oil companies that refused to agree to new government terms on already existing contracts. That is extraordinarily close to what we are doing in this bill. What Bolivia did has caused investors to begin to take their investments out of Bolivia.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin wants to gain complete control, and so he has begun to renegotiate with companies like Shell, Exxon and BP, who have held valid oil leases in Russia for several years. Mr. Putin had a number of government agencies threaten to pull these leases for a number of suspect reasons. That is exactly the language contained in this bill.

I do not think it is the intent of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to be this heavy handed. This bill would have been presented differently if it had been sent to committee, if it had been debated in committee and if amendments had been allowed. My request is that we vote ``no'' on this bill and we send it back to the committee where we can get a good hearing to take the very troublesome parts of this bill, troublesome parts which The Washington Post describe as heavy handed and the sort of thing that you would expect in Russia and Bolivia.

In this country, we want an environment that causes people to go out and invest. We want people to create jobs and to create a better standard of living. But this bill begins to undermine the full faith and credit of the United States by changing the contractual basis. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Madam Speaker, I object.

I would thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this important item up tonight and will enjoy the opportunity to address it.

First of all, as we went through the discussions today, we were told, I heard that it was not the intent to lower production. It was not the intent to harm the American consumer. It was not the intent to defraud the contracting process. But I would share with my colleagues that the same kind of language

had to be used in the first item that came to the floor.

That item, the majority placed an element into the new rules package which said that a Member, Delegate Or Resident Commissioner may not use personal funds, official funds or campaign funds for a flight on a nongovernmental airplane that is not licensed by the FAA to operate for compensation or hire.

Now, when it came up for their own colleagues, they came to the floor and just declared in their comments that this was not the intent of the provision. But it is the effect of the provision, because they absolutely outlawed, they made it illegal to use even your own funds or campaign funds or MRA, that is the Congressional delegation funds, for private aircraft. So you had then Mr. Hastings of Florida say, I want to assure my colleagues that this is not the intent of this provision.

Now, either we are bumping into people who were not quite prepared to present legislation to the floor, who are maybe getting bad advice, maybe thinking a little bit too quickly, maybe being driven by an agenda to bring stuff to the floor, to bring legislation to the floor that is a little bit narrowly constructed without the opportunity to go to committee.

But let's take a look at what happened today in this energy bill. The first thing they declared was that energy companies are making so much profit that they must be declared immoral, that we must take back some of that money. We heard that over and over and over again today.

But I would like to take a look at a chart here that begins to break down the cost of petroleum versus the cost of some of the other items take we have.

The cost of oil, today, is $52 per barrel. The cost of bottled water is $409.50 per barrel. The cost of American beer is $448 per barrel. The cost of ice cream is $934 per barrel. Nail polish rings up an amazing $75,264 per barrel.

So we have to ask how it is that we are declaring too much profit is being made? I heard today that oil companies, the top oil companies made $96 billion in profit. Yet when I look at Microsoft in just this past year, it was $36 billion just by itself.

If we are going to make it wrong, if we are going to simply set up the class struggle between companies that make extraordinary profits, we should look at those that have no investment in large capital.

When I look at the elements of producing oil that we are describing today, I see an investment in a rig that is almost like $1 billion to $1.5 billion. Now each one of these components that is made on this rig creates jobs, they create cash flow, they create profits for a whole range of companies.

So when my colleagues were saying we need to go up on the taxes for these pieces of property, I think that the American consumer is smart enough to realize that investors just might choose not to put their money into this project.

If that is the case, then we are going to find that our colleagues, in trying to assure energy independence, will, in fact, ensure energy dependence.

Because in America, in the United States, we are driven further and further offshore, further and further down into the ground in order to produce oil.

Saudi Arabia produces from a very shallow depth. Some of the wells in our district may be 20,000 feet deep. Saudi Arabia could be producing from as shallow as 1,000 feet deep. Saudi Arabia already has significant cost advantages over the United States production. We have tried to encourage this kind of drilling, this kind of production, to see that we have as much oil and gas as possible from internal sources.

Now, our friends have said that they wanted to create incentives for the renewable fuels. Then they declared that the previous Congress for 12 years did nothing. I don't think they absolutely intended to mislead the American public on that, but they certainly did.

Just because of the effects of the Energy 2005 Act that we passed from the Republican House, let me read a list of renewable projects that have already started or are already showing results.

First of all, because of that legislation in 2005, 27 new ethanol plants have broken ground, 500 million gallons of new annual ethanol production is online already, 1.4 billion gallons of ethanol production are online by the end of 2006; 401 E-85 pumps, those are the pumps that can give you 85 percent ethanol if you pull up and have an engine that will burn ethanol; 25 new nuclear reactors are planned, 25,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020 if all 25 plants are built, 15 million households can be powered from the electricity by the 25 plants; 116,871 new hybrid vehicles have been purchased since January 1 of 2006, so the last calendar year, over 116,000 vehicles that are hybrids; there were 2,000 megawatts of new wind power.

Many of those wind generators went into the second district of New Mexico that I represent. Many others lie just outside the district. Wind generators are not suitable for all parts of the country, but New Mexico is one of the few States that could be self-sufficient on wind energy. Very few States are capable of doing that; 493,000 homes will now be powered by new wind power.

Three billion in economic activity is spurred by the wind power production. There is 7 billion pounds of CO2 offset by new wind power production, 1 million homes that can be powered by new wind power by the end of 2006, 100 percent increase in California and New Jersey and the applications for photovoltaic systems, 30 percent increase nationwide are solar, thermal collector installations. We had 15 new efficiency standards implemented for large appliances and 50,000 megawatts of energy saved by 2020 because of the 15 new efficiency standards.

Now, our friends today said frequently that they were giving comments like clean energy policy starts today. Well, they are making the implication that nothing was done previously, and such is just not the case.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. One of the distressing things about the vote we took today was that not only were we setting up kind of an undisclosed fund, a slush fund for things that had already been done, the $8 billion referred to by my colleague from Tennessee was in the Energy Act of 2005 and was very specific. It had incentives for wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydrogen and nuclear. It had

incentives for many of the renewable fuels. Those incentives are taking place and those incentives are causing developments to take place that are very significant.

But the very damaging thing about this bill today was it violated a constitutional provision that prohibits the Federal Government from taking private property. That occurs on page 10 of the bill. Again, I would read the excerpts from the bill, line 4 on transfers. Basically the language says: ``A lessee,'' and some language in between, ``shall not be eligible to obtain the economic benefit of any covered lease or any other lease for production of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico'' unless they voluntarily back away from, agree to undo these contracts written in full faith.

If you can imagine an investor, or even a stockholder, having to walk away from an investment like this because the government changed its standards, the government changed the contracting basis, you would understand then why The Washington Post said: ``This House bill would break the deadlock,'' meaning the deadlock in this contracting process that has been so messed up. ``The House would break this deadlock by imposing heavy penalties,'' that is the heavy penalty of walking away from that investment without economic return, ``on firms that do not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.

``This heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts would be welcomed in Russia, Bolivia and other countries that have been criticized for tearing up revenue sharing agreements with private energy companies.''

I would like to share with my colleagues, before I yield back, the things that this Washington Post is referring to. For instance, in Venezuela in 2006, Hugo Chavez caused royalty rates to be increased from 1 percent to 16 percent without renegotiation. In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated that private oil firms cooperate with new contractual changes. Those firms that did not agree had their assets nationalized.

Now, we are not nationalizing these assets, but we are saying you have to sacrifice any potential to make economic benefit from that. That does not seem American. It does not seem like the way that we want to run business in this country, and yet it is what the majority presented to us today. They said, well that is an unintended consequence, which brings me back to my initial point, that maybe they just should have sent these things to committee before they came to the floor with such outlandish provisions.

Bolivia in 2006 threatened to expel oil companies that refused to agree to new government terms on already existing contracts. That is very similar to what this language in this bill did. If you don't agree to the terms in the language here, then you do not get to make economic impact from an investment such as this.

In May of 2006, President Evo Morales in Bolivia suspended negotiations and nationalized his country's energy industry. These actions were done for short-term increases in revenue from taxes and royalties, but foreign investors have canceled almost new projects, which will likely lead to massive economic problems in the future.

Now, if they are going to cancel economic projects in Bolivia because of the overturn of existing contracts, I will guarantee you that they will do the same in the United States, and they will cancel future contracts.

Russia found the same thing. President Putin made firms agree to change existing leases that had been in existence for several years. He threatened to pull these leases for suspect reasons. Now he is willing to hold all of Europe hostage as he takes these nationalized assets. I will tell you that companies will not invest in Russia in the energy business in the future.

These are all problems that this bill today that was passed off the floor of the House of Representatives are going to cause. So if my colleague would give me one more second, we would run through a chart showing what American consumers can expect from this bill.

First, it sends American manufacturing jobs overseas. The second thing that it does is lower domestic energy production, so we are going to use more foreign oil, not less. It is going to provide higher prices at the pump, $3, $4, $5. Hugo Chavez, the Iranian Government and the Russian Government get the handouts at the expense of the American consumer.

American voters need to understand what has occurred in the House of Representatives today. I think that they are going to rise up when they begin to see the effects on jobs, when they see the effects at the pump, and when they see that the contractual basis, the full faith and credit of the United States, has been undermined by this piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. If he has additional time, I have other comments. But I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this important issue up.

That is a great point. Let me make one additional comment. The very amusing thing is the people that are so critical of the contracting process, the negotiation process, are exactly the same people that said we should trust the Federal Government, who negotiated so badly here, to negotiate in good faith on our prescription drugs. I will tell you, it is not congruent. It does not fit any sense of logic that I understand.

Yes. I would comment to my colleagues that a government depends on the confidence of the people. We make promises all the time, and we are expected to honor those promises if we are going to be a good government. We make promises to our seniors. We make promises to our veterans. We make promises to our young men and women who serve in the military that we will watch out for them, that we will take care of them.

But like the gentleman says, we also make written contracts and written agreements. In this bill today, we have undermined the contracting process. We have declared that previous agreements simply must be renegotiated or you give up all future rights, and when we as a country choose to do that, not only do we offend and compromise our constitutional protection of private property rights, we undermine the confidence in our Nation and in our government.

This is such a very serious step. It is a step that other Nations take very easily and yet is so significant, and yet this major step, this change in American policy was done without one single committee hearing.

This bill that was in front of us today, H.R. 6, should have gone to four different committees. Instead, it went to none, not one committee hearing, and there were new provisions in this bill. There were new people on the floor who were elected just this year who have not heard the old provisions. I do not disagree with my colleagues who wanted to make us energy independent, but they failed in that task, and in the process, they have begun to undermine the confidence of this great Nation and the great reputation it has for treating fairly those people who invest and those people who trust the government.

Who else will be undercut by actions from the floor of this House and the Democrat majority that is willing to take any step to try to enforce a new standard while declaring it to be a new way? Instead, it is an old, tried way that many other Nations have tried in the past. It is unfortunate to see now this Congress and this majority taking steps that Russia or Bolivia might have taken.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Madam Speaker, I believe we can all agree that we must work to increase opportunities to enhance the education of America's men and women. Education provides the needed foundation for helping Americans become productive working citizens. This makes our country stronger and more competitive both now and in the future.

Because I believe we must open the doors to higher education while ensuring taxpayers are protected, I plan to vote in favor of H.R. 5. This bill cuts subsidized student loan interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over a period of 5 years and includes offsets within the federal budget to ensure the budget deficit is not increased. This makes the bill a ``win-win'' situation for both college graduates and taxpayers.

However, the bill before us contains serious weaknesses--weaknesses that could have been avoided had the Majority allowed for a more open discussion both in committee and on the House floor. The bill lacks in its ability to help individuals who need to fund their education today. To truly increase college enrollment and affordability, students need to have increased access to financial aid while they are attending college.

Last year Republicans brought to the House floor more comprehensive legislation that created Academic Competitiveness and Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) grant programs to supplement the existing Pell Grant program. I supported this measure as well as an increase in student Stafford loan limits from $2,625 to $3,500 a year for first year students and $3,500 to $4,500 a year for second year students. These measures were signed into law on February 8, 2006 and are helping students get increased access to financial aid as we speak.

By focusing on the principles of fairness, accountability, affordability and quality, we can continue to reform federal student aid programs to both maximize the benefits for students and spend taxpayer dollars wisely. I look forward to the Majority changing their closed door policy and giving all Members of Congress an opportunity to put forth their ideas to develop comprehensive higher education reform this year. We must continue to improve our efforts to increase college access and affordability to help Americans achieve a better future for themselves and their families.