Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to talk about a group of exceptional students in my district. After coming to Congress last year, I put together several advisory councils made up of constituents. These panels perform research, investigations and advise me on the needs and concerns of my district, our State and our Nation across a variety of different areas.

Most recently, my Youth Advisory Council presented their report. Made up of 46 students representing 25 local high schools, the council met monthly to discuss and debate three very pertinent topics of their own choosing: Social Security, tax reform, and illegal immigration. During that time they also compiled and reviewed data from surveys administered to fellow students.

Much to my delight, the most consistent conclusion in all three working groups was that many of our young Americans are thirsty for more information on these issues. They want to be a part of the national dialogue.

I am excited to have had the opportunity to hear their voices. The information and conclusions they presented to me were extremely thorough and valuable. I thank them for their time and effort. I will work with colleagues here to implement many of their recommendations.

Or you go into junk yards, they are scrapping metal just to give them some body armor. That is despicable. That is never going to happen again. We are going to make sure of that.

Madam Speaker, last night the President spoke to the American people about his plan for establishing a secure border and a sound immigration policy.

The highlight of President Bush's plans is to send up to 6,000 National Guard troops to assist Border Patrol agents, and I applaud the President for taking steps necessary to try and secure the borders. For far too long this Nation has had a policy of benign neglect, one that has left our system of immigration fundamentally broken. National Guard troops are an excellent short-term solution. However, this action must not be part of a real effort to enforce our laws and must not be coupled with a thinly veiled attempt to grant amnesty. The American people want assurances that our sovereignty and security are being respected.

America is a nation of immigrants. It is built upon the dreams and sacrifices of those who came to share in our common goals of liberty, fairness and adherence to law. It is in celebration of these principles and in honor of those who came before us that we should act in respect for law and in respect for liberty.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is crystal clear: 32 straight months of job growth, 5.3 million new jobs created since August of 2003, the stock market within sight of a record high and homeownership at an all-time high. These are all good things.

So how should we keep the good things going? Continue the policies that brought them about. The House should ensure that we build on this success by supporting the tax conference report. Positive action today will prevent, prevent, a tax hike on millions of hardworking American families and small businesses that would greatly harm our economy.

By extending the reduced rates on capital gains and dividends, all Americans, all Americans, will be able to plan for the future with a greater sense of stability.

Furthermore, we will extend alternative minimum tax relief for Americans. The AMT was created in the 1970s, and times were much different. Today, an unacceptable number of families are exposed to this unfair tax, and this needs to stop.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are crystal clear: The Republican progrowth economic policies adopted by this House and this Congress are leading the way, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put politics aside, vote for the American people, vote today to prevent a tax increase on millions of hardworking American families.

Mr. Speaker, 6 days. In just 6 days, that is when the deadline for the Medicare prescription drug program is: May 15.

Thirty million Americans have already signed up. However, there remain other seniors who would benefit from this voluntary program, and they should take these next few days to see if Medicare part D is right for them.

To help facilitate the enrollment process in my district, I have held Medicare seminars to educate seniors on the options available, including two just last Friday. Many have said they are happy with the choices they have, and they are grateful for the time we took to sit down and explain this new program.

Yesterday I also had the chance to visit two pharmacies in my district and speak with the pharmacists and their staffs. This offered a great, behind-the-scenes look at the process these pharmacists have used to help local seniors understand and utilize this new prescription drug plan.

The general sense is that the kinks have been worked out and most seniors are truly gaining great benefit, better health.

Over the next 6 days, I urge all of my colleagues in Congress to do all that we can to provide seniors whatever assistance they may require to sign up for and navigate their new plan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I appreciate the leadership allowing us to bring this agenda forward.

When I go home, I am often times asked, How often do you get back? How do you get that touchstone? How do you make certain that you are staying in touch with your district? And most Members do go home every weekend and that is important because it is important that we keep in touch with our constituents and hear their views and their concerns. Like most Members, I go home every week, most of us go home every weekend, to my district which is the Sixth District of Georgia. It is a wonderful place to represent. It is the northern suburban Atlanta area. It is kind of the quintessential suburban district. It is full of active and productive families, patriotic Americans, hardworking folks.

And when I am at home, yes, my constituents are concerned about the war on terror, and, yes, they are concerned about the crisis of illegal immigration; but, Mr. Speaker, they are also concerned about school safety; and they are also concerned about easing the difficulty of obtaining health care for themselves and their family and their parents. And they are also concerned about increasing conservation of our Nation's resources, and they are also concerned about being able to afford a college education for their children. So tonight I am honored to join the gentleman from Illinois. I appreciate his leadership in this area, for what has been coined the Suburban Agenda.

I am pleased to support this agenda and this activity. I look forward to assisting the gentleman from Illinois and others in shepherding this legislation through the House. I am so honored to work with him in this endeavor. I look forward to the discussion this evening.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois once again for his leadership and for yielding on this issue.

As you mentioned, right below those top button issues for folks all across this Nation, but especially in the suburban area, if you ask them what is important to them, education and health care are truly right there. They are concerned about being able to have access to health care. They are concerned about being able to afford health care. They are concerned about health care for their parents, and they are concerned about the accuracy of the records that are kept regarding health care and the portability, moving those records around.

As a physician, I practiced medicine for over 20 years; and so many things have changed in medicine, the different medications that we use, the different surgical procedures that we perform. The vast majority of those were not around 20 years ago, but what is around still, not just from 20 years ago but from 40 years ago and 60 years ago is the paper record of one's health care. Most of us go into the doctor and the paper chart shuffles through the office. That was not all bad in that time, but today we can cut down on the errors in health care. We can cut down on the cost of health care. We can improve health care access to folks, to go from a primary care physician to a special physician by the use of health information technology.

Our colleague, Nancy Johnson from Connecticut, is introducing, along with the Suburban Caucus, the Health Information Technology Promotion Act. It will result in a remarkable incentive to fully promote electronic medical records that will cut the costs and reduce medical errors by over 80 percent is what the statistics will tell you. Civilian patient records in New Orleans were wiped out. One of the things that made it so was that there was not the portability of health care for those individuals. But the electronic records for veterans were fully protected and available at any VA hospital.

This is just a case in point for how much advantage we could gain as a Nation having health records available in an electronic form. Over 60 percent of Americans support this, and it is imperative that we move in this direction for safety reasons, for access reasons, and for ease of availability of health care for all citizens across this Nation, and especially in our suburban areas.

So I look forward again to working with my colleague from Illinois and all members of the Suburban Caucus and the House to promote these positive, positive agenda items in the area of health and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I tell you, one of the things that excites me so about this suburban agenda is that it addresses real issues of real people, in real life, in real-time. Oftentimes, we deal with issues and they seem kind of out there. They are far away, and they are issues that are difficult to get your arms around; but I tell you, in my community, the issue of gangs and gang violence has reared its head.

When we have neighborhood meetings or you get together with PTA groups and you talk about this, folks just shake their head. They say, It doesn't make any sense. How can this be going on?

That is why I am so excited about the suburban agenda because what it does is bring issues that people are talking about every single day in our districts back at home and saying, Why can't we do something about that? That is what Congressman Reichert has brought forward. H.R. 5291 is the Gang Elimination Act of 2006.

Will it eliminate gangs? No, but it will go a long, long way because what it does is charge the Attorney General with identifying those gangs that are the most egregious, that are the most violent, that are the most threatening to our communities all across this Nation, a lot of suburban areas, but all across this Nation and says, Let's get a strategy down to make certain that we address these and start knocking these gangs down, start making it so that these gangs are not able to function in the way that they are able to function right now and not able to threaten our families and our children.

You are absolutely right. Apparently, so many of these gangs have a rite of passage that they institute for their members. That rite of passage is often very violent. Sometimes it is the murder of a member of the police force or a member of the community.

And so this again is real-time issues, real issues that face our communities all across this Nation each day. I am proud again to stand with my colleagues here and I am so proud of Congressman Reichert for his leadership on this issue. We look forward to having it passed.

Thank you so much. So much of what you have just said makes sense. You talked about common sense. We could call this suburban agenda the common-sense agenda really, because when moms and dads sit at home and they try to figure out how to take care of their health or their child's safety or their child's college education, they want to know whether or not they are going to be able to make that happen. One of the ways to do that is obviously through increased savings.

When Congress finds something that works, we ought to do it, we ought to do more of it, especially when it results in greater savings and greater prosperity for so many individuals across our land. So with the success of retirement security and the 401(k) plans and the success of the 529 plans that you mentioned, we ought to build on that success.

That is exactly what the 401-kids family savings account does. I think it is important. Education really is a key to advancing in society.

But a college education isn't right for every single person. What the 401-kids family savings account recognizes is that that money may be best used for purchasing a first home, or for starting a new business for a child or with a child. That is expanding the success that we have had with the 529 plans, common-sense kinds of solutions that I think will be embraced by this entire House and, frankly, by all of America.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You are absolutely right. As the suburban areas expand, they often eat up the green land and the open space that is available. Before you know it, there is not enough parkland or open space that is left. And you can't get it back. It doesn't come back.

I, like so many of my colleagues here in Congress, had the privilege of serving in the State legislature. One of the bills that I was so very proud of in the State legislature in Georgia was called the Green Space bill. What it does is provide State resources to set aside on future developments a certain percentage of land for open space, green space.

I am so proud and privileged to be able to join my colleagues here in the Suburban Caucus and my two colleagues from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gerlach and Mr. Fitzpatrick, for promoting these bills that will provide encouragement for the purchase of conservation easements, as it does with Mr. Gerlach's bill, and increase tax easements to encourage charitable contributions of real property for conservation and open space purposes, which is Mr. Fitzpatrick's bill.

These are common-sense solutions. They are not mandates. They aren't requirements. They aren't the heavy hand of the law. But what they are are conservative principles being used for conservation.

I am so pleased to be able to stand with my colleagues and support these positive steps forward.

Thank you so much. This is another one of those items, as you mention, it is just common sense. When moms and dads at home wonder why their kids are subjected to the kinds of threats that they are at school, when a teacher stepping in at an appropriate time could have solved that problem, it just doesn't make any sense to them.

And you mention why it needs to be done at the Federal level. When individuals have access to Federal courts for these kinds of issues, then it is imperative that Congress step in and act because the threat of liability of a teacher ought not get in the way of the safety of our children.

When you and I were going to school, our parents would say, look, I don't care what you do, but you ought not upset the teacher. The teacher is right. The teacher is, in essence, your parent while at school, in loco parentis. I am not an attorney, but what that means is that the teacher can act as the parent while the child is at school. When

the child is at home, the parent certainly is able to search the child. So that ought to be the case at school as well. And it is important because of the day and time that we live in. Our children are subjected to risks that you and I never dreamed about, and so it is imperative that adults that are on the scene, the teachers in the classroom, administrators in the school, be trusted to make the right decisions in these areas and not be exposed to liability, not have to think in the back of their mind, if I do that, will I get sued. That's just foolishness, and it threatens our children.

So I am proud once again that you brought that forward.

I thank you so much for yielding and for your leadership on this issue. I want to also thank once again our leadership, the Speaker and majority leader, majority whip, conference Chair, for allowing us to share with the House and with the American people tonight this exciting, commonsense suburban agenda. And it's not just for the suburban area, but the problems and challenges that we have in suburban America oftentimes precede those that we see elsewhere. And so it is so very important that we move this forward, the commonsense suburban agenda.

As I mentioned before, folks in our districts are concerned about all the big issues, the huge issues, the war on terror, the crisis of illegal immigration; but they are also concerned about the issues of school safety. They are also concerned about the issues of making certain that their children are safe when they go on the Internet. They are also concerned about the importance of having private personal medical records and the ease of being able to take them from one doctor to another. They are terribly concerned about making certain that we preserve our Nation's open space and green space. And they are concerned about the ability that they have to assist their children in succeeding, whether it be through starting a business or providing a college education for them.

So I commend the gentleman from Illinois so highly for his leadership on this issue. He has been a champion for the entire length of time, short time, that I have been in the United States Congress. It is a privilege to stand with you this evening, and I look forward to shepherding with you these issues through the United States House and Congress.

Madam Speaker, another month has passed and good economic news continues to roll in. Last month, the U.S. economy added 211,000 jobs. That marks 31 consecutive months of job growth. Thirty-one straight months. The unemployment rate is now 4.7 percent. Thirty-one months of small and large businesses expanding, hiring, and investing.

And Americans know that things look bright. So what do they do? They take that confidence and they invest. On Tuesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a 6-year high.

America's economy is thriving, Madam Speaker, across the board. Homeownership is up, the number of minority owned businesses is up, and the job market for today's college graduates is the best it has been in over 5 years. These numbers don't lie, and they are very clear to see. The American economy is alive and well.

Madam Speaker, this is good news. Americans know this, and I encourage my colleagues to recognize this as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, this past Friday I had a wonderful opportunity to witness, firsthand, America's innovative spirit in action. An organization named For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, FIRST, held its 15th annual Robotic Competition Championship in Atlanta.

Founded in 1989 by Dean Kamen, FIRST is a world-renowned organization that promotes the study and application of science, math, engineering and technology. Over the 3 days of competition, 28,000 participants from seven different countries took part, including students from Wheeler High School in my own district. During the events, students were immersed in an intense competitive environment where they employed innovative solutions to solve real-life engineering problems in a sports-like activity. Teamwork, ingenuity, flexibility and cooperation are all rewarded.

In a continually evolving and competitive global market, Americans

must work to retain our time-honored spirit of scientific leadership. Math and science are invaluable pillars of a strong education; and our schools, in coordination with organizations like FIRST, will ensure the creation of a new generation of world leaders, but only if we are proactively committed.

Thank you so much, Congressman Gingrey. I appreciate the opportunity to join you today. I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. You have been one of the stalwart champions of appropriate health care, health system reform, and come with such a wonderful background of information. You and I served in the State legislature in Georgia together, and now here, and it is just a privilege to join you tonight. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you.

I also want to thank the leadership for making certain that we bring this wonderful news, exciting news for America's seniors to the House of Representatives and to the Nation because it is a time of great opportunity for seniors all across our Nation. We are in a period of time right now, as you mentioned, that seniors are able to sign up voluntarily, voluntarily, and I think it is important that people remember that, it is a voluntary program, and participate in this new Medicare part D program.

As you mentioned, I am a physician as well. We used to practice together in the Atlanta metropolitan area. I am a third-generation physician. My father and grandfather were doctors as well. And the things that I was able to use to care for my patients were a whole lot different than those things that my father and grandfather were able to use, and that is because medicine is an evolving science. It is not set in stone. Things change, and things change virtually daily. But Medicare is a program that has not kept up with medicine. Medicare is a program that has not kept up with medicine.

When Medicare started 40 years ago, there were no drugs included in the program. In fact, drugs at that time, medications at that time really weren't used, well certainly weren't used as much as they are now, but weren't used to the percentage they were in terms of the numbers of patients who utilized medications, and things have changed a lot in those 40 years, as you well know, Madam Speaker.

Over the past 40 years, there have been wonderful opportunities for drug treatments to prevent and to cure diseases. Yet until now Medicare didn't include a single medication, not a single drug, in its plan. None. None. They would cover the expensive surgery it took to take care of a bleeding ulcer, but it wouldn't cover the drugs. It wouldn't cover the medications to prevent the ulcer in the first place. It would cover the surgery, the expensive surgery, and hospitalization to care for a patient that had a stroke, but it wouldn't cover the medications to control the blood pressure in the first place and prevent the stroke.

Now, that, Madam Speaker, certainly doesn't make any sense, and everybody appreciates that it didn't make any sense, and that is why this program was instituted. All that is changing now with the Medicare part D program, which, again, is voluntary, a voluntary program for seniors all across our Nation.

And I will tell you, Madam Speaker, that most seniors, most seniors, would be helped and assisted in their ability to purchase their medications by using this new program. Some say that it is confusing, that it is just too complicated. But when you talk to, as Congressman Gingrey mentioned, when you talk to those folks who have already signed up in these first few months of the program, they say that it really isn't that confusing. You just have to tackle it. And most of them, the vast majority, are remarkably satisfied.

I would encourage all of my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, to assist further in educating their constituents, educating their seniors about the program. I have held, as I know you have, Congressman Gingrey, a lot of seminars and meetings with seniors around our districts to help them understand about the program, what it means and what the specifics are, and assist them in being able to sign up for the program.

Those folks at CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have been remarkably helpful as well in assisting seniors in my district, and I know yours and so many across this Nation, to be able to understand the nuances of the program. We need to remember, as we look at this program, that the Medicare program on December 31, 2005, had no medications available, and now it does, and now it does. And that is the important thing to remember for seniors.

Now, you mentioned the important date that is coming up: May 15. May 15 is the deadline to sign up for Medicare part D. It is a deadline that is necessitated because this is a new insurance. This is a new aspect of insurance. And unless individuals sign up by a particular time, then you can't reach the savings that you can get in this kind of program. So I want to commend all seniors to take a serious look at this.

Again, it is a voluntary program, but the vast majority of seniors will be aided by this. Unless seniors have had prescription medication covered through a previous employer, then it is likely that the seniors who could access this program would be benefited by it. I know that in my area all of the seniors that were on the Medigap plan to cover prescription medications, not a single one of those would be able to have access to a plan that is as helpful in terms of improving their health as this plan.

So this is a good program. It is a step in the right direction. It is not what all of us would have designed, I am certain, but it is a move in the right direction. And I want to commend my colleagues who will be here this evening to share information about this program with the House of Representatives and with our Nation and our Nation's seniors for their activity, and I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to join you tonight and commend you for your leadership on this, and I yield back to you.

Madam Speaker, talk is cheap, and gas prices aren't. With summertime right around the corner, Americans are making plans to pack up their car and hit the road for a summer vacation. However, this year gas prices are putting a damper on those summer plans.

The President and most Members of Congress appreciate something the American people know well, America has an addiction to oil. But higher gas prices today are the product of many different factors, including governmental regulation and heightened worldwide demand. Here at home we are best able to adapt by using tools at our disposal.

In the weeks ahead, Congress must continue to act on behalf of the American people by providing incentives for energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. We should expand our domestic oil production, including building new refineries and expanding current ones. Above all, Members of Congress cannot talk about the rise in energy prices and then say ``no'' to reforms when it comes time to vote.

Right now, talk, not oil, is cheap. Shortsighted solutions will not be effective. I urge my colleagues to work together on behalf of all Americans. Our Nation certainly has the will to evolve our actions and the capability to meet these challenges.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be back in front of my colleagues talking about items that are of such remarkable importance to us across our United States. We have been away for 2 weeks now at home on a district work period, and it is my privilege to come on back and take this leadership hour. I thank the leadership for allowing me to spend a few moments with some of my colleagues to talk about an issue that has really come to the fore in the past couple of weeks. But first I want to just introduce the Official Truth Squad once again.

The Official Truth Squad, many folks know, began with a group of Republican freshmen Congressmen and -women who said after about 6 months here in Washington that, well, you know, there seems to be a tone or a tenor to the debate here that is not productive, and there seems to be a lot of personal animosity that is getting in the way of solving the remarkable challenges that we have here in our Nation.

So we thought it was appropriate, because oftentimes when the anger and the emotion get greatest, that is when truth flies out the window, we thought it was appropriate to form this Official Truth Squad. What we try to do is to come before the House of Representatives almost every night when we are in session and to talk about particular issues that are of importance to the American people and talk about them in a way that hopefully is a little more positive, a little more enthusiastic about the solutions to the challenges that we have before us as a Nation, but grounded in truth, because if you don't talk about truth, you can't get to the right solutions. Everybody knows that.

We have been very, very pleased with the response that we have had really across the Nation, because one of the things we were so disturbed by was the general level of politics, of what I call the politics of division. The politics of division are tried and true, and they occur when people pit one group in our society against another and make it so that you have got to be for one and against another, and you can't be for both. It just really makes it difficult to solve problems when you have that kind of rhetoric going on.

There was a gentleman that kind of put it all in perspective a little over 100 years ago, the Reverend William Boetcker, who was a public speaker and a leader of the day back at the turn of the 20th century, the 19th to the 20th century. One of his heroes was

Abraham Lincoln, and he attempted to crystallize what he thought would be Abraham Lincoln's philosophy on social discourse in different sectors of society.

I find it helpful always to look back at this quote, and I will share it with the House this evening, Mr. Speaker. This is a quote: ``You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift; you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong; you cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer; you cannot encourage the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred; you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.''

Really, I think that crystallizes what ought to be the American philosophy, because we are all in this boat together. We have all of these challenges that we must face together, and truly there are not necessarily Republican solutions or Democrat solutions, but there are American solutions. But unless we work together, we really won't be able to get to the right solutions.

As I mentioned, we have all been home for the past 2 weeks on our district work period. I have had an opportunity to meet with so many constituents across the Sixth District of Georgia, and I know that my colleagues have talked with their constituents and their friends and neighbors at home.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that one of the most important issues that is now confronting us as a Nation is the issue of energy prices, gas prices at the pump. We have seen a significant increase over the past number of weeks and months, and I think it is important when we talk about this issue, especially to talk about truth.

I thought I would begin just by sharing, everybody knows what the gas price is in their community. They range from, in my hometown it was $2.89 when I drove to the airport this morning for a gallon of gasoline. It goes down in some areas of the Nation to $2.40, $2.50. In some areas it is up in the high $3s.

Because we are interested in the truth here, I thought it would be helpful to share what some of the prices are around the world in other Western nations. What are these nations paying? This is what they were paying 2 weeks ago, the latest numbers we have. Belgium, $6.10 for a gallon of gas; France, $5.00 for a gallon of gas; Germany, $5.96 for a gallon of gas; Italy, $5.91 for a gallon of gas; the Netherlands, $6.73 for a gallon of gas; and the United Kingdom, Great Britain, $6.13 for a gallon of gas. At the same time in the United States, $2.88 on average for a gallon of gas.

That sounds like a lot of money, and indeed it is, but when we compare it to the rest of the world, which is the truth about this situation, it is extremely important that we talk about these numbers in a way that allows the American people to have as much information as possible when it comes to the issue of gasoline prices and energy prices. Otherwise, we are all just getting up here giving our opinion.

This brings me to the favorite quote of the Official Truth Squad, and that comes from a former Senator from the State of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who used to say, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.''

Mr. Speaker, that is so true about this issue and so many others, because unless we are talking about facts, unless we are talking about the truth, we can't get to the right solutions. So I would encourage my colleagues across the House to remember this when we are dealing with issues, especially as important as those that relate to energy prices and gasoline prices.

We are going to talk tonight about how we got to where we are, where are we, what the situation is and what kinds of things the United States and this Congress is doing in a positive and productive way to solve the challenges that we have in the area of energy.

I will be joined by a number of colleagues. First I am joined by a great friend and colleague from Tennessee, the Congresswoman from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, who has been an incredible leader in our conference about so many areas, including the economy. She participated in small business, and just brings a wealth of experience and information to the table. I know that she has some thoughts to share with us tonight on the issue of energy and gas prices.

I welcome you this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I have got a number of posters about what, in essence, is the double- talk that you raise. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle, the liberals on the other side of the aisle, tend to talk one way, and then they vote another.

I just wanted to highlight the one you just mentioned, because this Gas Act is so remarkably important for energy independence for our Nation. It was roll call vote 519. This is what the Truth Squad is all about, bringing you information, facts that you might not be able to have otherwise. Roll call vote 519 in 2005, the Gas Act. Every single Democrat voted no. Every single one voted no, which just crystallizes that double-talk that you highlighted so very, very well.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her perspective and a cogent laying out of exactly what this situation is that we have right now, how we have gotten into this situation, and what sort of alternatives that we have.

And your statement about things beginning 30 years ago is so appropriate, because this did not happen overnight. We find ourselves in this situation now because of the policies of past Congresses, policies of past administrations, and the action of so many folks that brought us to this point right now.

And it is not going to be fixed overnight, but we are well on our way. We want to assure the American people that we are well on our way to making it so that we are energy independent. I appreciate your presentation so much.

I do want to highlight a couple of our items that were discussed as we move forward with the Official Truth Squad and talk about energy policy and gas prices. So much of the discussion that you have heard by some of our friends on the other side are talking about, in fact it has been this evening in the well and earlier today in the well, and they talk immediately about their solution, which is always to either put a cap on something or to tax something. And you have got to listen carefully, because sometimes the language is couched. But price controls or a windfall profit tax we have heard bandied about, increase the taxes. But the truth is that that action would be extremely detrimental. And I say that with all sincerity, pointing to the Official Truth Squad poster.

And folks will say, well, how do you know that? Well, we know that because of history. And history has a tendency to repeat itself unless you learn from it. And there is great history that we have, and it is not that long ago. There is a wonderful policy primer that was put out by the Cato Institute in Washington. It has got great information about what they call the case against oil price controls and windfall profit taxes, and they do so in a very academic and appropriate way by citing the information that we have available to us just a generation ago. And I want to read some of the information that was presented in this. And I will quote from it a number of different times.

One of the broad conclusions that they make is that, quote, free markets are more efficient than controlled markets. And goods and services are more available and less expensive in free markets as opposed to controlled markets.

So restricting product prices for profit opportunities invariably reduces investment in conservation and new supply. Now, that may seem counterintuitive, but if you restrict the opportunity for our system to work, our market system to work, our free market system to work, if you restrict that in certain ways, then what happens is that people say, well, I will not invest in new forms of energy. I will not invest in the new opportunity to find more oil. I will not invest in things that will declare our dependence on foreign oil. I will go invest in something elsewhere if the government is not involved. And it actually decreases supply. And we had a very clear example of that in the 1970s and the 1980s when price controls were enacted by this Government, and when the windfall profit tax was in place between 1980 and 1988.

There was an economist, Joseph Kalt, who, in 1981, a Harvard economist, I do not often quote a Harvard economist, Mr. Speaker, but I will tell you that he has some sage advice for us. And Kalt studied the price controls that were enacted in the 1970s, and he drew these conclusions.

He stated that price controls and the incentive to import created by the entitlement program reduced the incentive to bring new domestic oil to market. These are the things being considered on the other side of the aisle right now, and being touted as the be-all and end-all.

Kalt calculated as a result, domestic production was .3 to 1.4 million barrels per day lower, lower than it would have been otherwise. Clear example that price controls do not work.

In spite of that fact, clearly a demonstration, truthful demonstration, of what happens when you restrict that market.

Another quote, a few observations about the price control experience of the 1970s jumped out at the analysts. First, price controls are simply ideas in theory, but they are extremely complicated exercises in practice.

Second, a tremendous amount of political pressure inevitably arises under price control regimes to provide regulatory benefits to favorite producers at the expense of less-favored producers, thus distorting markets even further.

Third, price controls have unintended consequences and often exacerbate the problems they ostensibly are designed to address.

Again, if you want to tell what the future is going to be, and you want to enact policies that have been tried in the past, then it is a pretty good bet that if you look at the consequences of the policies that were tried in the past, that you can tell what the future is going to be. Hopefully we want to look in a sober way at the policies that were enacted in the past so that we can determine whether or not we want, in fact, to go down that same path.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that going down that same path for price controls and windfall profit tax, which sound wonderful, I mean they really do. I mean, you say we ought not to be having to pay that much at the gas pump. If we are paying that much, then somebody else is just making too much money.

The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that the policies of price controls and windfall profit tax don't have their intended effect. They don't result in a decrease in price significantly, and they significantly decrease the amount of availability, which then indeed drives up prices even more.

The conclusion of this treatise on price controls and windfall profit tax is very telling and, I think, very instructive. It goes as follows. The observation that price controls induce scarcity and impose net losses on the economy is as uncontroversial among economists as are observations about gravity among physicists. Let me read that again. Sometimes you can get lost in really the magnitude of a statement like that, but I think it is important, and it is very instructive for us as a Congress, for us as a Nation. The observation that price controls induce scarcity and impose net losses on the economy is as uncontroversial among economists as are observations about gravity among physicists.

He goes on to say the experience of the 1970s further suggests that price controls may not even achieve their stated goal of reducing consumer prices. Intervention in oil markets historically has improved the welfare of politically popular market actors, primarily small independent oil producers and small refinery owners rather than the welfare of consumers.

Whether politicians intended that to be the case is unclear. Regardless, if wealth distribution is the rationale for price controls and windfall profit taxes, general individual and corporate income taxes are certainly less costly and more equitable than sector-specific market intervention.

Now, people often support price controls and windfall profit taxes because they don't believe that oil producers have a moral right to higher-than-normal earnings. Mr. Speaker, how often have we heard that the last 2 weeks, that these profits are immoral? I heard it, certainly heard it. I heard it from the other side of the aisle.

He goes on there somehow there is a widespread sentiment that it is somehow wrong for owners to profit when exogenous events greatly inflate the value of commodities that they own. Yet those who hold that opinion don't oppose windfall capital gains for homeowners. In fact the public tends to cheer rising home prices and reacts to falling home prices as a problem to be solved.

Now, why is it morally wrong for some parties but not others to periodically earn windfall profits is a mystery that we cannot solve. That is the writers of this paper.

Regardless of the moral issues involved, Federal efforts to take excess profits from oil companies whether via price controls or excise taxes are bad public policies. They fail to achieve their proximate aim, which is to reduce prices paid by retail consumers, but do manage to reduce supply, increase imports and impose steep costs on the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you, those comments, that statement, that conclusion of history, which is truth based upon what happened, is extremely telling. They fail to achieve their proximate aim, which is to reduce prices paid by retail consumers, so they don't decrease the prices. They don't decrease the prices.

If you put price controls on, and you put in place what is euphemistically called a windfall profit tax, it doesn't decrease the price. What it does do is it manages to reduce supply, increase imports and impose steep costs on the economy.

I don't know that there is a more clear evidence that moving in the direction of price controls or windfall profit taxes would just be the wrong thing to do, wrong for the economy, wrong for consumers, wrong for my constituents, wrong for the American people. I am hopeful that my colleagues will be mindful of the information that we have available to us about past actions.

I also want to just point out that when you hear people talk about how it is, quote, immoral, unquote, for somebody to earn that kind of profit, please harken back, harken back to the politics of division that I mentioned before, that the philosophy that was felt to be that of Abraham Lincoln and those who had a sensibility about how we as a society ought to move forward, and remember what he said. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. That is oh so true, Mr. Speaker.

I do also want to cite one other portion of this treatise. You have heard a lot of people talk about price fixing or collusion between oil companies for the cost of gasoline at the pump. This is a citation in this paper, but it is very telling because it is a nonpolitical arm of the government talking, and it is independent individuals who drew these conclusions.

The conclusion that they drew is significant. We are unaware of any governmental investigation since the formation of the OPEC cartel that has found evidence of price fixing or collusion in U.S. gasoline markets. The Federal Trade Commission concludes that, quote, the vast majority of the FTC's investigations have revealed market factors to be the primary drivers of both price increases and price spikes. Those investigations, it should be noted, were undertaken by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Mr. Speaker, I am so disturbed when I go home and I hear people at home talk about the inability of Congress to get together and solve problems. What

I say to them is that the level of demagogy on the part of many here is very disturbing, and it does a disservice to us all.

Again, these aren't Republican problems, they aren't Democrat problems, they are American problems, they are American challenges. We solve them best if we solve them together. I urge my colleagues to work together to not throw around the kind of language that we have already heard again today by others, because it is destructive, doesn't help.

What is the problem? Now, my good friend from Tennessee alluded to much of the problem, and I want to refer to a number of things that she said. I want to remind folks, though, about The Official Truth Squad favorite quote, and that is, again, because we are going to talk about facts now, that is from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Let's talk about some facts. Let's talk about why gas prices are high now.

You will hear a lot of folks conjecture and throw around things that they say are the reason that gas prices are so high. But I think there are, there are five or six general areas that can be distilled as to addressing why gasoline prices now are at the level that they are.

Remembering though, Mr. Speaker, that gas prices in other nations, other Western nations, are significantly greater. Remember the U.K., $6.13 for a gallon of gasoline; Germany, $5.96 for a gallon of gasoline; Belgium, $6.10 for a gallon of gasoline. But why are gas prices at an average of $2.88 in the United States?

There are a number of reasons. First reason that can be clearly pointed out is that we are in that time of year where we are changing gasoline blends, and this change disrupts the supply chain. What happens is that between winter and summer, the seasonal blends traditionally cause spikes at this time of year in gas prices. We are fond of saying at home, we have been for the past number of years, you hear people say, well, it is time for summer vacation, so they will crank up the prices again. But what is happening is there is a different formula of gasoline, the season blend of gasoline that is used in the summer, as opposed to the winter. That cost, just that shift to that different blend, causes some increase in price.

Also, the Energy Policy Act that we passed in 2005 ends the federally mandated oxygenate requirement for some gasoline blends beginning on May 5. Fearing an exposure to MTBE lawsuits, Mr. Speaker, fearing an exposure to MTBE lawsuits, refiners are, instead, turning to ethanol, and that is causing a significant increase in the cost of gasoline.

I will say to my friends on both sides of the aisle that there are three things that consistently drive up the cost of doing any business and providing increased cost to the bottom line for a service or a product. You know what these are well, Mr. Speaker. They are taxation, they are litigation, and they are regulation.

My good friend from Tennessee earlier talked about a lot of the regulatory challenges that we have in the area of energy policy that make it so that the cost of gasoline is higher than it ought to be. But what you just heard is that there are oil companies that because of the true threat of litigation have changed their formulation to include ethanol instead of MTBE. That cause, that threat of litigation, has caused a significant increase in the cost of gasoline, the addition of ethanol that they are using in place of the MTBE. Information agency estimates that the switch from MTBE to ethanol is responsible for an additional 5 cents a gallon in cost. Remember, that is a switch that much of which is brought about because of the risk of litigation.

Now, there are also tariffs on ethanol imports. So more intervention has resulted in tariffs on ethanol imports, which companies say they are relying on in greater quantities, and that those tariffs add 54 cents a gallon to a gallon of ethanol. Reports forecast that we might need an additional $2 billion of ethanol this year alone.

Mr. Speaker, 2 billion gallons of ethanol, 54 cents a gallon, an extra $0.05 a gallon for the switch. Mr. Speaker, that looks to me like something over $1 billion. That has got to be made up. So that is driving the cost.

Now, that is truth. Changing the gasoline blends, the addition of ethanol, those are two specific areas that have resulted in a marked increase in the price of gasoline at the pump.

Now, we can talk all we want about price controls and windfall profit taxes and the like, but they will not affect either of those costs at all. Not at all. In fact, they will decrease the supply if we adopt any of those, quote, solutions.

What is another reason that the price of gas is up right now? Gulf coast disruption. Tight supplies mean even one unscheduled refinery shutdown with can drive up gasoline prices; 22.3 percent of gulf coast oil production is still shut down from the hurricanes of last fall, 22.3 percent of gulf coast oil production is still shut down. That results in about over 300,000 fewer barrels of domestic oil available to Americans on any given day. So we have got some factual reasons why the price of gasoline at the pump is significantly increased.

What else? World supply and demand. Supply and demand. Our need for oil has grown, but we face new competition from other markets, particularly India and China, significantly increased economies. Their increase in economic viability is positive for the world, results in increased opportunities for all in the world, but they have a significant increase in demand for oil.

Our domestic production and our refining capacity haven't kept up. The gentlewoman from Tennessee earlier talked about the lack of any new refinery in our Nation coming on line in the last 30 years. It is phenomenal, Mr. Speaker, it is phenomenal.

It is not right. And that has been a result of significant policies that have increased regulation, have increased the threat of litigation, and taxes have been so significant so that they haven't brought new refineries on line. Those kinds of things do not happen overnight. They do not happen overnight. And these problems haven't happened overnight.

We are not functioning in a vacuum either. It is not like you can order crude oil from one place in the world and expect it to always be there. Threats of supply reduction from Nigeria, Iran, and Venezuela have also caused crude oil prices to rise. So there is some real certain truthful reasons why the price of gas is what it is right now, not some conjecture. You don't have to make anything up. There is real evidence as to why the price of gas is what it is.

Fifth. Lack of domestic oil production. Here is one that really irks many folks in my district. They say, we've got gasoline available, we've got oil available right under our own Nation and within our own properties and off our own shores that can be obtained with great respect for the environment, that can be obtained safely, so why on Earth doesn't Congress enact the opportunity to be able to get that oil?

We are going to need much more oil before we ever kick our dependence on it, without a doubt. But, unfortunately, current law leaves nearly 100 billion barrels of oil out of reach to Americans. Out of reach to Americans. It is American oil. It is an American resource. And until that changes, American families will continue to pay more than they should for gasoline.

At a time when we import most of our crude oil and, increasingly, gasoline, these restrictions also undermine the Nation's security and prop up authoritarian regimes around the world. I will tell you, my folks at home are fed up. They say, look, we've got to, as a government, make certain that we can utilize the resources that we have.

And, finally, Washington inaction. Now that is something that probably is as true for this as it is for many, many other areas; but these problems, as I mentioned, took decades to develop and to come about. Most folks don't remember that 10 years ago this Congress passed the opportunity to utilize some of those resources that I mentioned and that President Clinton vetoed, vetoed the opportunity to, in an environmentally safe way, take care or utilize the resources that we have available to us in Alaska.

That is a fact. That is the truth. That is the truth. And that is what we

are here tonight to talk about, is the truth behind why gas prices are where they are and what the solution is. So by way of summary, the gas prices are significant and high, higher today than they have been in the past for a variety of reasons. Changing gasoline blends, the addition of ethanol, disruption down on the gulf coast, world supply and demand, lack of our own domestic oil production, and then Washington inaction. Bureaucratic Washington inaction.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that has been helpful to my colleagues listening and those folks listening around the Nation as we talk about the extreme importance of addressing an issue that during our 2 weeks home I heard an awful lot about.

I am pleased to be joined by a number of colleagues, and now I would like to introduce a good friend and colleague, a member of the freshman class, a member of the Official Truth Squad, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx from North Carolina. She has a great background of study, and I have always been impressed with her ability to crystallize an issue and to do the due diligence on how we got to a situation, how we arrived at a problem and what the solution is.

I look forward to her comments this evening on the issue of energy and gasoline prices, and I yield to Congresswoman Virginia Foxx.

Thank you, Congresswoman Foxx, so very much for your wonderful observations and really astute observations about many of the challenges that we have and bringing some truth to this issue of gasoline prices and why we are in the situation that we are in right now.

As we have talked about, this isn't a Republican problem or a Democrat problem; it is an American problem. And so we work best when we work together to solve these problems. So I encourage friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make certain that as we move forward with this situation that we work together. Political demagoguery and casting aspersions on either side is just not helpful to the solution.

Now, we have reviewed the clamor that we have heard out there currently for price controls and windfall profit taxes and those kinds of things that we have demonstrated clearly don't work. Remember, the truth is that they do not work and we know that because of the history.

We have also talked about what has resulted in the situation that we are

in, why our gas prices are high. We have reviewed the items that have brought about the situation that we currently find ourselves in.

I thought it would be helpful to at this point very briefly talk about what has been done, because a lot has been done. Again, these problems that we have and the challenges that we have are a product of decades of activity that have put us in this situation, so these aren't going to be solved overnight. And anybody that says that they have the solution to bringing down gas prices right now is just not being truthful with the American people. And I think it is important to say that, because the truth is that the solution to this will happen over time, and it will happen by a number of things: increased production, conservation, alternative fuels, and all sorts of things.

I want to just share with you, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that have already been enacted. The Gasoline For America's Security Act of 2005 was passed, as was the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 had some very specific items in it. It strengthens current supply. Strengthens current supply. It allows for new domestic oil and gas exploration and development. It requires the Department of the Interior to inventory oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf to enable the Federal Government to better assess the extent of these resources.

Again, when I go home, I hear people say, why don't you get to work and utilize the resources that we have? The technology is there to be able to do it in a very environmentally friendly way. It is a tough question to answer.

We are moving forward on that, and we need the help of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

The Energy Policy Act also encourages building of new refineries and expanding existing refineries. We need to streamline those regulations and decrease the amount of litigation exposure that those refineries have. Remember, we have not brought a new refinery on line in this Nation in 30 years, and we wonder why we are in the situation we are in.

The bill includes $2.9 billion for fossil energy research to ensure more efficient exploration and development of oil, gas and coal, while decreasing the environmental impact of fossil energy production and its use.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also increases conservation. That is extremely important. Conservation is so important to this solution, and anything we can do as a Nation and as a people to conserve fuel goes right to the bottom line. It improves things immediately.

The bill increases funding to $17.5 million over 5 years to the Department of Transportation to continue its work on improving the CAFE standards which set fuel emission standards for cars and light trucks sold in the United States.

It increases funding to the Department of Energy's Clean Cities Program, provides tax credits for the purchase of hybrid fuel cell advanced clean-burn diesel and other alternative-power vehicles. That is important.

When I talk to groups, I always try to ask how many folks own a hybrid vehicle. At this point only none or one or two folks raise their hand. I am hopeful in a year we will see tens of hundreds of people in my district, or thousands or more across the Nation. The tax credit is up to $3,200 per individual depending on the vehicle. That ought to be a great incentive, and it begins to make hybrid vehicles become competitive with other vehicles that are sold.

The bill also provides a 30 percent credit, up to $30,000, for an investment in alternative fuel refueling stations. A lot of the problem is we do not have many of those stations right now, and it is important to bring those on line.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also embraces new fuel choices, authorizes $3.7 billion for a hydrogen fuel cell program, and requires 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be included in all gasoline sold in the United States by 2015.

Many of us are working to try to make certain that we bring that kind of will and enthusiasm to bringing about energy independence for our Nation within the next 10 years.

It includes $3 billion dedicated to developing affordable, efficient, renewable energy technologies and promoting their widespread use.

It promotes clean and renewable fuels by providing incentives for clean coal technology and renewable energy such as biomass, wind, solar and hydroelectricity. It extends the renewable electricity production credit through December 31, 2007, and authorizes the issuance of $800 million of tax credit bonds before December 31, 2007, to support renewable investment in municipal power authorities, rural cooperatives, and others.

I think it is important to talk about those things that we already have done because I would venture to say, Mr. Speaker, when you go home and when you talk to your constituents, I know when I go home and I say we have done these things, they say, ``I have never heard about it.'' You are right, people do not hear about these things because they are not mentioned on the nightly news. This Congress does not get any credit for the positive work it is doing on the nightly news. You do not read about it in your newspapers, and you have a portion of individuals in this Chamber who want to down-talk and demagogue every single issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is just not productive. It is not positive. It does a disservice to every individual across this Nation, so I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get together and work to make certain that we can continue to solve the energy challenges that we have as a Nation.

We are blessed to live in a wonderful and a glorious Nation. We are the hope of the world and continue to be a vessel of opportunity for so many people around the world. We do ourselves best when we work together and talk positively about the challenges that we have and positively about the solutions and make it so we can solve those challenges together as opposed to the kinds of difficult conversations that some folks tend to degrade into so quickly.

I urge my colleagues to work together as we move forward on the challenges as they relate to gas prices and energy policy.

I look forward to coming back and joining my colleagues once again for the Official Truth Squad, putting a little truth and positive perspective in front of the United States House of Representatives and the American people.

Madam Speaker, we have all seen the recent protests around the country by thousands of people demonstrating in the streets. However, the fundamental issue that we are dealing with is illegal immigration, and we must not forget that.

No one has a problem with those who have come to this country legally, respected our laws and become U.S. citizens. That is part of the American Dream. What we are talking about are the millions who cross our borders illegally and now demand to be treated as citizens.

American goodwill, in education, in health care and in government services, is being abused by those who do not go through the legal process of citizenship, and that does not add up, Madam Speaker. That is not the American way.

There are serious problems with our current immigration policies. Benign neglect over the last 20 to 30 years has led us to this state of crisis, and we must fix it. Our constituents appropriately demand that we fix it, and Congress has that opportunity, and we must not let it pass us by.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to bring to the attention of the U.S. House a wonderful recognition of one of my constituents, Kristina Slater, and what she has just received. Just yesterday she was honored at the Pentagon with the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service Award at the Secretary of the Army's annual awards ceremony.

This award stands for more than a certificate or a pin. It stands for superior commitment to excellence. It stands for dedication. It stands for remarkable pride in doing one's job day in and day out.

Kristina Slater's work exemplifies this. She was instrumental in helping transition various information, technology functions, finances, and manpower to meet current and future needs of the Army. The results of this are being met with strong operational success, vital to everyone involved.

We are all extremely proud of Kristina Slater and congratulate her on this wonderful honor. As the highest honorary award bestowed upon a civilian employee by the Army, this worthy achievement is a testament to Ms. Slater's diligent and loyal service to our Nation.

I know the House joins me in thanking Kristina Slater on this award and her selfless service and dedication to our Nation.