J. Gresham Barrett

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it's been 5 weeks since we have been in session here on the House floor. But there have been many of us that have been on this floor throughout the month of August. We have talked directly with the American people about the immediate need for comprehensive energy legislation. And during August, it became crystal clear that there's a disconnect between what is happening on the streets of America and what is happening here in Washington, DC. One day my colleague was talking and in a moment of doubt and frustration, he said, ``I don't even know if anybody is listening,'' to which somebody stood up on the floor here and said, ``America is listening, Congressman. America is listening.'' And he was right. The American people are hurting. At a gas station in North Augusta, South Carolina, one gentleman, a special needs gentleman, came up to me and said, ``Congressman, I can only afford $39 of gas, half a tank, because that's all I have and that's got to do me.'' What are we doing to help this gentleman? Mr. Speaker, let's quit the partisanship. This is an American problem and we need American solutions. Comprehensive legislation, all of the above.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, during August, I traveled throughout my district and heard firsthand from my constituents who are suffering due to high gasoline and diesel prices. Everywhere I went, I heard stories from individuals and businesses struggling to make ends meet. One business owner I spoke with told me, ``The recent energy crisis has definitely impacted business in a major way and, unfortunately, will ultimately affect the everyday consumers of our products as a result of higher prices.'' Mr. Medford said that significantly higher shipping, transportation, and raw material costs are causing his bottom line to rise in his business, and this causes the consumer, of course, to pay more. Mr. Speaker, we need to take action now. Any energy legislation we consider should take advantage of an ``all-of-the-above'' approach to solving our Nation's energy problems. On behalf of Mr. Medford, countless business owners, the American consumers, and the people of the Third Congressional District in South Carolina, bring comprehensive energy legislation to the floor now.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues today in voicing my support for H.R. 6083, a bill to authorize funding for the National Advocacy Center. Mr. Speaker, solicitors and district attorneys are the unsung heroes in the fight to keep our streets, and our homeland safe. They go to work every day fighting for justice and in doing so, protect each and every one of us. These brave men and women are on the ground every day working with law enforcement on how best to enforce our laws, and implement justice, and for that, we owe them a debt of gratitude. It is vital for the operation of our justice system, and the protection of citizens across this Nation, that our district attorneys be well trained and highly educated. That is why, in 1950, the National District Attorneys Association, the NDAA, was formed. Today, this group is the oldest and largest professional organization representing criminal prosecutors in the world. In pursuit of its mission to equip State and local prosecutors to best do their jobs, the NDAA operates the National Advocacy Center on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia. In this one of a kind center, the training of State and local prosecutors has been centralized in a single location. Offering classes such as ``Boot camp: An Introduction to Prosecution'' and ``Childproof: Advanced Trial Advocacy for Child Abuse Prosecutors,'' this center delivers unmatched education and training to prosecutors from all across our Nation. Mr. Speaker, because it is in everyone's best interest to have the best trained legal minds prosecuting criminals, and by doing so, keeping us safe, the National Advocacy Center deserves our full support. And the solicitors, prosecutors, and district attorneys across our Nation deserve our thanks. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, in the past few weeks the focus of the energy crisis conversation has been about lifting the offshore ban on drilling to increase oil and gas supplies in the U.S., and offshore drilling is one solution that can help ease the energy crisis and lower gas prices at the pump. However, there's also been talk about using alternative energy sources to solve our energy problems for the long term. The Department of Energy found that in the United States 103 nuclear units supply about 20 percent of the electricity produced here in the United States. And in my home State of South Carolina, 52 percent of our State's power comes from nuclear power plants. For years, I've worked with organizations and companies within South Carolina to promote the benefits of nuclear power. Nuclear is clean, safe, and it's accessible in our country. Nuclear energy is an alternative energy source that our country can use to create long-term energy solutions for generations to come. It's a real solution that, if we invest now, will help us bridge from a short-term solution to a long-term solution.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, sometimes, like many of my colleagues, I get frustrated about the pace of Congress. For the last several weeks, I have come to the floor almost every day to talk about energy problems and why Congress doesn't seem to want to do anything to fix the problem. That is why I am amazed all of a sudden that Congress seems to be moving at warp speed to pass an ill-advised bill that could cost taxpayers billions of dollars and change the very nature of our financial system. First, let me say that I appreciate the intentions of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I believe the government should take targeted steps to help those facing foreclosure in those neighborhoods that have had problems with the negative effects of multiple foreclosures. But we should not legislate in a rush, and we should not use a potential crisis as an excuse to expand the size of government in an unprecedented manner. Please understand that I agree we cannot allow Fannie and Freddie to fail, and we must closely monitor the health of the banking system. Still, decisions of this magnitude should be considered calmly, rationally, and independently. Let's not mortgage the future of our country without fully understanding all the implications. Timing is not the only problem with this legislation. As I said before, I fear we will be feeling the lingering effects of this legislation for many years. In one part of this bill, we are creating a new FHA program that will distort housing prices by neglecting the realities of supply and demand in the housing market, all while putting taxpayers on the hook for this expensive, and I think dangerous, experiment. Like many of my colleagues, I don't think we should allow the American taxpayers to become the insurance policy for financial decisions that did not quite turn out as planned. There are other parts of the bill that do not make much sense at first glance. For example, the new affordable housing trust fund is funded by the income of Fannie and Freddie. At the same time that we are trying to stabilize them elsewhere in the bill, we are adding new burdens and raising their costs. While I appreciate the importance of affordable housing, I don't think this makes much financial sense. Like much of what Congress has been doing this year, this affordable housing trust fund is taxing what we are trying to help. We are trying to help people buy and keep their homes, yet we are discussing raising taxes. Rather than increasing the size of government, perhaps we should be putting more money into the pockets of hardworking Americans so they can afford to keep their homes. While we certainly should be ensuring that the GSEs are stable, I am concerned about the long-term effects that this bill will have on the health of the housing market, the Federal balance sheet, and the American economy. Because I do not think this legislation will provide helpful solutions to our housing market, I oppose this bill and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have been on the House floor asking the majority party if they've been hearing from the citizens about their financial struggles with high gas prices because I have. This month, I mailed a survey to families in my district asking for their comments about the energy crisis. I wanted to hear from them about their opinions, their ideas of what we, as Members of Congress, should be doing to ease the high gas prices. In response to the survey I sent to these citizens, we had tremendous responses: some things like find alternatives to oil; move the country beyond that; we need to support conservative changes in lifestyle; waste less; we have to change; develop new technologies, to get us off oil; drill now; drill everywhere; encourage automakers to make vehicles not powered by gasoline. Yeah. They're right. We need to do it all, and we need to do it now. Is the majority party not hearing what I'm hearing? Worse, if they are, are they not choosing to help these people and bring energy legislation to the floor? Mr. Speaker, we need energy legislation on the floor, and we need it now.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, American families have been bracing from an energy problem for the past few months which has turned into an energy crisis. I have heard constituents loud and clear about their concern that leaders in D.C. were not listening. I heard their voices, and my Republican colleagues and I continued to come to the floor and ask the Democrat majority for their energy plan. When our floor speeches were continuously met with silence in the absence of a Democrat energy plan, I too began to wonder if our leaders were listening. Thankfully, the problem was recognized and addressed by our executive branch of government. I applaud President Bush's decision yesterday to lift the Federal moratorium on offshore drilling. Congress needs to move swiftly to pass legislation to implement this now that the President has decided to lift the ban. Let's work quickly together and efficiently to craft and pass legislation that will work toward providing short-term and long-term solutions. It is up to us now, as Members of Congress, to do what is right for the citizens, to put the plan in motion, and pass energy legislation.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I got a call yesterday from a constituent in my district who said he saw me speaking on the floor about domestic energy, and he was relieved. He was relieved because someone in Congress understood the effects that high gas prices are having on real families all over this country, because he didn't think anybody was paying attention. Well, guess what? Some people are paying attention. We need to be looking at resources here at home to solve our energy problems. The United States Minerals Management Service found out that, out of our 1.76-billion-acre Outer Continental Shelf, only 3 percent is leased to oil and gas exploration, and nearly 85 percent of the lower 48 OCS remains untapped. Madam Speaker, we can explore our domestic resources safely and effectively so we will not harm our environment. I and my Republican colleagues will continue to talk about domestic exploration because we do have solutions, and somebody is listening.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week, Senator John McCain stated that we need to lift the Federal moratorium on offshore drilling for oil and gas. President Bush also agreed that the U.S. needs to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling so we can increase our energy production here. I agree. We need to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for American families. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has access to 112 billion barrels of onshore and offshore oil and access to 1 to 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil shale. To ban exploration of these energy sources is simply outdated. The rise in gas prices has brought a daily increase in the cost of consumer goods due to higher transportation costs, groceries and airfare. American families are looking for relief, Mr. Speaker, and the President is correct when he said Americans are turning to Washington for solutions. The only way we can help these families is to lift the ban on energy resources that we have here at home.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Last week in my district in South Carolina I had a man approach me, said he wanted some help with gas prices. He is making $325 a week, and he spends $80 to $90 of it on gas, almost 30 percent of his paycheck going into his tank. What kind of leadership is this? What kind of energy plan is this? When is the majority going to wake up and realize it's their constituents that are having problems with gas prices? When are they going to show us their energy plan, or do they even have one? The Republicans have one, and it will bring down gas prices by 50 percent. It's time Congress takes action. We need to do this for America, for our constituents and for our national security. Bring a plan to the floor to make us all stronger. Someone needs to lead this show.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, President John Adams once said, ``The highest story of the American Revolution is this. It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.'' So often we hear about the idea of separation of church and State. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the idea of separation of not from church, a distinction worth noting. Our Founding Fathers never believed that faith should be taken out of our lives. However, they did believe that government should not interfere with an individual's faith. Unfortunately, in the society which we live in today, this distinction has been ignored. It has been forced out of everyday lives, and it saddens me, Mr. Speaker The faith of the American people remains at the center of our great Nation. Our Founding Fathers were faithful men who believed every individual had the right to express their religious beliefs without fear of persecution or discrimination. It was Thomas Jefferson, Mr. Speaker, who first uttered the term ``separation of church and state,'' indeed believed that faith played a vital role in the government of our Nation. While President, Jefferson said, ``No Nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be.'' During his public life, Jefferson urged local government officials to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol, and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in the worship. Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story in the Bible and include the word ``God'' in its motto. Enclosed are Presidential documents with the phrase, ``In the year of our Lord Christ, by the President, Thomas Jefferson.'' Mr. Speaker, I'm thankful to be able to address this House on this subject and for the opportunity to cosponsor this legislation designating an American Religious History Week. By their actions, our Founding Fathers showed us that faith and government can and should exist together. It's important for those here and now and future generations, Mr. Speaker, to remember the religious heritage of our Nation. I'm convinced that it's only by God's grace that our Nation has survived the many trials and tests we've experienced. And I will continue to turn to God to seek his guidance and make decisions affecting our country, and I believe by remaining faithful, our Nation will continue to thrive as a beacon of hope in the future. I pray, Mr. Speaker, that God will continue to bless America.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, what is the deal? Lately when I've been in South Carolina, I have been talking to a lot of frustrated folks. And they are frustrated because they are watching their hard-earned paychecks burn up in their gas tanks. And I'm frustrated because I know there is no energy plan to help these families. Two years ago the Democrats said they would introduce a commonsense plan to help the energy crisis. And today, when the Americans need it most, when they're paying $4 a gallon for gas, there is no energy plan. Yet I stand here today week after week, as I am doing, asking my friends on the Democrat side, ``Where is the plan?'' I have only seen plan 1, and that has been drafted by the Republican party. Are my Democrat colleagues not hearing the pleas of the American public about high gas prices? Do they not travel to their respective districts and talk to their citizens? Have they not heard the public's frustration? Or do they choose to ignore them? As Members of Congress, it is our duty to solve the problem. And it is just not good enough to tell them, ``We have no plan.''

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, June 9, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 388 (Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1225), ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 389 (Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1243), and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 390 (Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 127).

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the budget conference report. By allowing tax relief to expire, the House-passed Democrat budget resolution calls for a $683 billion tax hike. And in my home State of South Carolina, the Democrat budget is about a $2,500 tax increase for the average South Carolinian's home. This would be, Mr. Speaker, the largest tax increase in history. The government spends too much money, Mr. Speaker, and I can't imagine giving the government an additional $683 billion. We have serious challenges facing the Nation, and money is not the answer. The conference report fails in many areas, but the most notable is in spending. It increases discretionary spending by $21 billion above the President's request and pushes discretionary spending past the $1 trillion mark in FY 2009. It fails to maintain emergency funds that were included in the Republican 2007 budget resolution. It has 37 reserve funds, which include the promise of billions of additional spending, which I can only assume will be paid in additional taxes. And finally, the House Budget Committee listened to testimony from budget experts indicating that our Nation was facing a financial crisis when it comes to entitlement spending, yet the conference report does nothing to truly address this issue. We cannot continue just to raise taxes and hope that entitlements will be solved by themselves, Mr. Speaker. And lastly, Mr. Speaker, in a time when we have economic hardships with our folks trying to put their entire paycheck in their gas tanks, to bring tax increases, additional spending, more government regulation I think is unconscionable. So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution and bring some fiscal sanity back into this process.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I learned yesterday from reports that the State of South Carolina has the lowest gas in the Nation. It was reported that the average gas price in South Carolina is $3.79, and most other States have an average of about 20 cents higher or right at $4. A lot of people would think that's good news. In fact, some would give me the opportunity to congratulate South Carolina. But I'm not going to use this platform to deliver good news because it's not good news. It's not good news to the South Carolina citizens or citizens anywhere in this country. What would be good news is to see that the ``commonsense'' energy plan that was promised by the majority party is brought to the floor. I am tired of my families putting their hard-earned paychecks into their tanks every week, Madam Speaker. The American citizens need good news, and we need to bring energy legislation to the floor now to help our hard-working families.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, On May 10, 2008, we commemorated the 85th Jubilee of the late President Heydar Aliyev. When Azerbaijan reclaimed independence in 1991, most Americans had never heard of the country. Soon after, the country found itself involved in a war with neighboring Armenia over Nagorno Karabakh, which resulted in one million refugees and 20 percent of Azerbaijani soil occupied by Armenian forces. Out of chaos, economic turmoil, and questions about the viability of the country's independence, President Heydar Aliyev emerged as the President of the Republic. He was re-elected in 1998, and served until he passed away in December 2003. In May it is the 85th anniversary of his birthday, and it is fit to note the milestones that were reached under his leadership. The first state visit by a President of an independent Azerbaijan to the United States was realized July 27-August 7, 1997. Prior to this visit, little knowledge, understanding or relations between the two countries existed. On August 1, 1997, a meeting at the White House between President Aliyev and President Clinton took place. It was a historic occasion where the two leaders signed a joint declaration that read: Presidents Clinton and Aliyev agreed on the importance of expanding the partnership between the United States and the Republic of Azerbaijan through strengthening bilateral cooperation in the political, security, economic and commercial spheres. The U.S. also reaffirmed support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. Under President Aliyev's leadership, Azerbaijan emerged as a critical player in the East-West Energy Transport corridor. The early oil pipeline, the Baku-Tbilisi- Supsa oil pipeline was completed in 1997. Azerbaijan signed over 19 production sharing agreements with international energy companies. The decision to build the Maine Export Pipeline, MEP, was not an easy one. Despite great obstacles, Azerbaijan, under the leadership of Heydar Aliyev, and with the support of the United States and Turkey, realized the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which now runs from the Caspian through Georgia to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. This pipeline helps to guarantee Azerbaijan's independence and support of pro-Western foreign policy, provides energy resources to U.S. allies like Georgia and Turkey. The late President Heydar Aliyev was a strong friend of the United States. Azerbaijan was one of the first countries to offer unconditional assistance to the United States after 9/11, and sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. President Aliyev's significant contributions to the country of Azerbaijan provided a fertile ground for the seeds of democracy to flourish after Soviet rule, and have paved the road for Azerbaijan's regional and international success.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman J. Gresham Barrett. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Authorized Amount: $4,000,000. Project Name: Combat Casualty Equipment Upgrade Program. MN: Navy. Funding Source: Procurement, Marine Corps. PE Number: 0. Line Number: 050. Legal Name and Address Receiving Earmark: North American Rescue Products, 481 Garlington Road, Suite A, Greenville, SC 29615-4619. Description of how money will be spent and why use of federal taxpayer funding is justified: Provide Congressionally directed spending of $4,000,000 to greatly improve field medical equipment that meets the stringent requirements of today's counter-insurgency combat operations and littoral warfare. Program objectives and value to the DoD are to reduce preventable combat deaths at the point of wounding, more quickly stabilize and evacuate casualties during the critical ``golden hour'' after the initial trauma, and improve survival and recovery times. Funding will be used to maintain existing equipment and improve new immediate-medical-care equipment.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am tired of the majority party talking about introducing a commonsense plan for our growing energy crisis. Common sense or not, I'd be happy to look at their plan if they had one. But they don't. They have demonstrated to families who are wasting their money on the price of gasoline that they have failed to come up with a plan. I don't want to let those families down, Mr. Speaker, and I don't want them to think that Members of Congress are sitting on their hands doing nothing that's affecting their cost of living. So last week I helped Congressman Buyer announce the Main Street USA Energy Independence Security Act of 2008. This plan will help solve our national security problem and guide us away from being reliant on international energy sources. It will also open up domestic exploration on our own soil to find energy sources here at home. The best thing about the Main Street Energy Act is that it is a plan. And let's put the plan to work now.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in the past few months, there's been a lot of talk about high gasoline prices and talk about commonsense plans to lower these skyrocketing costs. Individuals and businesses across the Nation are suffering, Mr. Speaker, and there's too much talk. Congress must take steps now to address our Nation's energy needs. So today I'm proud to announce I'm an original cosponsor of H.R. 6001, the Main Street U.S.A. Energy Security Act of 2008. This legislation is an action plan and our first step to energy independence. It will boost our national security by increasing domestic exploration, encouraging research in the area of alternative energy sources, and promoting clean nuclear energy. Mr. Speaker, for decades the United States has not had a comprehensive energy policy. Now with gasoline prices eating up Americans' paychecks, we need to find solutions to our growing energy needs. We have the resources and technology available to make energy independence a reality. So no more talk, Mr. Speaker. It's time to act and act today.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill, which I think is unhelpful for the housing market and unfair to the American taxpayer. Like many of my colleagues, I'm concerned that this program will only distort housing prices, causing problems in the future by forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill. I have no doubt that some of the lending practices in the beginning of the decade, Mr. Speaker, were irresponsible, and that the government should take certain steps to help the market right itself and to prevent these problems from recurring in the future. At the same time, I'm a firm believer in the power of the free market, and I believe that the housing market fundamentally reflects the laws of supply and demand. I'm always wary of government intervention in the markets and concerned about unintended consequences. I fear that in our rush to help, we are overlooking the basic realities about today's housing market and about the cost of government spending. I think we can all agree that government programs cost money, and this program has the potential to cost a tremendous amount of money. And that money comes from the taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. Because, in reality, like the laws of supply and demand, decisions have consequences, and money has to come from somewhere. It's not fair to ask my constituents from South Carolina, who work hard and spend wisely and pay, in my opinion, too much tax money, to carry the burden for others' financial mistakes. While I believe that people in need deserve our understanding and our help, I trust in the ability of the free market to correct itself. And I think Americans know how best to spend their money and should be trusted to make their own financial decisions. I also think that lenders have a responsibility to live with the consequences of investments that did not quite turn out as planned. Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment in the Financial Services Committee that is representative of my concerns. The amendment was not adopted, and it was very simple. It was to strike the section of the bill that prohibits FHA from denying borrowers entry into the new FHA program solely on the basis of the mortgagor's current FICO or other credit scores, or any delinquency or default by the mortgagor. In South Carolina talk, Mr. Speaker, this amendment would have given the FHA the opportunity to use individual pieces of information on their own that reveal the risk of borrowers defaulting. In offering the amendment, I wanted to allow the FHA to protect the American taxpayer by giving them every tool available. I understand the motivations of this section of the bill to try to include as many people as possible in the program meant to help them. And I understand it would be nice if we could help all of these borrowers, but some may have very bad credit scores that reflect irresponsible borrowing behavior. It's not fair to the American taxpayer to insure the loans of the riskiest borrowers who may not be able to pay their mortgages no matter what the terms of the loan. Without a doubt, it's never easy to hear the stories of hardworking individuals and families losing their homes, but I do not believe that more government intervention is the solution to our problems. And we should not allow the American taxpayers to become the insurance policy for the financial decisions that did not turn out as planned or for temporary market downturns. We should not punish those hardworking and responsible American taxpayers for the mistakes of a few. For these reasons, and others, I oppose this legislation and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This past week for the first time, some Americans paid $4 a gallon for gas. The national average for regular unleaded gasoline now is $3.61 a gallon. Americans have never paid such a tremendous amount of their hard-earned dollars on gasoline, Mr. Speaker, and the high gasoline prices are taking a toll on their pocketbooks. Many issues are responsible for the higher gas prices, but in order to lessen America's dependency on foreign and unstable energy sources, we need to be looking right here at home. We're relying too much on foreign energy sources and our dependency on these sources is a risk for our national security. We have natural and technological resources to support domestic production and find oil sources here at home. We can increase our domestic energy exploration and production in the U.S. while also utilizing alternative energy sources such as hydrogen, wind and solar power. Citizens can't afford the price of gas. For our people, for our country, the majority must bring an energy solution to the floor now so that American families are no longer paying an unprecedented $4 a gallon for gas.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' That was Ms. Pelosi in a press release 1 year ago today. The price at the pump then, $2.91 a gallon, today almost $4 a gallon. Also 2 years ago, Ms. Pelosi vowed that if her party took over Congress they would cut energy prices, especially gasoline. It's obvious there's a fast growing need for energy in our country, and this need must be met with a solution. To provide a reduction in gas prices for Americans, we need to find resources here at home and support domestic energy production. Our country needs to research and fund alternative energy production to become less dependent on foreign sources for the security of our country, and to ease the burdening gas prices for our American families. American families were promised a commonsense plan by the Democrat majority. If there's a commonsense plan, don't you think it's time that we see it?

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, yesterday millions of Americans responsibly filed their taxes with the IRS. At the same time, House Democrats pushed legislation for the largest tax increase in history. While middle-income families are balancing tight budgets and bracing for an economic crunch, Congress is hastily increasing taxes to keep up with Federal spending. Madam Speaker, we need to complete an overhaul of the tax-and-spend system in Washington. For taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money, the key is to tighten government spending overall now. Next, we need to implement a tax system to revive and stimulate the economy for the long term. This involves offering permanent tax relief for married couples, families with children, small businesses, and putting an end to the death tax. Reforming the tax system through tax relief will boost the economy, increase revenues, and promote job growth. American families are acting responsibly with their money. We need to do the same.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, yesterday General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker updated members of the House Armed Services Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee regarding the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Noting successes on the military and political fronts, both indicated reasons to be optimistic about the progress being made. Having recently visited Iraq, I am not surprised to hear about these successes. Violence is down and reconciliation is happening. But the progress is fragile, a sentiment echoed by both Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. During the hearing, many of my Democrat colleagues asked about the cost of the war. Is it expensive? Yes, the cost is expensive. My question to them is, what will be the cost of defeat, and are you willing to pay for it?

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.