Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Medal of Honor (MOH) Host City Program in Gainesville, Texas. The program was established in 2001 to recognize the contributions of MOH recipients. In order to honor their accomplishments, invitations are extended to former MOH recipients to visit Gainesville; all their expenses are covered during their stay. The city has hosted more than a dozen medal recipients since the program's inception. The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor that can be bestowed upon a member of the United States Armed Forces for action against an enemy of the United States. The people of the United States will always be indebted to the recipients of the Medal of Honor for their courage, selflessness, and sacrifice. The first MOH recipient to visit Gainesville was Colonel Don ``Doc'' Ballard, a Vietnam recipient. Impressed by that 2001 visit, Ballard has returned each successive year. Recipient Mike Thornton, another Gainesville guest, was generous enough to set up a college scholarship fund for the local high school. As the Gainesville program has gained momentum, an annual, three-day celebration was established around March 25th, Medal of Honor Day. MOH recipients have the opportunity to speak at local schools, play in the Host City golf tournament, and visit the city's historical Victorian homes. Madam Speaker, it is truly an honor to rise today and commend this outstanding program. Its volunteers have shown great leadership and hospitality in hosting these honorable veterans. I am proud to represent the Medal of Honor Host City Program in the 26th District of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Other than myself, the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Wisconsin, I see no other speakers to speak on my amendment.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I will not dispute the point of order. I believe that the amendment is germane because it is a military construction bill. But I understand the concept of authorizing. I would point out Congressional Budget Office does score this as a savings, so as the old saying goes, it doesn't cost, it pays. And I was willing to offer this money in the spirit of bipartisanship. But also in the spirit of bipartisanship I will, at this time, ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering tonight provides $400 million towards new construction projects. This money will be used to put American workers, pipe fitters, engineers, construction workers to work and build refineries that produce the specialized types and grades of fuel used by each branch of the service for their equipment. The refineries will be located on existing or former bases under the purview of the Department of Defense, and will represent the first refineries built in the United States since 1976. And the time to do it is now. The Air Force isn't going to have a fleet of plug-in hybrid fighter jets, and the Navy isn't going to have a solar battleship in the near future. They need fuel, plain and simple. Investing in critical infrastructure and protecting the Nation are our top responsibilities in the Federal Government. Today I am offering an amendment that provides Federal funds for the construction and design of one refinery for each branch of the military to produce the petroleum products required by that branch, combining these two critical roles for the public good. Prices are high. So is demand. Let's address both sides of the energy equation, and let's put our Americans back to work to help the military protect the Nation. We have heard a lot about exploring and drilling for American sources of energy. Hands down, Americans agree on this point. It is an 80 percent issue across the country and, indeed, it is even higher in my district and other districts of north and central Texas. Polls show the vast majority of Americans favor drilling offshore in the ANWR. The United States Department of Defense is straining under record high prices. In 2007, with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States armed service consumed 16 gallons of fuel per soldier per day, or about $3 million worth of fuel every day. That is a lot of fuel, and that is a lot of opportunity for American energy and American jobs. But this is not regular gasoline. All military planes, vehicles, generators and heavy equipment in areas of foreign operation use jet petroleum to avoid transporting and carrying different fuel grades and accidentally putting the wrong type of fuel in their equipment. Right now global refineries are operating at a very tight capacity. This, in turn, limits the quantity of gasoline and other products that they can produce. This squeeze impacts the consumers, domestic refiners and the military as the cost of refining comprises between 10 and 20 percent of the price at the pump. It means the taxpayers are getting hit with higher costs twice, and it also leaves military fuel supplies vulnerable to disruptions from terrorist attacks and natural disasters. And then there's the question of importing refined products. We already heard under the colloquy about how important it is to use an American product, American-made steel. Well, how about we use American- made gasoline? Use the gasoline that is produced here in America. Domestic refinery production has declined as industry operates with tight profit margins and lower inventories of crude oil to cut gasoline costs, and these constraints mean a greater proportion of gasoline demand has to be met with imported products. We know what that means. We buy it from people who don't like us. We are funding both sides in the war on terror. Four of five of the top suppliers of military fuel are foreign companies or foreign state-owned entities. This poses a serious threat to our national and our economic security and must be addressed. Let me stress that this is a win/win for America. These military specific refineries could produce and protect specialized military fuels from capacity limitations that squeeze supply and increase prices for everyone; would free up commercial refining capacity and ensure that we are not forced to outsource a significant portion of our defense when we buy from foreign refineries. Military commanders say you can't kick behind without tanker gas, or something like that. The Air Force isn't going to have a fleet of plug- in hybrids, as I already said. Our national defense and our national economic security are too important to risk on shortages of refinery capacities when we are faced with natural disasters. We have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What good is it if there is no strategic way to refine it? And this amendment would provide the beginning of that strategic way to put the refineries in areas that are already cleared environmentally, already have the security in place, and it makes sense. We have also heard tonight that we need to pass a clean bill. It is important to get this bill done because our veterans and our military need the monies that will be appropriated in this bill, and I agree with that very much. It is my understanding this bill has been ready to go for 4 or 5 weeks. I don't know why we have not seen fit to bring it up before tonight. I don't know why we had to bring it up under a modified closed rule. But those are the rules the majority has set. Those are the rules under which we will play. So I thank the chairman for hearing this amendment. I think it is an important concept that needs to be furthered. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to offer my amendment at this point in the reading.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You know, it seems like, this late at night, all that's left are gentlemen from Texas, but I'm happy to be here as part of this august group. The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that we're about to go home on a 5-week vacation. You know, I'd like to say it has been a tough summer and that we've been working away on our appropriations bills, but the fact is we'll have our very first appropriations bill on the floor of the House tomorrow, the Military Construction bill. I'm glad to see it. I'm glad we're going to have it, but we're actually not going to have an open amendment process, and part of the reason is that the Democratic leadership is afraid to have the open amendment process for fear that we'll actually bring up something that might expand the availability of energy in this country. So, Mr. Speaker, there are not a lot of bright spots out there when it comes to energy. We've got record high prices. We've got alternative energy sources that aren't quite ready for prime time. Our refining capacity is limited because we haven't built a refinery since 1976. Supplies are tight, and there's an enormous demand. It paints a fairly grim picture, but dwelling on the negative is not the American way. Exploring the possibilities and capitalizing on realities, that's the American way. So, today, as we are in a very tough energy environment, let's act like Americans. Let's make lemonade out of lemons. We can start by seizing the opportunity to find and produce homemade American energy. We've heard a lot about exploring and drilling for American sources of energy hands down. Hands down, Americans agree on this point. I did two town halls over the weekend--one in Keller, Texas and one in Frisco, Texas. There was unanimous opinion that we need to be producing more American energy domestically. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans favor offshore drilling for oil and natural gas and, in fact, even in ANWR. In my districts back in Tarrant, Denton and Cooke Counties, the numbers are sky high. Without question, if we want to produce American energy, we should drill domestically. You know, we need to refine domestically also, and we can start by providing our Nation's largest energy consumer, the military, with the infrastructure to do just that. As one of the Nation's largest energy consumers, the United States Department of Defense is straining under record high prices. We heard Mr. Shimkus from Illinois address this just a moment ago. In 2007, with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States Armed Services consumed 16 gallons of fuel per soldier per day, about $3 million worth of fuel. That's a lot of gas, but it's not just regular gasoline. All military planes, vehicles and heavy equipment use avgas, or jet petroleum, to avoid carrying different fuel grades or to avoid accidentally putting the wrong kind of fuel in the equipment. It's a specialized fuel that's produced in the same refineries that produce fuel for commercial sale. Right now, global refineries are operating at very tight capacity. This, in turn, limits the quantities of gasoline and other products that they can produce. The squeeze impacts the consumers, and it impacts the military as the cost of refining compromises 10 to 20 percent of the price we pay at the pump. It means taxpayers are hit with higher costs twice, and it also leaves supplies vulnerable to disruptions ranging from terrorist attacks to political unrest to--oh, by the way, did we mention it's hurricane season? Then there's the question of importing refined products rather than producing them here in America. Because domestic refining capacity has declined as industry operates with lower inventories of crude oil and of gasoline in order to cut their costs, these constraints mean a greater proportion of gasoline demand has to be met with imported goods, with imported goods. We hear it over and over again. We're buying the supplies from people who in the world don't exactly like us. We are funding both sides on the war on terror. Four out of five of the top suppliers for military fuel are, in fact, foreign suppliers. This poses a serious threat to our national economy and to our national security, and it has to be stopped. Investing in critical infrastructure and protecting the Nation are some of the Federal Government's top responsibilities. So, tomorrow, on the Military Construction appropriations bill--and we will finally be hearing our first Appropriations bill here on the House floor--I plan to offer an amendment, the Joint Defense Energy Production amendment. It provides Federal funding for the construction and for the design of one refinery for each branch of the military, combining these two critical roles for the public good. Prices are high and so is demand. Let's try to solve both sides of the energy equation. The amendment would provide $400 million to build refineries that would produce the specialized types and grades of fuel that are used by each branch of the Service for their equipment. The refineries will be located on existing or on former bases under the control of the Department of Defense, and they will represent the first refineries built in the United States of America in 31 years. Again, let me stress this is a win-win for America. These military- specific refineries could produce and protect specialized military fuels from capacity limitations that squeeze supply and that increase prices for almost everyone. They would free up commercial refining capacity and would ensure that we're not forced to outsource a significant portion of our refining needs to foreign countries. Additionally, they would help ensure a supply chain that would help protect from supply chain disruptions whether from manmade or from natural disasters like those we've experienced in the past. There's a military saying: Bullets don't fly without supply. The Air Force is not going to have a fleet of plug-in hybrid fighter jets, and our Navy is not going to be relying on a solar-powered, wind-blown vessel. They need a stable and secure fuel supply, plain and simple. Our national defense and our economic security are simply too important to risk on shortages of refinery capacity or on natural disasters. We have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We have a strategic oil supply, but what good is that if there is no way to strategically refine that supply? So, tomorrow, I hope other Members will join me in supporting the Joint Defense Energy Production amendment that I plan on offering on the Military Construction appropriations bill tomorrow. It's high time we got to our appropriations bills, and it's highly appropriate that, particularly on the Military Construction bill, we offer amendments to increase the energy supply for our Nation's military. I'll yield back to the gentleman from Texas, and I appreciate the time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this is energy morning here on the House floor, and I'm no different from anyone else. We're hearing a lot this morning about opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Well, if we're willing to say supply matters--and I'll agree with that, yes, supply does matter--opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve only make sense if it's part of a comprehensive plan, and yes, this is an emergency. This is an emergency that requires all hands on deck. Supply is critical. Access to new supply in the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico is critical, as are alternative sources of energy, as are conservation measures. Today, this morning, I'm asking the majority party to work with us and help the people who are impacted most by the rising energy prices, the people who can least afford it. That includes the vulnerable, the elderly, the impoverished. It's time to stop pandering to wealthy environmentalists and start addressing the problems caused by impeding domestic production of energy. Stop protesting the siting of transmission lines for wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. Allow the rigs and pipelines to function, and allow the American workforce and American ingenuity to go to work and get this done for America. Please stop the restrictions for responsible exploration for our natural resources like coal, natural gas, and crude oil. End the heavy- handed restrictions on energy exploration.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to honor the memory of Tony Snow, commentator, news anchor, White House press secretary, a husband and father. The great American. We lost Tony this last weekend, and it's a tremendous loss for his family, for his colleagues and indeed, for the Nation. It's also a great loss for humanity at large. Since Tony lost his battle with cancer on July 12, many Americans have heard stories about his wit, his humor, and his devotion to his family. I have a story of my own that I would like to share about Tony, a story that shows that Tony was very much a man of his word. Mr. Speaker, there are certain privileges that come with being a servant here in the people's House. For me, one of those privileges is from time to time being able to go to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Whether it is a meeting or a social event, a trip to the White House is always a big deal. It's always exciting. It was on one of those trips to the White House that I had the great fortune to meet Tony Snow. I didn't set out to meet Tony Snow that day. It happened because I had something that I had been asked to share with the President. It was a letter. It was a letter brought back by a soldier from Iraq. It was a letter that was handwritten by an Iraqi woman. It was a letter that was taken to this soldier early one summer Iraqi morning, the heat, the dust, the barriers, the wire; and this woman made her way up to the checkpoint and handed this letter to the soldier and said, Can you get this to President Bush? The soldier lived in my district back in north Texas. So after he came home, he brought the letter with him, and he was determined to get it to the President. And he did what anyone else would do with a letter to get to the President; he brought it to the town hall where his congressman was speaking and handed me the letter in front of a great number of people and said, ``Can you please help me get this letter to the President?'' Of course I said I would. But I didn't really know how I was going to do that and brought the letter back to Washington. I worked with the White House congressional liaison, but I wasn't really getting the letter to where it needed to be. So we had the White House picnic scheduled, and at the last minute, I put the letter in my pocket. I said, Well, if I see the President, I will hand the letter to him personally. But as is usually the case, you go to one of these events and the President is absolutely mobbed by people, and I honestly just didn't think I could get through the swarm of individuals that were lining up to have their picture made with the President. So I turned around, and there was Tony Snow. I didn't know Tony, but I walked up to him and struck up a conversation. And he was very happy to oblige. He was warm, he was witty, certainly very, very easy to talk with. He was a larger-than-life press person, a pundit, a press secretary, having just a pleasant and regular conversation with a very freshman congressman from Texas. It dawned on me that day that Tony might be the right person to whom to give this letter to take to the President. I asked him. I said, I have a letter that a soldier asked me to deliver to the President that was given to him by a woman in Iraq. Do you think you can help me? He said of course he would take the letter, and he'd be happy to see that it got into the hands of the President. Now, that was the White House picnic in June. Many, many months went by, many, many weeks went by, a couple of months went by. I didn't hear anything, and I really wondered what had happened to that letter, if it had ever gotten to where it was intended to go. And then at another event right at the start of school in September back in my district, the same soldier came up to me at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast. Again, a lot of people around, and very excitedly said, ``I just want you to know what you have meant to me getting my letter to the President.'' And I was somewhat taken aback because I didn't know the President received the letter. He said, Oh, yes. They called me from the White House. They identified themselves. At first I thought it was some of my buddies that were kidding with me. But in fact the letter had gotten to the White House. The President called me and thanked me for it. In the letter, the woman had thanked the President for everything he had done for the Iraqi people and said she was praying for him every day, and the President was deeply touched by the woman's words. Now, Tony Snow did not have to take that letter from me that day. He didn't have to deliver it to his boss. He didn't have to take it to the President. But that's just the kind of person he was: honest, decent, and a man of his word at all times. Well, certainly for me it was a great honor for me to meet Tony Snow that day. Certainly the country again mourns his loss, and I just wanted to bring to the floor this evening one of the other stories of what a great American Tony was and how much, as a country, we will miss him and honor his memory.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 299 that supports the goals and ideals of Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month. I thank the sponsor of the resolution, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and cosponsor, Cliff Stearns of Florida, for their diligent work on this issue. And I would like to thank my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlelady from California, for presenting the bill before us today. H. Con. Res. 299 raises public awareness by observing Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month and recognizing the 30,000 people in the United States that have this hereditary disease. Cystic fibrosis affects the lungs, it affects virtually every system in the body, and certainly complications can arise such as life-threatening lung infections, and gastrointestinal complications that lead to malabsorption. Of the 30,000 Americans affected by this inherited and chronic condition, more than half are children. Mr. Speaker, significantly, in the 1950s, very few children with cystic fibrosis lived to attend elementary school. Today, advances in research and medical treatments have further enhanced and extended the life of children, and now even adults with cystic fibrosis. In 2006, the predicted median age of survival had risen to 37 years, and many people with the condition can now expect to live into their 40s and beyond, a significant achievement. When I began my medical studies back in the mid-1970s, cystic fibrosis was, indeed, a disease of childhood. And now we have many more people living well into young adulthood with the condition. And the expectation is with further advances in research, this age will greatly increase in the next several years. It is important that we recognize Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month and educate the public about the symptoms of the disease, increase the knowledge and understanding of the condition, and promote early detection for the new cases that are diagnosed each year. And the bill makes reference to 3,500 children that are born each year with cystic fibrosis. I thank the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for their efforts and continued funding of research and potential therapies. One of the intriguing things about treatments on the horizon, certainly we are all aware of changes that are going on in genome research and the fact that there may be new therapies that none of us dreamed of a few years ago. Compacted nanoparticles of aerosolized DNA taken as a nasal inhalant have made some dramatic changes in this disease, and certainly we look forward to many more advances on these fronts. Certainly the hard work of the foundation has improved the life of the 70,000 people worldwide suffering from cystic fibrosis. And hopefully one day they will lead the way in finding a cure. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers at this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this worthwhile resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have additional speakers on the way, and while awaiting their arrival, let me just also mention that this bill, coming as it did through our Committee on Energy and Commerce, for major pieces of health care legislation, that is the correct approach, for it to come through the committee process, committee hearings and subcommittee and committee markups. Later on today we will have an opportunity to vote on a Presidential veto of the Medicare bill that we passed on this House floor a few weeks ago. That bill was an example of not following regular procedure, and that is what has made this issue that has embraced the correction of the physician reimbursement cuts--embraced by both sides of the aisle, but it has made it very contentious for this body. It was all unnecessary. Not a person in this body really opposed correcting the physician cuts. Really the only issue was the approach. We could have had an opportunity to have a bill marked up in our subcommittee or in our full committee. I would have welcomed the opportunity to propose amendments, to perhaps perfect that legislation that would have rendered the whole process of this very contentious standoff we have now with the White House, would have rendered that absolutely unnecessary. There are good ideas up there on both sides of the aisle. I would again use this opportunity to express how important it is that this House follow regular procedure, particularly on these major health care bills. This bill that the President will veto today, that we will have an opportunity to vote on the override, this will affect the delivery of health care for the next 30 or 40 years in ways that many of us have no ability to comprehend right now. It's unfortunate, because we had the opportunity to do the markups in subcommittee and full committee, and, for whatever reason, the decision was made to bring it up on suspension, push it to the last minute, so there really was no opportunity to say, well, let's take it back and go through committee, because we were up against a hard deadline. Everybody knew that last December. We had passed a 6-month extension. It was one of the most insulting things we could have done to the medical profession in this country was give them a 6-month reprieve on the rollback of the Medicare reimbursement rates. Instead, we gave them a 6-month reprieve, and we pushed it up to the very last minute, so there was no other option. It's an up or down vote. Take it or leave it. You have got this bill. It has got a lot of other things appended to it. We heard no discussion about the unfunded mandates for e-prescribing that were tagged onto this bill. I doubt many of the regular physicians out there in practice today really understand what we have passed for them, what we have layered on to their overhead that grows by leaps and bounds every year. It's the additional regulations that have been placed on physician practices. This is an example today of doing things the right way. Later on this afternoon we will have an example of doing things the wrong way. I would urge the leadership of this House to pay attention to this. We have good individuals on both sides of the aisle that have are serving in our committees of jurisdiction. Let's not circumvent that committee process and bring things up on the suspension calendar that really are substantial changes in Federal policy that really should go through regular order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, well, again, we do have other speakers who are reportedly on the way. Let me just add another couple of comments, because I have heard some discussion that we will have another opportunity to vote on SCHIP legislation before this House comes to a conclusion. This, again, would be a mistake to bring it up through the suspension process. We have until March of 2009 to reauthorize the SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I would urge this House to take up the work of that now. Let's begin in our committee this year. We actually don't have to do the bill until next year. We can do a lot of the groundwork this year, and that would be the correct way to approach that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding career of Neil Slater, chairman of the Jazz Studies Division at the University of North Texas and nationally recognized jazz composer. Mr. Slater has been an integral part of the UNT School of Music for 27 years and plans to retire in August. Mr. Slater created the jazz masters program at the University of North Texas, and has been instrumental in making UNT one of our nation's outstanding colleges for jazz composition and performance. In addition to his role as chairman of the jazz department, Mr. Slater also leads the ``One O'Clock Lab Band,'' a jazz ensemble named after its traditional practice time. This Band has performed and recorded across the world, occasionally participating alongside jazz greats as Freddie Hubbard, Joe Henderson, and Ron Carter. Slater was nominated for a Grammy award in 1993, and he received a 1995 National Endowment for the Arts fellowship grant. He has composed over 60 pieces for jazz ensembles, in addition to writing pieces for symphony, mixed chamber groups, a cappella chorus, and theater. In recognition of his reputation as a jazz expert, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers has bestowed its ``Standard Award'' upon Slater each year since 1987. Prior to educating musicians at UNT, Mr. Slater founded the Jazz Studies program at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut. I commend Neil Slater for his outstanding career as an educator and composer. As an alumnus of the University of North Texas, I am especially proud of the work he has done to make the University a leader in jazz education. I am honored to represent Neil Slater and the University of North Texas in the 26th District of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor Dr. Michael DeBakey, the father of modern cardiovascular surgery, and for me a personal hero. Dr. DeBakey passed away Friday night in Houston at the age of 99. Michael DeBakey, a giant among men and a giant in medicine. His death is a tremendous loss to the fields of medicine, science, and technology. It is a great loss for humanity at-large. Mr. Speaker, there are certain privileges that come with being a servant here in the people's House. For me, one of those privileges was meeting Dr. DeBakey. After working months to secure the Congressional Gold Medal for the great doctor, I had the chance to sit down with him here in Washington in April right after it was awarded to him. For 30 minutes, we were able to discuss his personal and professional experiences over his 60 years in medicine. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for which I am eternally grateful. He talked about how Congress had been responsible for the advancement of medical science in this country, how Congress had led the way with funding for the National Institutes of Health. He talked about his experiences going over and treating Boris Yeltsin in the Soviet Union when he was suffering from heart disease, and Dr. DeBakey found just on the basis purely on physical examine that the individual was quite anemic as well, which rendered his outlook for cardiovascular surgery much worse. They treated the anemia, and the rest, as they say, is history. As a fellow physician, Dr. DeBakey's work on medical advancements is legendary. His dedication to healing those around him came not only from his talents as a physician, but his ongoing commitment to the larger medical community. His motto, as we heard others mention today, was always ``strive for nothing less than excellence.'' I would be remiss if I did not mention the education and the entrepreneurial spirit that made him worthy of one of the Nation's highest honors, the Congressional Gold Medal. Let me share some of his accomplishments. While in medical school, Dr. DeBakey developed the roller pump which later became the major component in the heart-lung machine that is used in open heart surgery routinely today. It was truly a visionary change. His service and subsequent work in the Surgeon General's office during World War II led to the development of the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, the so-called MASH unit. Without Dr. DeBakey, we wouldn't have those forward surgical teams that go into combat areas and provide vital care to our soldiers in that golden hour after injury. This medical trailblazer also helped establish the specialized medical and surgical center system for treating military personnel returning home from war which we know as the Veterans Administration Medical Center. But it was at the Methodist Hospital in Houston where Dr. DeBakey performed many of his groundbreaking surgeries, including the first removal of a carotid artery blockage. He also performed the first coronary artery bypass graft, and some of the first heart transplants in this country as well. He served as adviser to every President of the United States for the last 50 years. Think of that, every President for the last 50 years depended on Dr. Michael DeBakey for medical advice. Additionally, he has given advice to heads of state throughout the world. During his professional surgical career, he performed more than 60,000 cardiovascular procedures, and trained thousands of surgeons who practice around the world today. Today, his name is affixed to any number of organizations, centers of learning, and projects devoted to medical education and health education for the general public. This includes the National Library of Medicine, which is now the world's largest and most prestigious repository of medical archives. The collections there house resources that actually I look at several times a week as I prepare for committee hearings. Dr. DeBakey's contributions to medicine, his breakthrough surgeries, and his innovative devices have completely transformed our view of the human body and our view of longevity on this planet. The United States, and indeed the world, were fortunate to have this medical pioneer for as long as we did. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I come to the floor tonight, but it is also with great honor that I once again share Dr. DeBakey with this august body. Time Magazine honored him as the Man of the Year several years ago. Indeed he was, a man for the ages and the Man of the Year.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It has been a fascinating discussion tonight. Of course, as the gentleman from Michigan knows, I was in the hearing as well on June 23rd. It was a long hearing, but it was a good hearing, and we heard from a number of witnesses. When you listened to the discussion of the witnesses, especially on the concept of the non physical hedger, I think one of the most striking things to me was that there was a component, just the sheer volume of dollars, that was going into that, and that clearly had an effect, so there may be a very immediate return that can be had. There was a disagreement as to how quickly that could come about, but the pressure could be put on the price of oil to come down. What was not lost on me, though, was the concept that these very tight supply and demand markets are around the world, and I think, man, those first four witnesses that presented to us that day said that by the year 2015, world demand would vastly outstrip supply. The message I took from that is we'd best be looking at the next level of supply because we had about a 7-year window in which to achieve that, so you had to be sure that some of these other methods that we've heard today would be several years down the road before we would actually get the supply from those areas, but we need to start today to be able to get that supply. The other thing that was just absolutely amazing was the number of dollars going into those markets and where the actual rate of rise really began to increase. It was in about December of 2006 or in January of 2007. I think my time has expired. I yield back to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students from Liberty Christian School in Argyle, Texas for building a one-of-a kind solar-powered vehicle to compete in the Dell-Winston School Solar Car Challenge. Their solar powered vehicle passed inspection and was tested this weekend at Texas Motor Speedway. The Dell-Winston School Solar Car Challenge began in 1993 in Dallas, Texas. The competition now attracts students from 19 high schools across Texas, in addition to teams from other states. Each team must build its own solar-powered car, and the car that completes the most laps at the Speedway during three-hour periods wins the competition. The Liberty Christian students used scrap parts, as well as some parts bought on the Internet, to build their vehicle, at a total cost of only $8000. The team members have varying interests, some planning on pursuing engineering or science in college, while others plan to study non- scientific fields, such as dance. Nonetheless, each member is dedicated to completing this very challenging project, which tests their attention to detail, mechanical ability, and creativity. The four-day competition took place this weekend. The students' vehicle, named ``Racing for the Sun,'' was successful in completing eighteen laps. Now that the competition is over, the students' next step will be to travel across the country to display their work. The six students from Liberty Christian have displayed team work, and they've shown how dedication and persistence can lead to success. I am proud to represent these students in the 26th District of Texas, and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor tonight and I guess continue what has been a theme this evening on both sides of the aisle. The theme is energy. We are hearing a lot about energy as we go home to our districts, and I am no exception. I heard a lot about energy from my constituents, I heard a lot about energy from talk radio, I heard a lot about energy from newspapers back home. I wanted to come to the floor tonight and talk a little bit about an event that I held in my district that dealt with energy more from the consumer angle, just from the basis of the average everyday constituent back in the district. I have people talk to me and ask me, well, what is the real villain here? Where is the real problem here? Is it the oil companies? Is it the speculators? Is it the global demand? Where is the problem? One of the real frustrations from people back home is that it is just very difficult for the average person to go out and increase production on their own. They can't do that. It is very difficult for the average person to do much about energy speculation. It is very difficult for the average person to do much about the global impact on supply and demand. What they can do, what they can modify is their own behavior and reduce their own demand profile, perhaps only a small amount, but you multiply that over the 300 million people in the United States and suddenly you begin to talk about numbers that are in fact meaningful. So the purpose of the event we did last week in the district was to provide constituents with some insights as to how to take some personal proactive steps to reduce energy consumption and, in the process, to save some money off their energy bills. And I was impressed, Mr. Speaker. This was a week ago last Saturday. It was a nice Saturday down in Texas. It hadn't gotten too hot just yet. And that morning, nearly 200 Texans, 200 of my constituents delayed their Saturday morning activities, whether it be mowing the lawn or just spending time with their families, because they were interested in hearing about what was available as far as energy savings. Now, I have done this event for several years and it has grown in popularity year after year. It started out as a relatively small event in one of the hardware stores with some of the off-the-shelf energy efficiency products that were available. We had someone down from the Department of Energy to speak about those things. It was a very, very well attended event for as small as it was. And then the following year we did it on the campus of the university there. It was much more widely attended. And this year, we did it at one of the local high schools. And I am pleased to say that the attendance was larger this year than it was the year before. And each year at this event it becomes more and more important, and attendance increases, because more people feel the need to be smarter about their energy consumption. They want to take some control of this energy aspect, the stranglehold that it has on their lives and they want to start taking control of their energy costs. Higher energy prices. Higher energy prices have a way of exerting a behavioral change. High prices at the pump, high prices with home energy, they have caused a slowdown in the economy. They have caused times to become much more stark, even for areas that are relatively blessed like North Texas with economic times that are not as bad as some other areas of the country. But still, in many homes across my district and indeed many homes across America tonight, these high energy prices really have a stranglehold on our American families. Now, we have heard over and over again tonight. We have heard it from the Democratic side and we have heard it from the Republican side. The lack of congressional action has been underscored many times before, I am going to underscore it again. In the absence of congressional action to increase domestic sources of energy, I want people in my district to know about the tools that they have at their disposal right at their fingertips to help them conserve energy and save money today. This is not something that will happen years in the future. This is money that can be saved today. So that is what we call the energy expo. That is what the energy expo is all about, learning how to save energy, learning how to reduce energy waste, and learning how to save money along the way. First of all, we did have someone come down from the Department of Energy. We invited Leslie Drogin who is from the Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy within the Department of Energy. She spoke about some of the alternative energy advancements that are occurring throughout the country, and particularly in some of my communities in North Texas. Now, in Texas we are thought of as an oil State, an oil and gas State. Many people are surprised to find out that Texas is the number one State in electrical power generation from wind energy, and we are second in the number of alternative fueling stations. So Texas has been proactive about alternative sources of energy and alternative fuels. Now, Leslie also stressed that setting goals for energy efficiency and working toward them is not always going to be easy, and it does take to some degree a personal commitment. Now, in addition to some of the local and national speakers, I did have a moderated discussion focusing on ways that individuals can squeeze a few more miles out of a gallon and squeeze a few more cooling hours out of that kilowatt hour of electricity in their homes. So the first panel consisted of representatives from AAA Texas and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Denton County Transportation Authority. We first heard from a gentleman named Patrick O'Reilly of AAA Texas. He discussed many of the different maintenance tips and tricks consumers can use to ensure that their vehicles aren't only efficient but perhaps they are a little more safe as well. Now, the one that everyone talks about and you hear it all the time and I will mention it again is tire pressure. Ensuring that tires are properly inflated can result in a 3 percent fuel economy benefit and equivalent gas savings of up to 12 cents a gallon. Properly inflated tires are safer and they last longer, so you will spend less money on your tires. So, in the long run, it is a real bargain. Regular oil changes. Now, raise your hand if your dad ever told you to change the oil every 3,000 miles and how many of you let that slip a little bit. Well, keeping that oil changed every 3 months or 3,000 miles is the right thing to do. But we also learned that using the right grade of motor oil for the environment is important as well. For example, using a 10W-30 oil in an engine designed to use 5W-30 can lower gas mileage by 1 percent or 2 percent. And this again translates to 4 cents to 8 cents per gallon of gas savings. You add that 8 cents to the 12 cents of tire pressure, and now we are up to 20 cents savings on that gallon of gas. Perhaps the most valuable tip that was reported that morning and one of which I was not completely aware, but changing the air filters regularly, which can increase energy efficiency up to 10 percent and save 41 cents per gallon. So now we have saved 20 cents by a combination of tire pressure and using the right grade of motor oil. Adding another 41 cents a gallon, and we are up to saving 60 cents a gallon of gasoline just with these three simple measures that anyone can do as far as automobile maintenance. We also heard from a gentleman named Clinton Blair who spoke on behalf of the Automobile Alliance, and discussed some of the different concept vehicles and the innovations and technology that we might expect to see now, sooner rather than later. With gas prices being as they are, clearly there is a consumer demand and an impetus for the development of those types of vehicles. And most Americans already know about the hybrid electric vehicles, but that is just one of the many technologies that is going to be available to address both the environmental concerns and the rising fuel prices. Now, several years ago I had to get on a waiting list, but I got on a waiting list and I purchased a hybrid vehicle. This was back in 2003. It was actually 2004 by the time I took delivery of the vehicle. And my main concern at the time was air quality issues in my area of North Texas. With hot summer sunshine and particulate matter in the air, we have a big problem with ozone, and I wanted to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. So I got in line and paid the extra money for a hybrid vehicle. Well, now that gas prices are up to $4 a gallon, it looks like absolute genius to have done that several years ago. But the reality was, it was the right thing to do from the standpoint of air quality several years ago, and it is the right thing to do today from the standpoint of lowering the Nation's fuel consumption and lowering the amount of oil that has to be imported sometimes from areas of the world that don't particularly like us. And we heard about that extensively during the last hour. But in addition to the hybrid technology, there are some other new technologies on the road today, and many, many more available just over the horizon. An innovation on the road today is the variable cylinder vehicle. Now, those of us who were around in the Arab embargo of the 1970s remember this type of technology was actually available back in the 1970s. I think it was the Cadillac car that came available with a button you could push for either running on all 8 cylinders, running on 6, or running on 4. And the theory was that when you got up to highway speeds and the engine did not need to develop the same amount of power just to simply maintain the speed, you could drop the cylinder usage to 4 from 6. It wasn't particularly efficient and didn't really deliver on the promise. The technology at that time was largely mechanical rather than electronic, so it wasn't a big seller. But that concept is coming back, and now there are variable cylinder vehicles that sometimes run as a 6 cylinder vehicle, sometimes run as a 4 cylinder vehicle. And, again, it presents another option for consumers to save gas. We did hear a lot about new car technology that is just over the horizon, and we hear about it frequently here on the floor of the House, we hear it frequently in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the concept of plug-in hybrids and plug-in cars. That is an interesting development. In fact, just the other day someone was telling me about the fact that some of the hybrid cars that are now in production, the next generation of hybrid cars may very well have a solar panel on the roof. It is a wonderful, insightful idea, the way to charge that battery while the car is sitting in the parking lot, particularly in a State like Texas where you have got a lot of sunshine beating down on that car. And rather than just heating the interior of the car and making it unpleasant when you sit down, maybe you could use that energy to recharge the battery and drive farther on the battery then when you start that car up for the commute home, use less fuel in the process, and obviously have a positive impact on air quality as well. So I was very grateful to hear about that innovation because I've often wondered why it is someone hasn't done that yet when I drive my own hybrid vehicle. As to other concepts, like the hydrogen fuel cells and the new engineering techniques like regenerative braking systems, some of the hybrids already do that. When you step on the brakes, some of the power then goes to the generator, which recharges the battery, but again, these are technologies that just a few years ago were in their infancy but that are now hitting their stride and are coming into their own, the concept of recovering energy that would be otherwise wasted during stop-and-go driving. Now, Mr. Blair also discussed the impact of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which were passed as part of this Congress last year. It will be a few years before we see the impact of those. We can argue whether it's better to have those set by Congress or set by consumers in the market. I think the reality is $4-a-gallon gasoline is going to do a lot more as far as lowering the Corporate Average Fuel Economy than any act of Congress could have ever done, but we'll wait and see. That raises an interesting point when people tell us that, if you start tomorrow with increased drilling, you're not going to have that product available to the American consumer for a number of years, maybe as much as 7- to 10-years' time. Yet, last fall, we enacted the increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, recognizing that it was going to be--what?--5 years, 7 years, 10 years before those were fully implemented and were fully functional as far as reducing the number of gallons of gasoline consumed, and oh, by the way, you've also got to age out the older fleet, which is now still consuming gas at the older standard. So, if you want to talk about a process that consumes time when you're anxious to get things done quickly, again, the act of Congress to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards certainly, in my estimation, falls into that category. That really was not the point that Mr. Blair made at the meeting, but it certainly has been my observation over time. So hybrid vehicles and Alternative Fuel Vehicles are available. They are currently more expensive than traditional fuel models, and a consumer has to make that estimation and has to make that choice. It is a little bit difficult not knowing what the future is going to bring. Two years ago, if you looked at the price of gasoline and looked at the cost of a hybrid car or of an Alternative Fuel Vehicle, you might do the math and say, you know, it'll take me 7 to 9 years to recover the investment of the extra cost of this vehicle, and I just don't think it's worth it. Now that the price of a gallon of gasoline has doubled since January of 2007, maybe those mathematics work out more in favor of going ahead and of making the investment in an Alternative Fuel Vehicle or in a hybrid vehicle. Also, as to the economies of scale as newer technologies are coming on line and as more and more of these vehicles are being produced, this does have the tendency of pushing down the overall cost of the production of those vehicles, and subsequently, the cost on the retail end drops as well. All of the auto dealerships that attended the Energy Expo event were local, around in the area--James Wood Chevrolet from Denton, Bill Utter Ford from Denton, and Freeman Toyota from Hurst, Texas, which is just down the road. To an individual, they reported that they could fill all of the orders for hybrid-type vehicles and for ultra-efficient vehicles. They could fill all of the orders and then some. If they had more of these vehicles in stock, they felt comfortable that they could, in fact, sell those vehicles. They have a significant backlog for fuel-efficient vehicle types. In fact, it is almost independent of the sticker price. Another option for Americans, while they're waiting on Congress to act and while they're waiting on auto manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient cars, trucks and SUVs, is another alternative altogether, one that I like to call rapid transit--the transit system that we have certainly here in Washington, DC. We don't have quite the same demographics. We don't have quite the same population densities back home as we do here in Washington. The fact remains that, with fuel prices as high as they are, more people now are looking towards transit as an option for cutting down a portion of their fuel bills during their commute. Now, in Washington, the Metro's ridership is increasing. In fact, the Washington Times this morning was talking about the Metro's being somewhat constrained in adding more cars because they just simply cannot buy any more electricity during peak times. Well, there's an argument to be made for additional nuclear plants or for additional clean coal plants that are producing more electricity. We don't have the electrical generation capacity to actually run the rapid transit that we want to run even with today's numbers. What are we going to do as we add to that? Still, transit is going to become increasingly important and not nearly as popular in my district, where we like to drive our big pickup trucks and our Dually pickup trucks. It's not nearly going to be as popular back home as it is here in Washington. The infrastructure, certainly, is not nearly as extensive and is not nearly to the maturational point that it is here in the Washington Metropolitan Area, but I did think it was important for people to hear about what options are going to be available in the future as far as transit is concerned. We did hear along that line from Charles Emery, who is with the Denton County Transportation Authority, and he discussed some of the resources available to constituents living in the Denton County area, who might consider transit as an option as they go about their daily commute or, in some areas of the metroplex, even just traveling around to shops and to shopping venues much closer to home. This was useful information. Again, the culture is a little bit different in North Texas than it is in the metropolitan areas. It's different in the suburban areas than it is in the urban areas. It's different in the rural areas than it is in the suburban areas where it's not really the norm to use transit, but at the same time, this is increasing in importance. The Denton County Transportation Authority, interestingly enough, was formed as a result of authorizing a vote that was taken in the general election in 2002, the same year that I ran for Congress the first time. It was these individuals who had the vision to recognize that at some point, and at that time, it was purely based on congestion and not based on the price of fuel. It was simply to mitigate the problems that they saw down the road with congestion. These individuals had the foresight to go to the voters and to ask for the will of the voter, if you will, on whether or not rapid transit was going to be part of the future of mobility in Denton County. The question was answered with a resounding ``yes,'' and over 70 percent of the electorate that night did vote in favor of starting that transit option in North Texas. Texans love their independence. They love to have the independence provided by having their own vehicles, but with gas up to $4 a gallon, some of the worst congestion in the Nation exists in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. A lot of people are beginning to evaluate that trade-off and are coming down on the side that maybe transit is an option that they need to investigate a little further. In addition, the increase in food prices and other services has, unfortunately, driven some families to the point where they literally have to find an alternative method of transportation because they just simply cannot afford the cost of filling up the family vehicle for that commute to work. They're having to make the choice between filling up the automobile or feeding or sheltering their families. Clearly, transit does provide another option for that. Now, this panel, the first panel that was convened, was educational. I have to compliment them on the fact that they were so thorough. These individuals presented a very professional discourse on energy and money savers. Certainly, I want to thank them for coming. Some of them did have to travel to the area. I want to thank them for coming and for participating in that symposium because I think it was, ultimately, very helpful to the end user--the consumer--and was helpful to, perhaps, devise ways to lower consumption, which will help in the supply-demand equation. We did have a second panel, and the second panel focused on energy conservation in the home. We brought in individuals representing the Texas State Energy Conservation Office, the Home Builders Association, the Home Appliance Manufacturers, and the Home Energy Raters organization. The first on that panel was Mr. Mike Myers, who currently serves as a project manager for the Texas Energy Partnership, a project of the State of Texas. Now, Mr. Myers previously served in the U.S. Department of Energy, in their program for affordable housing, and he has worked for both New York City and for the city of San Antonio. So he talked about some of the personal behaviors that individuals can adopt around the home that translate into savings when paying the utility bills. Now, I was kind of surprised to learn about the cell phone charger. Even if your cell phone is not plugged into the charger, the charger still draws power as long as it's plugged in. Most of that power is going to be converted to heat. We're familiar with the fact that, even if a phone is not plugged into a charger and we unplug the charger from the wall, the charger is a little bit warm, but it's obviously drawing electrical energy to generate that heat, not a particularly useful exercise, especially in Texas in the summer. So, as long as the device is plugged in, it's going to draw energy. If you're not using it to charge the phone, perhaps it ought to be unplugged unless it's actually needed for charging. We heard from several individuals about the importance of air- conditioning duct maintenance. Now, no one in Texas wants to climb in their attics in the summertime, where the heat is probably in excess of 140 degrees, to inspect their air-conditioning equipment and their air- conditioning ducts for leaks, but if there are leaks in the return system, in the system that brings air back to the cooling unit from the household, it pulls that super heated air in from the attic. Again, in a hot Texas summer, an attic's environmental temperature can easily be significantly in excess of 100 degrees. Not only that, you're pulling in dust and mold and, really, things that do not belong within the air- conditioning system. So, in addition to driving energy bills much, much higher, it also poses some health risks, so it is important to have those inspections done, and there are individuals who are capable and who will provide that service. For all air-conditioning systems and for all air infiltration systems, this individual recommended a few simple steps: First off, when building a home, get the right sized unit for the house. Obviously, choose a high-efficiency model. There are many more models of higher efficiency that are available today than there were even just a few years ago. Indeed, some cities have ordinances as to the efficiency rating that can be installed in a house. I know my home city of Lewisville has such a requirement, but do get the right efficiency, the right sized unit for the area that's going to be cooled and the highest efficiency model that is available that will fit the budget, and then make certain that the duct right-of-way and the duct sealing is all done properly for the proper amount of energy conservation. We then heard from another individual who had actually been at one of my previous summits, Mr. Dan Fette of the Home Builders Association. This individual has won numerous awards for not only building homes but for the design of homes, affordable homes, in an energy-efficient fashion. He talked about the ways that a home could be built to be friendlier to the environment and friendlier to the energy consumer's wallet. In Texas, we've got a lot of big homes and a lot of big homes with a lot of big, open spaces that sometimes aren't protected from the elements. Now, Dan specializes in maximizing comfort and in minimizing environmental disruption and energy waste. He utilizes features in the design of the home that include relocating windows that are exposed to direct sunlight. Now, in Texas, when I was a kid, we used to have things that were called cisterns. They collected rainwater off the roof of the house, and it ran through the gutters and into a holding tank into the ground. Now they're called rainwater catchment systems, and they're capable of meeting landscape and irrigation needs. Obviously, they're dependent upon rainfall to fill the reservoir up, but it is a way of holding water that is otherwise going to just simply go into the storm water drainage system, holding onto water to meet the water needs of landscaping, and of course, he recommended using native landscapes that are lower in their water usage. He emphasized the importance of selecting proper plumbing fixtures and appliances that are appropriate for the household. Building energy efficiency into a home can reduce the need for expensive repairs in the future, and it can reduce the need for undergoing the expense of an energy audit in the future, but we'll kind of leave the discussion of energy audits to just a little bit later on. Now, also participating in this panel was Mrs. Casey Hege. She was a representative from General Electric's Appliance Division. She discussed selecting the appliance options that would reward the homeowner with better performance and with lower bills. One of the biggest energy users in anyone's home is of no great surprise--the refrigerator. Older model refrigerators use more energy. In fact, they are one of the largest consumers of energy within the household. So one way to reduce energy consumption, if it fits the family budget, is to replace the old refrigerator with a higher energy- efficient model. Now, one thing that she found was that people who were buying the higher efficiency refrigerators were then coming back and were saying, ``You know what? I'm, in fact, using more energy today than I was before I purchased this high-energy model.'' It took her a while to figure out what was happening. In Texas, a lot of times what we'll do is we'll take that old refrigerator out to the garage, and we'll plug it in, and we'll use it for our excess capacity. Well, if you do that, obviously, you're not getting any energy savings from buying that more efficient, new refrigerator. So always dispose of the old refrigerator, dispose of it properly, dispose of it carefully. Many of these older models contain Freon, and there are going to be municipal requirements that are going to have to be met for their disposal, but obviously you're not going to save money in your home if you buy a new, highly efficient refrigerator and take the old one out to the garage and store whatever beverage you want to store in your garage. Having two refrigerators does ultimately cost more money and cost more energy. Finally, that morning we heard from Mr. Steve Gleaves--he's a home energy auditor and a founding member of the Texas Home Energy Raters Organization--who talked about what to expect with a home energy audit. Now, when to seek an audit and what you can expect to find in your house were the topics of discussion for the home energy audit. He talked about how common it is--and again, this was a recurrent theme that we heard several times that morning--he talked about how common it is for home air-conditioning systems to have leaks in the intake system and around the ventilation grills. Again, he emphasizes the point that one thing you can do from a heating and air-conditioning standpoint to improve energy efficiency in the home is to have those ducts inspected. The other aspect that he talked about, and it was mentioned by one of our previous presenters, select the right size unit for house. A unit that is too big for the area that it is cooling will never come up to maximum efficiency. It's always turning on and off, and the unit will use its maximum of draw, its maximum amount of power when it switches on. So a unit that's switching on and off frequently will never achieve that high energy efficiency rating that was the reason you bought the larger unit in the first place. So it is important to have the architect or builder right size the equipment for the home that's being built. And again, having the ability or having someone investigate the integrity of the air-conditioning ducts so that those leaks which draw in that super-heated attic air into the return vents, so that that doesn't happen under the best of circumstances on a hot day; the best an air conditioner is going be able to achieve is a 20-degree difference between the outside air and the air inside. Well, if you're drawing in to the air-conditioning unit air that's heated to 140 degrees, it's going to be hard to get much measurable cooling off of that. Now, in addition to the panelists, we had a number of local businesses and organizations who had set up displays around the area, and we did have good participation of the constituency that showed up that morning in looking at the displays, Home Depot, Lowe's Hardware, Peterbilt, which has a manufacturing plant in my district in Denton, NewCon Steel, which is located in Denton, the Agrilife Extension Office of Denton County, the Texas State Energy Conservation Office, obviously several automobile dealerships which I previously mentioned, and the Denton County Transportation Authority all had either booths or displays to help consumers understand about energy consumption and provide some information about energy-efficient products and services. Peterbilt, for example, bought two trucks: one was an over-the-road model that we're all familiar with, a type of 18-wheeler that we see on our highways, but it was a diesel hybrid electric and, as a consequence, achieved about a 10 percent savings on the open road. The other model was, again, a diesel-electric hybrid, but this was more of a delivery truck, the type of truck you might see around town, the type of truck that might be in stop-and-go traffic, the type of truck that might be periodically caught in a traffic slowdown caused by congestion. And these vehicles actually achieved about a 25 percent overall savings. So a significant savings in fuel for the company that was operating those vehicles, and I was very grateful to Peterbilt for having those units there. Overall, I think the event was important. I think it was successful. I think each of us making a personal commitment to use energy wisely, to use energy efficiently is--it's not the entire solution to our energy problems, but it certainly can be a part of the solution. And most importantly in my mind, it puts the consumer back in control of some of these parts of the energy equation in which they feel entirely powerless to impact: the supply/demand curve, they feel entirely powerless to impact the globalization that has occurred; if speculators are causing a problem, the end consumer has very little they can do as far as modifying the behavior of the speculator, the futures trader. But they can modify their behavior, and they can become more savvy consumers, and they can become more efficient consumers. So all of these were benefits that I witnessed at the local level, and I think I would classify this event as a successful event. Again, this was the third year that it has happened. It has grown in popularity each year that it has occurred. I have actually had other areas in my district, other than cities in my district, who have inquired about the possibility of having a second event in their locations. And the acceptance by the public and the enthusiasm with which the public approached this was, I found, particularly gratifying, and I don't think there is any question that we will repeat this next year. I wish it wouldn't be necessary, that prices would be down so low that energy was no longer a consideration, but the reality is that's a world to which we probably will not return, at least during my natural lifetime. Now, we ask our constituents to be more savvy consumers, and they will step up and do the job that is asked of them, but while we're asking them to make some of the personal changes in their energy demands, we've heard it again and again on the floor of this House tonight, we heard it a week ago before we went home for the break, the July 4th holiday, we in Congress have to take some action as well. And we, like any other hard problem, like any other complex problem, you need a short-term, mid-term, and long-term approach to how you're going to deal with this. In the short term, we've got to make sure that our energy is traded in markets that are fair and transparent, that the proper oversight exists from the proper regulatory authorities and the proper Federal agencies, to the extent that that hasn't been happening, it has to happen. And I don't think there is anyone in this body that would want to go home and try to justify to their constituents why that is not important. To the extent that there is manipulation in the market, it has to be ferreted out, stopped, corrected. Now, last month, on June 23 in our Committee on Energy and Commerce, our Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations, we had an investigative hearing. The hearing was titled ``Energy Speculation. Is Greater Regulation Necessary to Stop Price Manipulation?'' Now, it was really an interesting hearing, and there was a lot of information, some information that I was not aware of prior to the hearing. Some information that, yeah, we've all heard a lot for a long time. But I think one of the things that became very apparent during that hearing is that the scope and the magnitude of the number of dollars that are being invested in the energy futures markets is greater today than at any time in country's history. And that even if the motives are pure, it is just the sheer volume of dollars that are being invested that is driving the price of these futures contracts higher and higher, and that obviously impacts the cost of a barrel of crude oil. And it is driving the market much higher than you would see just based on the cost of--the marginal cost of production and certainly more than would be based on simply factors mediated by supply and demand. Now, the shift into the futures market and the shift into oil speculation by institutional investors has been called the financialization of oil prices. Today, over 70 percent of the participants willing to buy and sell contracts for the West Texas intermediate crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange are speculators, and they're not participants looking to hedge changes in the price of oil before they take the physical delivery of the product. And often times these purchases on these contracts are made with what is called a margin, sometimes it's only pennies on the dollar, 5 percent down, and you own the futures contract until the time of delivery, but oh, by the way, you never intended to take delivery because you're going to sell the contract to someone else who will pay more money for it. Take your cash and run before you get to the end of that. Now, there was a lot of discussion about some of the noncommercial traders who hold contracts only for a very short period of time. They don't have a place to store the product if they were to have to exercise the contract. And instead, they're simply riding that increase wave as it goes up to derive profit from the financial instrument itself, not from the actual product that was pumped out of the ground and put into a barrel and to be sold on the open market. So we did hear from the Commissioner of the Commodities Future Trading Commission, Mr. Walter Lukken. That body is responsible for the oversight over the New York Mercantile Exchange, the NYMEX, and we heard from many of the participants how we could--well, the question that was asked of Mr. Lukken by myself is we see what some of the problems are here. What tools do you need that you don't have today, what tools do you need from Congress, what legislative activity do you need from Congress to stop this practice, to get your arms around this and to be more along the lines of a supply-demand market, not a frenzied financial futures trading market. Certainly some of the advice we got was perhaps the margin investment needs to be increased. Five percent may be too low. Maybe it needs to be 30 percent, 35 percent. Some people even suggested 50 percent. I'm not an expert in petroleum financial futures, but clearly 5 percent as a margin does seem low to me, and I would certainly be willing to hear the discussion of should these margins be higher. What about the person who buys the futures contract and never intends to take delivery? And we're not talking about an airline who's hedging against higher prices by speculating and buying on the market and could take delivery of that product if they were required to do so. We're talking about people who have no way. There is no storage tank anywhere near them that would allow them to put this oil in a tank and take delivery of the product. So clearly, they are only dealing in the financial instrument. Again, they have no interest in the actual commodity that's being traded. So could the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, could it increase margin requirements? Could it put in place a requirement that at least in a certain percentage of that futures contract there must be a place to store it if it were actually delivered to the person who had purchased that contract? Now, Commissioner Lukken answered the question that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission does currently have the authority to increase margin requirements and add position limits. So they have them, but they're only to be used under emergency conditions. As I pointed out to Commissioner Lukken, just in the month of May we had three airlines go bankrupt in a weekend. We had a day where the price of crude rose $11 a barrel in one trading day. We had the Speaker of the House talking about pulling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Are we not in an emergency situation already? What other evidence do you need of an emergency to invoke these emergency powers that would allow you to rein in some of the--if there is cost that's being driven by speculation in the financial market, what other evidence do you need? If you have the power to do it in an emergency situation, I submit you don't need another study. I submit you don't need another law. Go ahead and take the activity which you are empowered to do by virtue of the fact that the Federal agency has the ability under emergency conditions to exercise those powers, go ahead and do it and we will deal with the studies, we will deal with the cumulative effects afterwards. But the situation is so dire at this point, it's so important at this point that I think you ought to do it. Now, Congress was poised to take some action on that to perhaps make it a little more authoritative that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission would in fact be required to do that, but we kind of fell short of that. And Thursday right before we all left for the week of the July 4th break, we passed a bill that was a sense of Congress, a sense of Congress telling the Commodities Futures Trading Commission that maybe you ought to look at exercising your emergency powers. I liken this to sending a ``get well'' card to the American energy consumer. We really didn't do anything. It made us feel better because, by golly, we passed a bill and we told the Commodities Futures Trading Commission what they need to do their job. Well, the reality is they knew they need to do their job. They were told that in the committee hearing. I can't imagine why they haven't taken those steps already, but I certainly don't think that a sense of Congress resolution passed by this Congress 2 weeks ago was really going to impact them much one way or the other. Now, that's the short term. That's the short term to deal with some of the aspects of financial trading or futures trading. What about the intermediate steps? We heard during that panel that some people believe there's a supply-demand problem today. Others say it's being overblown and it's really the futures market that is the problem; the supply-demand problem does not exist to the level at which it should drive the prices as high as we have seen them. I don't know who's correct on that, but to a person throughout several panels that day, we heard over and over again, by the year 2015, demand is going to so vastly outstrip supply that we will be in serious trouble, serious trouble, not that we're not in serious trouble, but we'll be in real serious trouble by 2015 if we do not take the steps necessary to increase production to meet those increased demand requirements. Now, we have heard it again tonight from both sides of the aisle. There are different approaches and different thoughts about it, and we're not talking about drawing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's a very short-term solution, if indeed it's a solution at all, and we've heard some discussion as to the wisdom of that particular exercise, but things like drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, things like drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, off the east coast, off the west coast, development of the oil shale in the inner mountain west. Last December, on our so-called energy bill that really didn't have any energy in it, in our so-called energy bill last December, we prohibited recovering oil from Canada in the Alberta tar sands because we're worried about the effect of something down the road. Well, for goodness sake, Canada is probably our largest supplier of foreign oil. Here is a readily available source where they could increase their production, but we don't want any part of that because we don't know what that's going to do to our carbon footprint down the road. Well, forget about down the road. The time is here and now that we need to get that increased production. So this so-called energy bill that we passed last December, in addition to banning the incandescent bulb, we also banned a type of petroleum from our neighbor to the north, Canada, which could result in an immediate increase in the amount of crude oil available to our markets here. So we really did ourselves double harm during that exercise, but nevertheless, what's past is past. Let's get beyond that point. We have to look at where we're going to get the increased supply that demand is going to require by the year 2015, 7 years away. We hear it talked about on the presidential trail. Well, you're talking about drilling in ANWR; you're talking about drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf; you're talking about deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. That product is 7 years away. Well, yeah, that's right, it's 7 years away, and if we don't start today, guess where we're going to be in 7 years. We're going to be in tall grass because we haven't done what is necessary to affect that increased supply. And we all know the demand is coming. We all hear it every day, China and India and all of the other components of the global economy that are drawing energy into their economies while we literally fiddle as Rome burns here in the United States. It is time for us to get past that point, get on with the development of new supply. If it takes 7 years, that's about the timeline we've got, and if we don't start this year, we're going to be a year later than we should be, or we're going to be 2 years later than we should be. It really begs the question: When is this Congress going to wake up and understand the importance, the dire importance of that day when demand vastly outstrips supply in 2015? Now, that issue is pretty clear-cut to me, and I think it's pretty clear-cut to most Americans. I think any polling you do on that subject would show that most Americans are in tune with the fact that they understand that allowing the production of American energy within America's borders is important for our national security, it's important for the future and the sustainability of our economy. What about the long term? What about some of things you have heard tonight on the development of the techniques for cellulosic ethanol? It will be a wonderful day when we get there, but we're not there yet, and we cannot let our enthusiasm for the technology get ahead of our ability to deliver that technology. For the foreseeable future, for the 7- to 15-year time frame, our energy needs are going to be met by petroleum-based products: natural gas, oil, coal. There's literally no other way around it without simply cratering the American economy. And reality is, do we do anyone any good here in this country or around the world if we allow our economy to languish, if we allow our economy to falter, because we do not have the institutional courage to accept the fact that we're not quite ready to go on to all alternative types of energy? I wish we'd been building nuclear power plants for the last 10 years but we weren't. We should now because nuclear can provide that base load of electricity that you need. Remember, Texas is the number one wind producing State in the Nation. That's a great thing for Texas. We're going to get to sell a lot of power, and it's power that comes from the wind. How cheap is that? But the reality is that even in West Texas, where the wind seems to blow incessantly, there are days when the wind doesn't blow. There are hours in the day when the wind blows less ferociously than other hours. And typically, those days that the wind doesn't blow or those hours when the wind production is diminished is summertime, late in the afternoon. But when is the number one electricity demand time in Texas because of air conditioning? It's summertime; it's late in the afternoon. So you can't depend on wind energy to deliver that constant load of electricity that's needed to keep the grid alive. You need something to deliver the base load. Now, natural gas fills the bill for a lot of Texas right now. Natural gas electrical generation plants, so-called peaking plants, are present in my district. I've visited them. I think they provide a wonderful backstop to some of our energy requirements during the summertime in Texas, and I'm grateful that we have them. But many of these plants are older. They need to be refurbished. They're not nearly as efficient. We're not allowed to build anymore coal plants. That's off the table. So where are the nuclear plants? And I ask my friends on the other side, when are we going to be serious about what we do with the development of nuclear in this country to allow that production, that base production of electricity? And yeah, we might be able to get over and above that from wind, we might be able to get over and above that from solar, but those sources of energy are not dependable enough. And we don't right now have the technology for the proper storage of electricity from those technologies that we're going to depend on something to provide that base load of electricity that we need to fire up the grid, certainly in the State of Texas and I suspect in other parts of the country as well. You know, this is a situation where I think we've heard it eloquently from both sides of the aisle tonight. We need all hands on deck. We need all possible technologies that are available, we need them to be developed. We need them to be in the process of being developed. We need them to come online quickly. All hands on deck. And yet a lot of times, this Congress behaves like it's every man for himself. And the American people don't get that. And believe me, I heard that over and over and over again when I was home in the district this last week. Now, growing and strong economies are better prepared to mitigate some of the effects of disease, hunger, natural disasters, but if we hurt our economy, if we devastate our economy by some of the policies that this Congress has pursued in the last 18 months, our ability to deal with those problems has become woefully constricted. And who's going to suffer? Who's going to suffer? It's going to be the American middle class, the lower middle class, America working poor are going to suffer disproportionately because of the lack of preparedness for dealing with those effects on our economy. This Congress has the responsibility to create the right type of environment to facilitate the right type of growth in the energy sector. Now, I'm going to borrow a poster from some of the previous speakers. I had a copy of today's Politico that I was going to read a paragraph or two from. We've all heard this over and over again, how the cost of energy has risen since January of 2001, but if you really look at that line, if you look at that line on what's happened with energy prices, what you see is, yeah, there's some bumps and some ups and downs and a general upward tendency of that trend line. You see a big peak for Katrina, see a drop-off after the recovery from Katrina when the refineries came back online much more quickly than anyone anticipated. You see some peaks and valleys for the summer driving season. But what really stands out when you look at those graphs is how the cost of energy has significantly risen since December of 2006, January of 2007. If you look at the number of futures contracts that have been sold, and yes, there are more dollars going into those future contracts today than in almost anytime in the Nation's past, when you look at how the numbers of futures contracts and when you look at the dollars invested in futures contracts, yeah, there's been a general trend line that goes upward from 2000 until about December of 2006, and then it goes straight up. Well, quoting from Politico, one of the magazines that we all get in our offices up here in Washington, D.C., there's an article on the front page that's entitled: ``New Boogeymen: Oil Speculators,'' and it has a picture of the Speaker of the House giving a talk and a quote here from the Speaker of the House. `` `Oil speculators are making money by betting against the American consumers at the pump,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said before the Independence Day recess.'' Well, wait a minute, let's go back to this. The price of crude, the price of gasoline, gradually drifting upward, but it really takes a spike upward December of 2006, January of 2007. The number of futures contracts really takes a spike up December of 2006, January of 2007. The number of dollars invested in the futures market really takes a spike up December of 2006, January of 2007. Well, what happened between December of 2006 and January of 2007? Well, the 109th Congress ended and the 110th Congress started. So here we had a quote from our Speaker today: ``Oil speculators are making money by betting against the American consumers at the pump.'' Well, is that really the case? Maybe it is the speculators betting on Congress to continue to make dumb decisions about the energy policy in this country. And it looks like they started that about December of 2006 and January of 2007, and guess what. They bet right and they were rewarded. So, until we do something that sends a signal to those speculators that Congress is through making the dumb decisions, the dumb decisions that it has been making in the past 18 months and is now going to make smart decisions for the American public and the American economy, we're likely not going to see that growth curve go anywhere but up. So it is time. And I call on my friends on my side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle, we've got to approach this problem sensibly. We just cannot simply be blaming the current bogeyman du jour. We've got to face the fact that it's our policies, starting in about January of 2007, that have driven this market through the roof and, as a consequence, has damaged the purchasing power of the American consuming public. And just going a little further into the article, a point I made a few minutes ago, ``Before legislators left town, the House overwhelmingly approved legislation that would require a Federal regulatory agency to employ its rarely used emergency powers to crack down on any ``excessive'' speculation in domestic commodity markets.'' Again, that power already existed. I don't know why Commissioner Lukken did not equate that with the emergency with all of the signs and symptoms he had around him of an emergency in the American energy market. Congress passed--not meaningful legislation last week. We sent a ``get well'' card to the American consuming public and hoped that someone wasn't paying attention and would perhaps mistake our activities a week ago Thursday for something meaningful. I somehow doubt that that occurred. Let me finish up, Mr. Speaker. And I want to read a letter that was printed in the Dallas Morning News on July 4, 2008, ``Oil Independence Day''--and again, this did run on Independence Day in the Dallas Morning News. ``Tired of unfair laws and unreasonable taxes, American colonists proclaimed freedom. As we celebrate liberty today, it seems ironic that our country has evolved from declaring independence from foreign oppression to now dependence on oppression from foreign oil. In fact, a slow rebellion against reliance on foreign oil began when OPEC left Americans sitting in lines to buy gasoline from stations with dry tanks in the 1970s. Today the price stands at $4 a gallon for gasoline, and it shows up in everything from the food we eat and clothes we wear to the vacations we can no longer afford to take. ``We've proposed 15 ways to cut the cost of energy for working American families by giving them access to American energy, the American energy that they want and need. The problem is that the House Democratic leadership keeps blocking that legislation. There is no better time than America's Independence Day for Congress to stop arguing about the problem and to start fixing it.'' Respectfully submitted, Joe Barton, R-Arlington, Michael Burgess, R- Lewisville. It is time that we can get past what was previously described as a bumper-sticker mentality and that we get to work about solving the serious problems that face the American consumers. Mr. Speaker, you've been very generous with the time tonight.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Meghan Vittrup, who will be sworn in today as the Student Regent for the University of North Texas System. Appointed by the governor of Texas, the student regent serves as a member of the University's Board of Regents, which governs the University of North Texas, the UNT Health Science Center at Fort Worth, and the UNT Dallas Campus. Meghan will hold a one-year term, and she is charged with representing the interests of students as well as the interests of the State of Texas and the university system. The student regent is a very important position within the UNT system, and I am honored to recognize such an outstanding individual. At UNT, Meghan is pursuing a degree in journalism, with a double minor in political science and Spanish. Additionally, she has been director of internal operations for the Student Government Association, and vice president of Eagle Angels, an on-campus organization. This summer, Meghan is working at the Pentagon as an intern writer for American Foreign Press Services, (AFPS), in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. AFPS provides the news content for the official Department of Defense website. As an alumnus of UNT, it makes me especially proud to see a leader from within the student body involved in such an important role as a Member of the Board of Regents. It is encouraging to see current students taking such an active role in governing the school. It is because of dedicated individuals like Meghan that the University of North Texas continues to shine as one of the leading universities of Texas. Again, I commend Meghan for her outstanding accomplishment. Her appointment is well deserved, and I am confident that the UNT system will benefit from her involvement. I am proud to represent Meghan in the 26th District of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Leadership Training Institute of America, the leading training program for students seeking instruction in the personal development of leadership and character. Their training program gives students the necessary tools to lead the next generation of young Americans in the traditions, principles, and wisdom imparted to us by our Founding Fathers. The quality of this training assures me of America's bright future as the leader of the world. The Leadership Training Institute of America is a cultural think tank providing training and opportunity in leadership development and cultural dynamics. This organization encourages youth to apply and excel in leadership and critical thinking skills, study world view conflicts and strategies, network with outstanding leaders, and pursue careers in influential sectors of society. The Leadership Training Institute of America trains and equips young men and women to be leaders with high standards of personal morality and integrity. The participants are exposed to the major philosophies, views, and issues of our world today and are encouraged to become leaders with convictions built on scientific knowledge, historical record, and Biblical wisdom. Our Nation is in great need of young men and women of character to lead in every arena of our society. So, it is with great appreciation that I rise today to commend the vision and accomplishments of the Leadership Training Institute of America. I salute the dedicated staff of this outstanding organization and encourage its increased influence among our Nation's youth.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jorge Urbina on being awarded the Peace Corps Franklin H. Williams Award. This award celebrates the ongoing civic contributions of returned volunteers, and is intended to recognize the efforts of those who, like Mr. Urbina, have worked tirelessly to better their communities at home. Mr. Urbina will receive the award tonight, in a ceremony to be held here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Urbina is currently the President of the Denton Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a position he has held since 2001. His law practice, Urbina Law and Title, has consistently been committed to diversity in the workplace and involvement in the community. In recognition of his firm's outstanding work, Mr. Urbina was recently named the Small Business Administration's Minority Small Business Champion of the Year. In addition, Mr. Urbina is vice president of the Denton assistance center, a grassroots movement to build a common facility to house a collection of non-profit organizations in the area. He also recently resigned his position on the board of Interfaith Ministries of Denton, after serving for the maximum 12-year term. Mr. Urbina and his wife, Patty, have three children: David, age 21, Thomas, recently graduated from high school, and Susana, age 12. Established in 1999, the Franklin H. Williams Award pays tribute to returned Peace Corps Volunteers of color who continue the Peace Corps mission through their commitment to community service, and who support the agency's third goal of promoting a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans. I commend Mr. Urbina for the work of his outstanding legal practice, and also for his special involvement in the local community. The award he receives today is well deserved, and I am proud to represent him in the 26th District of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Darrent ``Dee'' Williams and his legacy, the Darrent Williams Foundation. Darrent Williams, a constituent of TX-D26, was a Fort Worth native and O.D. Wyatt graduate who died tragically January 1, 2007. Though his most important roles were as son, father and role model to many, he was also a star NFL player for the Denver Broncos. With a magnanimous heart, a desire to excel and the fight in him to say to naysayers, ``just watch me,'' Darrent took on the world. As a senior high school player, he was named 7-4A Defensive Most Valuable Player. During his career at Oklahoma State University, where he received full scholarship, he tied for first place all-time Division I-A in career interception returns for touchdowns. In 2005 he was selected by the Denver Broncos as 2nd Round pick for starting Cornerback and Punt Returner. At the age of 24, Darrent Williams' life was cut short. But through tragedy, a life-fulfilling purpose emerged. The Darrent Williams Foundation, which carries his namesake, will partner with a host of organizations to provide mentorship, counseling, tutoring, guidance, and athletic training and conditioning to youth ages 6 to 13. These services will be rendered with the overall goal to help ease life challenges and concerns regardless of ethnicity and socioeconomic background. As partners with Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD), L. Clifford Davis and Morningside Elementary Schools have been chosen as inaugural recipients. Today, I join with the entire city of Fort Worth community in recognizing Darrent Williams' life and legacy.