K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I also want to congratulate our chairman on getting the job done. Getting a budget is obviously never easy in an election year, it's never easy in an off year, but his perseverance has us here today debating a budget that I couldn't be more strongly against. It fails on a number of occasions, a number of points, not the least of which is that it fails to address entitlement reform. We have recent reports that we've got some $57 trillion in unfunded promises that we've made to each other; no attempt to address that. What that means is this government, over the next 75 years, would have to run a $57 trillion surplus in order to make that work. And this government has never been good at running surpluses. In fact, if you look at the last 40 or 45 years, there is only a handful of years in which an actual surplus occurred. Now, the other side talks often about the projected surpluses that were there in 1999 and 2000, but those projections weren't worth the paper they were written on as it turns out, as no projections are. But the actual surpluses in years totaled some $17 billion, well short of the $57 trillion that we'll need to run in order to meet these promises. This budget does include $683 billion in new spending that they fund through the tax increases that will automatically happen in the law that's currently in place. Now, you will hear a lot of rhetoric about this being the largest tax increase ever; and we'll say it is, they'll say it's not. It's true, there is no tax law included in this budget. But what happens with the tax law that's currently in place is that the projections are that it collects an additional $683 billion in taxes from the hardworking Americans and companies in this country. And this budget gives us a blueprint of what the other side intends to do with it. They don't intend to address the surplus, they intend to spend it on other programs and continue to grow this Federal Government. So, while I congratulate my chairman on getting this to where we are today, I intend to vote against this bill and urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, this is not an either/or match. This is not either alternatives or crude oil and natural gas. This is both. The issue is how do we transition from where we are today to where we all want to get to, and how do we afford that transition. If you simply cut off crude oil as part of that solution today, then you're going to have exactly what we've got: rising gasoline prices, soaring electricity prices, natural gas prices are going to go up, home heating costs are going to go up. And in an ironic twist of fate, the commonsense plan to lower gasoline prices includes being allowed to sue OPEC to increase their production. I'm anxiously awaiting reaction in the OPEC countries to allow OPEC citizens to sue America to force America to produce her own energy. This is not either/or. It is both. Let's turn down the rhetoric and begin to work toward both a current short-term solution as well as a long-term solution all of us embrace.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, a deep abiding faith in God, I believe, undergirds and protects this Nation from its very start until today. As you and I tour this Capitol, as you and I work in this Capitol, and as you and I go about the business of the people in this Capitol, there are signs of that deep faith throughout the Capitol. Some are overt, such as the inscription above you that says ``In God We Trust,'' and there are others that aren't quite as overt that are particularly subtle, and it is one of these subtle remembrances and reminders that I want to talk about today. As you move between the Statuary Hall and the Rotunda, there is a statue of a gentleman named John Muhlenberg. John Muhlenberg's story is what I want to talk about today. John was a clergyman, a soldier, and a politician. John was a Virginian, and he was a member of the Assembly of Virginia; and he was a witness to the British taking over the armory in Williamsburg and taking the gun powder and the weapons out of that armory. He was incensed that his country, his communities would be attacked by these British soldiers. So he rode his horse back to his congregation in Western Virginia, and on a Sunday morning began a sermon, and he spoke from that familiar passage Ecclesiastes 3 in which he said, There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under heaven; a time to be born and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot; a time to kill and a time to heal; a time to tear down and a time to build; a time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to mourn and a time to dance; a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them; a time to embrace and a time to refrain; a time to search and a time to give up; a time to keep and a time to throw away; a time to tear and a time to mend; a time to be silent and a time to speak; a time to love and a time to hate; and a time for war and a time for peace. He then looked at his congregation, Madam Speaker, and said, This is a time for war. Standing in a pulpit with his clerical robes on, he then removed his robe to display his colonel's uniform and sword. Pastor Muhlenberg then went on to raise the militia of some 300 strong Virginians and fought valiantly in the Revolutionary War on behalf of his country. In addition to John Muhlenberg, he had a brother named Fredrick Muhlenberg who was also a preacher in New York City. His brother, once understanding what John was doing, wrote to him telling him the error of his ways, that this was not his fight, he should not be participating in it, and to stand down and to leave this matter of a revolution alone. Fredrick held that position until the Brits burned his church in New York City, and then Fredrick took up arms against the Brits as well. In addition to those feats, Fredrick became the first Speaker of the House of Representatives. So as you walk between the Statuary Hall and the Rotunda, you will see a statute of John Muhlenberg. He's got clerical robes, and on he's also got a sword; and as you see this statue, be in remembrance of the fact that this was a clergyman who had taken up arms to create and defend this country. Madam Speaker, I believe that this country should remain with a deep abiding faith in God, and that we should absolutely adhere to the inscription ascribed above your head and that in fact in God we do trust.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to speak against this rule and against this bill in itself. First off, this is not a Federal responsibility, this is a State and local responsibility. And to the extent that we spend Federal taxpayer dollars, this isn't the Federal Government doing this, there is no such thing as the Federal Government doing this; this is the Federal taxpayer doing this. So you've got taxpayers on one hand funding their local schools; you've got Federal taxpayers funding those same local schools. This is a wreck of bureaucratic nightmare. This should not happen. We're not fully funding IDEA, we're not fully funding title I; this is just something new. So it's because it's new that we can get away with acting like this is something that's good, and it's not because we're not fully funding what we should be. Electrical costs in our schools are very high, no doubt about it. And the truth of the matter is we can't conserve our way into lowering those electricity costs because electricity cost generation is going to continue to go up. And as this majority continues to restrict the growth in clean coal burning technology, as they continue to restrict the growth in nuclear power plants, they're going to continue to drive electricity costs higher and higher. Now we all like wind, we all like solar, but the truth of the matter is growth in those alternatives cannot even keep up with the growth in the demand for electricity. As schools begin to quit going to field trips, as they begin to quit going to football games and quit going to things they're already telling us they're going to do because of gasoline costs and diesel costs being higher because of lack of supply, it's our responsibility to address the broader issue of energy and not school buildings, which is a local and State issue. Mr. Speaker, I speak against this rule and against this bill.

Mr. CONAWAY. Reclaiming my time, what I would have them do is take the local responsibility of making these decisions on their own.

Mr. CONAWAY. Reclaiming my time, what I would have them do is take the responsibility themselves to make these very good decisions to create energy-efficient facilities. But it's their job, not the Federal taxpayer's job.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. As you see, the theme this morning is to talk about gasoline prices, and as we look at the various solutions that are available to our country, it's interesting to note how votes happen in this House. It's rare that a particular position is supported or opposed 100 percent by either party. But let me walk you through a couple of solutions that have been voted on in this House over the last 14 years. Drilling in ANWR; 91 percent of Republicans supported it, 86 percent of Democrats opposed it. Coal-to-liquids; 97 percent of Republicans supported it, 78 percent of Democrats opposed it. Oil shale exploration; 90 percent Republican support, 86 percent Democrat opposition. Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, 81 percent of Republicans support it, 83 percent of Democrats oppose it. Increased refinery capacity; Republicans support that by 97 percent, Democrats oppose it by 96 percent. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to begin to look rationally at the solutions that will help address America's need for energy, gasoline and electricity as we move forward.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I submit this statement for the Congressional Record. Requesting Member: Congressman K. Michael Conaway. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Texas Tech University. Address of Requesting Entity: 19th and University, Lubbock, Texas 79409. Description of Request: Provide $4,000,000 to Texas Tech University to research the use of Compact Pulsed Power as a scientific base for integrating electrical weapons systems onto all-electric combat vehicles. Compact Pulsed Power is the use of targeted electromagnetic radiation to disable electronic devices such as cell phones. Initial research indicates that compact pulsed power technology could be beneficial to the Department of Defense by being able to disable Improvised Explosive Devices used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Texas Tech has developed the technology but needs to field test it in order to deploy it with troops on the ground. An existing lightly armored vehicle such as a HMMWV will be modified to an all-electric platform with an integrated fuel cell and auxiliary battery pack. Two or three types of electric weapon systems (high power microwave (HPM) generator, hypervelocity rail gun, and/or high power laser) will be integrated into the platform. Individually each of these systems is quite complex and the combination of any two of these systems will increase the integration problem exponentially. The information gained from this research could be significant in furthering the nation's defense capabilities. Requesting Member: Congressman K. Michael Conaway. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Zebra Imaging. Address of Requesting Entity: 9801 Metric Blvd., Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758. Description of Request: Provide $2,800,000 in funding to complete the final phase of a three-year development program to provide a field- deployable version of the Enhanced Holographic Imager (EHI) system. The holographic imager system is used to produce 3-D imagery for the Army's tactical battlefield visualization program, and has proven to be an extremely useful capability for deployed Army and U.S. Special Operations Command warfighters. Over 1700 holographic images were provided to soldiers in theater in 2007. The deployable EHI will produce holograms three times faster than the current system (improving responsiveness to the war fighter) and is transportable allowing the imager to be located closer to the tactical users. Requesting Member: Congressman K. Michael Conaway. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army, Other Procurement. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Texas Army National Guard. Address of Requesting Entity: Camp Mabry, Austin,Texas 78763-5218. Description of Request: Provide the Texas National Guard $1,000,000 for the procurement of 700 Megahertz APCO-25 standard two-way radios for operational and tactical interagency interoperability in their disaster response task force. This project allows the Texas National Guard forces to utilize 700 and 800 MHz trunked radio systems being linked across Texas as established in the State Communications Interoperability Plan. It further fully enables interagency interoperability to coordinate and synchronize interagency efforts to maintain unity of effort. Requesting Member: Congressman K. Michael Conaway. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army, Other Procurement. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Texas Army National Guard. Address of Requesting Entity: Camp Mabry, Austin, Texas 78763-5218. Description of Request: Provide $3,000,000 to the Texas Military Forces (TXMF) for eight Joint Incident Scene Communication Capability (JISCC) packages required for disaster response. This equipment enables the Texas National Guard Joint Inter-Agency Task Force (JIATF) to command and control its interagency structure in and out of Texas in support of other states under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. It supports the various disaster command posts including the Joint Interagency Task Force headquarters, each subordinate task force command post, local incident command posts, Emergency Operations Centers, and other multi-agency coordination centers. The JISCC system also uses Department of Defense satellites eliminating the persistent shortage of funds to pay for commercial satellite service. Ten JISCC packages have been authorized in previous years, but currently, the Texas National Guard has two on-hand. Requesting Member: Congressman K. Michael Conaway. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Defense-wide, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Applied Research Associates. Address of Requesting Entity: 1848 Lockhill-Selma Rd., Suite 102, San Antonio, Texas 78213. Description of Request: Provide $3,000,000 to develop a blast-on- vehicle test device for use in evaluating survivability-based military vehicle designs. This program will provide a cost-effective and time- efficient alternative to full-scale live-fire testing. It will provide a test capability in support of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program and future military vehicle development programs. With the introduction of survivability-based design criteria in light tactical vehicles, the test and evaluation requirements of new vehicle designs are more extensive. Therefore, the objective of this program is to design a test structure analogous to the civilian automotive safety community's Heidelberg sled tests. Whereas the Heidelberg sled tests simulate the loading conditions of a vehicle crash, the blast-on- vehicle test device will simulate the loading conditions of road-side or undercarriage explosion. Requesting Member: Congressman K. Michael Conaway. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Navy, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Angelo State University. Address of Requesting Entity: 2601 W. Avenue N., San Angelo, Texas 76909. Description of Request: Provide $1,000,000 for Angelo State University and Texas State University Systems' Center for Hetero- Functional Materials (CHM). CHM will help meet the need within the Department of Defense for the development of new materials to create ``single-chip-devices'' as conventional semiconductor manufacturing technology is reaching its maturity and its rate of innovation has saturated. These new devices require many types of built-in hetero- functionality, simply not available or achievable using conventional semiconductor/materials technology. The CHM provides the infrastructure and resources required for research and development of new materials and processes that will be required for the fabrication of next generation devices. These hetero-functional materials and structures will allow devices to be built on a single chip, thereby reducing costs and size while enabling more versatility than is currently achievable. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) deemed the CHM as critical to developing next generation devices for the military. CHM received support and funding in Fiscal Year 2008.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, and I yield back.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. CONAWAY. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I'm asking my colleagues to make a clear choice, a choice between a rational development of American energy resources, or a flawed policy of shackling ourselves to unfriendly nations for the fuel we depend on every day. The Republican motion to recommit will move restrictions on the Federal Government to speed the development and production of American resources, as well as reduce our reliance on imported refined products. It would first repeal the misguided policies introduced by section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which senselessly handcuffs the Federal Government, especially the Department of Defense, to only conventional sources of diesel, gasoline or jet fuel. Second, it would expedite the siting of potential new refinery capacity. Congress has already admitted that we want to continue relying on fossil fuels by passing legislation to let Americans sue OPEC to force them to increase their oil production. It is irrational to restrict our access to American fossil fuels, but continue buying these same fuels from countries that are, at best, not our allies. This motion will unleash the purchasing power of the Federal Government to accelerate the development and exploitation of unconventional fuels. With oil at $130 a barrel, we should be embracing alternative sources of fuel and actively seeking to improve processes and increase refinery capacity, as well as increase fuel efficiency. But instead, Section 526 shuts the door on alternative, unconventional and synthetic fuels, and makes us more reliant on foreign oil. This motion to recommit also provides the Secretary of Energy with the ability to reuse not less than three excess military installations as possible locations to site new refineries. This process will protect all Federal, State, local review and permitting processes and will even allow an opportunity for the Governor of the State to veto the site. These refineries are critically needed to address not only our military's vulnerabilities, but the needs of all American consumers. By repealing Section 526 and providing for the construction of new refining capacity, we are taking positive steps to alleviate our reliance on foreign sources of fuel and ensuring the Department of Defense has what it needs to accomplish its security mission. To me, a choice like this is no choice at all. Relying on untrustworthy regimes for fuel we need that leaves our Nation vulnerable to the whims of thugs and dictators. Tonight, this motion to recommit provides us with the opportunity to become more economically and strategically competitive by promoting the responsible development of American sources of refined products. Please join me in supporting the passage of this motion to recommit and putting our Nation on a path to energy self-reliance. I now yield to Fred Upton.

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes, I am in its current form.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my congratulations and words of appreciation to our chairman and ranking member for the terrific job they did on this year's defense authorization act. The members of our Armed Forces, whether during times of war or peace, deserve the wholehearted support and moral and financial commitment and support from its citizens and its government. I believe this support from this committee of our men and women in uniform is undeniable. This bill does support the national defense mission, the individual servicemember, and the military family. However, it is not complete. We are continually increasing the demands of this voluntary force, but our budget does not provide the needed resources for the military with a growing responsibility and mission. Some of these shortcomings includes cuts to future combat systems, cuts to anti-missile defense systems, and the Marines are getting cuts in the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. This vehicle would replace the aging 38-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle that they currently rely on in getting from their ships to the shore and exposes our Navy to unnecessary risks, and I am concerned about these cuts. But there are a lot of things to be in favor of in this bill. With respect to SOCOM, these warfighters, as you know, operate throughout the globe conducting missions that most of us will never hear about but are absolutely essential and critical to defend against the unconventional threats and preventing additional threats and crises around the globe. We support these warfighters, these magnificent warfighters by fully funding their requirements. In addition, we added some $186 million to provide for their unfunded requirements that they have on those lists for surveillance capabilities and personnel protection gear. We also authorized 26 human terrain teams that they have requested, and supports our National Guard with some $800 million in additional money for equipment. With respect to our troops and their family welfare, we are in complete agreement that the individual marine, sailor, soldier, and airman is our most valuable national security asset. They stand between this Nation and those who wish to do us harm and, along with their families, sacrifice daily in defense of this Nation and our freedoms. This bill reflects our commitment and responsibility to ensure that they are taken care of. We are giving them a 3.9 percent pay raise, some $650 million to improve barracks, and the elimination of all temporary barracks between now and 2015. We are going to add to their force, to their numbers so that they can spread their responsibilities across a greater number of soldiers and marines. We are re-equipping and resetting these forces with additional funding provided for unfunded readiness initiatives, for training shortfalls within the Army and Marine Corps. In addition we are providing gear in the field to be used immediately with MRAPs, additional body armor, and up-armored Humvees. Mr. Chairman, while we may disagree with how these assets, tools, and, most importantly, this personnel are used, there should be no disagreement that we should provide this Nation with the personnel, assets, and tools to protect this country with overwhelming force to counter any and all threats. This bill moves us toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto of the farm bill. It's a widely held axiom that good agriculture policy is good Federal policy. This farm bill is a fulfillment of that statement. This legislation will continue a safety net for America's producers and consumers, while providing a proper return on investment to the American taxpayer. The food and fiber commodity market is an extremely unpredictable place in which our producers have no ability to set their prices for their products. Furthermore, farmers and ranchers in all areas of the world are forced to deal with uncontrollable production risks that could at any time wipe out an entire year's income at a moment's notice. These are fundamentals that will never change, and I firmly believe that we'll always have a need for policies and mechanisms to address these issues. This long overdue and extremely important piece of legislation, once law, will return a sense of certainty to farmers and ranchers of rural America. The farm bill has an important impact on every single American, and I strongly support this bipartisan act, and urge my colleagues to override the President's veto.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding some time. I did vote for the underlying bill that this rule is associated with and intend to vote for it on the floor as it is currently drafted. But I'm going to speak against the rule and intend to vote against the rule, should we get that vote. While the Defense Authorization Act doesn't have much public policy in relation to energy in it, it is a beneficiary of good, sound national energy policy. DOD is the single largest department purchaser of energy of any of the Federal agencies that this Congress oversees. It would benefit dramatically by decreases in costs of energy, as would every consumer, every American home would as well. And conversely, its budgets are dramatically negatively impacted with rampant run-up in costs. We fly jets, we drive tanks and Humvees and other vehicles, and we have to buy that fuel to get that done. These increased costs as a result of an unsound national policy on energy are a detriment to the Department of Defense. A sound national policy on energy should promote additional supplies of domestically produced sources, both fossil fuel sources as well as unconventional sources. It's not an either/or, it ought to be both. And this Democratically led House has consistently, over the last 16 months, had a very negative bias against fossil fuel sources. Every rational projection of energy usage over the next 20 to 30 years shows that we will continue to be reliant on crude oil and natural gas for that entire time frame. The larger the domestic supply of crude oil and natural gas we have, the less dependent we are on foreign sources and the cheaper it will be. There is an action in economic law for supply and demand that says if you restrict the supply, then your costs are going up. And increased costs of energy and fuel to the Department of Defense is a negative that we ought to address. If you punish the producers of crude oil and natural gas, you're going to get less of it. The bill we passed yesterday, which unleashes the Department of Justice on an unwarranted witch hunt against the oil and gas industry, will increase costs and will, therefore, have a negative impact on the operations of the Defense Department, which this authorization bill governs. Those increased costs are not in the best interests of Americans and not in the best interests of the Department of Defense. So while this bill and this rule do not specifically address our national energy policy, a policy that is sound and promotes domestic production of both crude oil and natural gas as well as unconventional sources of energy to supply our Department of Defense with the energy it needs to fly those airplanes, drive those tanks, drive those Humvees, and light the offices at the Pentagon, as well as the housing associated with the Department of Defense, is in all of our best interests. I would urge our colleagues to look at that as we approach these issues. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times today has got an article predicting $200 a barrel for crude oil in the not-too-distant-future. The laws of supply and demand, the economic law of supply and demand works. This House, led by this majority, has passed bill after bill after bill whose intent and whose implication is to increase the costs to generate energy, whether its electricity or gasoline. Those policies specifically demand higher prices. If there was a cheaper way to generate electricity or drive our cars, we would already be using those cheaper methods. So the policies are to raise the prices, and the twisted logic is they then come down here and speaker after speaker gripes and complains about those exact high prices, which is the direct result of what their policies are putting in place. Yesterday, in a staggering twist of illogic, is to pass, as a part of that bill that was passed yesterday, to unleash our Department of Justice on the very producers that we are trying to incent to produce more crude oil and natural gas on an unfettered witch hunt that will cost millions and millions of dollars and result in absolutely zero. It's wrong policy. The American people need to speak up.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I missed a number of votes on May 6th and 7th as I was attending the funeral service for a soldier who was from my Congressional District and was killed in Baghdad, Iraq while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. On Rollcall vote No. 249, H.R. 3658--a bill to amend the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to permit rest and recuperation travel to United States territories for members of the Foreign Service. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall vote No. 251, H. Con. Res. 317--a Condemning the Burmese regime's undemocratic draft constitution and scheduled referendum.. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall vote No. 252, Table Motion to Reconsider--H. Con. Res. 317--a Condemning the Burmese regime's undemocratic draft constitution and scheduled referendum.. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall vote No. 25, H. Con. Res. 1109--Honoring the memory of Dith Pran by remembering his life's work and continuing to acknowledge and remember the victims of genocides that have taken place around the globe. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall vote No. 252, Table Motion to Reconsider H. Con. Res. 1109--Honoring the memory of Dith Pran by remembering his life's work and continuing to acknowledge and remember the victims of genocides that have taken place around the globe. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 255, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 256, S. 2929 to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 257, Table Motion to Reconsider--S. 2929 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 258, On Motion to Instruct Conferees--Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 259, Table Motion to Reconsider--Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 260, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 261, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 262, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 263, H. Res. 1168--Congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 264, table Motion to Reconsider--H. Res. 1168-- Congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 265, H. Res. 1155--Honoring the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 266, Table Motion to Reconsider--H. Res. 1155-- Honoring the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 267, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 268, On Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 269, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding provocative and dangerous statements and actions taken by the Government of the Russian Federation that undermine the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 270. Table Motion to Reconsider--H. Res. 1166-- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding provocative and dangerous statements and actions taken by the Government of the Russian Federation that undermine the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 271, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present. I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 272, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 273. On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 274, H. Res. 1113--Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 275, Table Motion to Reconsider--H. Res. 1113-- Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 276. On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 277, H.R. 5937--To facilitate the preservation of certain affordable housing dwelling units. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 278, Table Motion to Reconsider--H.R. 5937--To facilitate the preservation of certain affordable housing dwelling units. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 279, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 280, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 281, H. Res. 1175--Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 282, Table Motion to Reconsider--H. Res. 1175-- Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 283, H. Res. 1175--Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 284, Table Motion to Reconsider--H. Res. 1175-- Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 285, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present. I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 286, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Rollcall No. 287, On Ordering the Previous Question H. Res. 1174-- Providing for consideration of the bill. H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 288, Table Motion to Reconsider--H. Res. 1174-- Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 289, H. Res. 1174--Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 290, Table Motion to Reconsider--H. Res. 1174-- Providing for consideration of the bill H. Res. 1174--Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On Rollcall No. 291, On Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be removed as a cosponsor of both H.R. 891 and H. Res. 1131.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleague for hosting the hour tonight and for his work on the issue of trying to educate the American people as to what we are doing here. I would say as kind of a spin-off of your comment earlier, I think our colleagues on the other side do have a plan, but they are not explaining the plan fully to the American public. Their plan is to promote anything but oil and gas and fossil fuels. And that is fine. We can have a legitimate philosophical debate and argument and disagreement as to whether or not we should continue to explore for and exploit fossil fuels. But in that conversation ought to be the cost of changing to a non-fossil fuel environment. So I would argue that the policies that have been put in place over the last 15 months have been specifically garnered to reduce America's production of fossil fuels. They have been specifically put in place to raise those costs and make other alternatives more competitive in the market. But what they have not done a particularly good job of is explaining to the American public that these alternative sources have a cost. If it were already cheaper to produce electricity any other way than the way we are currently doing it, we would be doing it that way. That is the American model. If it were already cheaper to power our automobiles and trucks and planes any other way, we would be doing that. So as we look at these policies that are being put in place by our colleagues on the other side, they are specifically intended to raise costs on our businesses, raise costs on American businesses, raise costs to consumers. When you raise costs to businesses, those businesses compete in a global environment. They compete with companies around the world who may have a different cost structure than they do. And to the extent that our costs here are higher than other places in the world, particularly as it relates to energy, then our companies would be less competitive, and the less competitive our companies become, the fewer jobs available for Americans to take. So you can kind of get a sense of this death spiral that we put ourselves in by making ourselves less competitive. The cold, hard facts are that energy costs over my lifetime and your lifetime will continue to increase. There is just no other way to get around it. That is going to happen. But those increases should not be as dramatic as the increases that my colleague has shown on the floor. We can manage and work towards slowing those increases down, making those increases much more manageable and easier to deal with if we had a rational, pro-production, pro-supply policy that we put in place. If we make a decision that we want to go totally green, we want to go to a zero carbon footprint, that has immense costs that we have to agree on. If we collectively agree those are costs we want to bear, then let's go do that. But at this point, at this juncture in time, no one is talking about the costs of moving to the style of energy production that my colleagues on the other side want to do. As an example, section 526 of the energy bill that was passed in December prevents any Federal agency from contracting for sources of energy if they can't prove that the lifecycle greenhouse gases are less than they otherwise would have been. Well, that has a cost to it, because that means our Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, can't buy energy from Canada. Now do you want to buy energy from Canada? We share a long border with those guys, it is a democracy and we go to war together. We don't go to war with each other. Or do you want to buy crude oil from countries who hate our guts, from regimes that would just as soon America would go away as look at us? What section 526 does, well-intentioned but misguided in its impact, is it says you can't buy things, you can't buy unconventional sources of energy like gas-to-liquids, like oil shale, like tar sands, unless you can prove, quote-unquote, that the greenhouse gas cycle is less. These are policies that our colleagues on the other side are putting on. They are policies intended to increase costs to the American consumer. They simply won't say that. But if you look at the impact those policies have, they are specifically set to reduce America's supply of energy. If you reduce our supply of energy in a growing demand circumstance, straight economics tells you that your costs are going to be higher. So as we move toward what we would all agree is a laudable goal, and that is making America dependent on energy sources that are within American control, that are environmentally responsible, let's look at the cost of how we make those moves. If we want to make them dramatically and unprepared, then, fine, those are dramatically higher costs than would otherwise have needed to be the deal. So the basic points are costs will go up over the rest of our lifetime. We ought to do to what we can to manage those costs, prevent the spikes we see and the dramatic impact there, because businesses and consumers have a difficult time dealing with spikes. They can deal with a gradual increase over time, because that is just the way normal things work, but spikes hurt us in trying to plan for and be competitive in the world markets. Let's come clean as to what all of these costs are for carbon tax or global warming or climate change, whatever it is. Our colleague from Michigan has said it ought to be 50 cents a gallon for gasoline. I don't know if that is the right number, but at least he put a dollar value on the ideas of how we move toward less dependence on sources of oil, in this instance fossil fuels. But the phrase ``energy independence'' is a misnomer. We will never have a world where we aren't dependent on energy. We have to have energy to turn the lights on in this building. What the phrase should be is that we are not dependent on energy from sources that we don't control, from sources in countries who hate our guts, from sources that when we give them money, they turn around and take that money and do bad things to American citizens. So we can have an energy policy that makes sense, is responsible to the environment, but doesn't raise costs dramatically and arbitrarily on the American consumer. I appreciate my colleague giving me a chance to rant a bit tonight and participate in our conversation.

Mr. CONAWAY. Let me add one other thing that I left out. I had a conversation today with some folks from an energy electric company. We talk about energy, we ought to bifurcate the discussion. One is the electricity production, which is the bulk of the energy we use in this country, versus fuels that power cars and airplanes and trucks. They are looking at the impact that some of the proposals out there are with respect to increased costs in order to lower their CO2 emissions. They currently produce energy at almost 4 cents a kilowatt hour. Under the proposals that they are examining, which are led by the Democrats, they believe their costs will go to 11.8 cents a kilowatt hour. That doesn't mean just in the vacuum. But take your electric bill that you pay this month, or the one you pay in July when it is really high because of air conditioning, and multiply it by 2\1/2\. That will be kind of a rule of thumb as to what some of the proposals out there are doing for energy costs.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman. I want to make one more point, and I will yield back and visit with the gentlelady from Tennessee, and that a third of the budget that we work on every year is annual discretionary spending. In other words, it's money that we should be deciding, can we afford this this year or can't we, a legitimate setting of priorities. The other two-thirds of the $3.1 trillion that we spend is going to happen on autopilot. It will happen whether we do anything or not. We have to act aggressively and make hard decisions to go after that two- thirds. This year's budget proposal took a pass on the hard work of addressing the two-thirds of the budget that we referred to as entitlements or mandatory spending or automatic spending--I won't offend some of my colleagues by using the word ``entitlement''--but it takes courage in this body to go after those spending programs. They are the ones that are on the charts, are driving us to bankruptcy under our current system of government if we don't have courage to begin to say we have to renegotiate those promises. We have made promises that we just can't pay for. But a third of the budget that we can do something about, we ought to have rules on this floor that allow the majority's will to be reflected in whether that money gets spent. I yield back.