K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 29 H. Res. 867-- Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup, I was attending a funeral for a soldier killed in Iraq. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 30, H. Res. 942-- Recognizing the significance of Black History Month, I was attending a funeral for a soldier killed in Iraq. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students and families of the Richland Springs Coyote football team for winning the 2007 Texas Division I Six-Man Football Championship and the Six-Man Illustrated National Championship poll. Six-man football has been a part of Texas history for almost 70 years, and today there are over 160 public and private schools fielding teams. For many small towns in Texas' 11th Congressional District, six- man football is simply a way of life. It is no different in Richland Springs, where the Coyotes carry on the best traditions of Texas football every fall weekend. Before a crowd of 5,000 cheering fans in San Angelo's Bobcat Stadium, the Coyotes played the Rule Bobcats in a rematch of last year's championship. It was an exciting game that was close through the first three quarters, but in the end the Coyotes simply outran the Bobcats and won the game 98-54. Throughout their 2007 campaign, the Coyotes went a perfect 14-0 and outscored their opponents 1,015-225. This victory secured the Coyotes their third State championship in 4 years and cemented their reputation as the Nation's best six-man football team. With this national championship, they become only one of two teams to have earned three national championships. During this run, the Coyotes have gone an unbelievable 56-1. As I look ahead to next summer, the Coyotes will lose five seniors. I wish the 29 returning students the best of luck in continuing the outstanding success that the Richland Springs six-man football team has achieved. I'd like to commend Coach Burkhart, Coach Ethridge, Coach Dodson and Coach Rogers for their hard work in preparing, training, and coaching their teams to the championship. Finally, I'd like to extend my personal congratulations to Mark Williams, Haustin Burkhart, Stephen Fowler, Neil McMillan, Shelby Smith, Joe Tomlinson, Nigel Bates, Mitchell Jacobson, Andrew Fowler, Tyler Etheridge, Riche Daniels, Brennen McGinty, Elbert Thomas, Khalid Khatib, Patrick Couch, Randy Couch, Daniel Barrett, Tommy Hollon, Abraham Ahumada, Branch Vancourt, Stephen Thornhill, Franky Soto, C.J. Finke, Dean King, David Greenwood, and Ryan Soto for winning both of their 2007 championships. These young men have proven themselves to be good sportsmen, able competitors and fine athletes.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. It just occurred to me. I am a CPA in a different life, and in order to keep my license current I have to have 40 hours a year of continuing education, and I know you as a lawyer also have to have continuing education. Maybe this could be looked at as continuing education for Members of Congress to spend the 2 hours it might take to read through the document. So, if nothing else, we could say we are trying to learn how to do our jobs better, much in the vein that the other professionals, doctors, lawyers, and CPAs year in and year out have to do to hone their skills.

Mr. CONAWAY. Not yet.

Mr. CONAWAY. There are thousands of bills introduced. But this was in the 110th Congress, and it is styled The AMERICA Act, A Modest Effort to Read and Instill the Constitution Again.

Mr. CONAWAY. It is H.R. 3550. I believe you are already a cosponsor.

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleagues from Utah and New Jersey for once again highlighting these important documents and important truths that this country was founded upon, and how important they really are. And you are both doing a great job of walking through some of the details. But at a bit higher plane is the idea that each of us should know what the Constitution says. It is one thing to study the history of the Constitution and try to figure out what they were thinking, but we clearly know what they thought in the sense that they wrote it down. In the language of the day, this Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence were written in plain English, and each of us as intelligent human beings should be able to read that document and understand what it has to say. And I think our Founding Fathers intended for us to do that. They wrote it down not for some archaic court to continue to interpret on our behalf, but for us to live our lives and run this government and create the kind of Federal Government that is limited, that doesn't have the reach into our personal lives that governments always want to do, that even this government under leadership from both sides of the aisle continues to reach into our own private lives in ways that our Founding Fathers I don't think intended. Hamilton was probably the one founding father who had the most expansive view of Federal Government of any of the Founding Fathers. And I think, if he came back to life today and got a good look at what we are doing, he would simply say, ``Oh, my, how could you possibly do this reach of government based on the documents that we left you guys?'' My bill, H.R. 3550, is pretty simple, pretty straightforward. It is the idea that every Senator, every Member of the House, every senior staffer would once a year be required to simply read the Constitution. It is not a long read, it is about 2,500 words, and most of us have third grade educations or better and should be able to comprehend the simple, straightforward language of the Constitution. I am told anecdotally that even in our law schools where they teach a one-semester or two-semester course on the Constitution and constitutional law, that a requirement to read it from cover to cover, from start to finish, is generally not included in the curriculum. Now, they will read parts of it and they will read pieces of it and study pieces of it, but just simply sitting down and reading it from start to finish is not something that they do. At a minimum, there should be 435 Members of this body and 100 Members across the building who once a year take a look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, just to make sure that as we go about our business day in and day out that we are not straying from the original precepts that are clearly there. This body and the one across the other side of the building write laws every day to implement this government, to run this government under that Constitution. From time to time, many of us propose amendments to the Constitution; those work their way through the process. It would seem to me pretty straightforward logic that, if we are working in that manner, we ought to know what is in the Constitution. And, without reading it, with purposely ignoring it, then you run down the path, as my colleague from Utah said a few moments ago, and that is we simply with our own wit, our own wisdom, and our own wishes decide what it says as opposed to actually looking at the document and interpreting it. Another benefit it would give us if we would do that is, from time to time, the Constitution is interpreted by our Supreme Court. One recent ruling that has many of us scratching our head is the definition of the word public good, public purpose, in which the Supreme Court has announced that those words can be defined to say that any government can take property, personal, private property away from one taxpayer and give it to another taxpayer if the subsequent receiving taxpayer can create more value for the taxing entity. That does not seem to square with a simple straightforward reading of the Constitution. And it would encourage all of us, as we look at the work that the Supreme Court does, to understand those clear documents. So this bill, it would be great, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, if we could get additional cosponsors. In September of each year, we celebrate Constitution Week, and I think it would be terrific if this coming September that one of the things that we brag on about the Constitution is that we will endeavor to once a year read that document and to understand it and to try to use it as we move forward in our business of fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities as the legislators under the legislative branch. I appreciate both my colleagues allowing me to come down here and briefly pitch my bill. It is a bit self-serving. It seems awfully simplistic. I have gotten some rather interesting responses from folks I have talked to about it, ones that you would not expect. And it is a bit disappointing to have people laugh at the idea that we would actually read that document once a year and make a note in the front of our pocket copy that we have read it, that somehow that is beneath us, it is beneath the dignity of this body that we should in fact read that Constitution and the Bill of Rights once a year. So, hopefully we will be able to work on the other 432 Members of this body to get them to agree that this is something that we would do once a year in an attempt to do our jobs better. Again, I appreciate being able to spend the time with my colleagues from Utah and New Jersey.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, last August a man named Mike Flynt attempted to use his final year of college eligibility by walking on at Sul Ross State University in Alpine, Texas. He endured the rigors of two-a-days and made the team. Although a nagging groin injury prevented him from participating in games through the first half of the season, his leg healed to the point that he could participate in several games on special teams and, in the final game of the season, played at linebacker for the final defensive series. Mr. Speaker, so far, this story is not unusual. However, Mike Flynt's story is unique in that he will turn 60 years of age next year. Mike and I graduated from high school together and played on the first State championship team at Odessa Permian. Mike fulfilled a 30-year desire to compete one more time in a game he loves. His efforts and accomplishments amaze us all. He was an inspiration to his teammates, coaches and fellow Sul Ross students. His efforts brought positive publicity to a small university in far west Texas. Mr. Speaker, in a world where athletes often seem to let us down, it's refreshing to see the example of hard work, dedication and perseverance that is Mike Flynt.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute my hometown baseball team, the Midland RockHounds, as they received the John H. Johnson President's Trophy honoring them as the best team in Minor League Baseball. The Midland RockHounds, owned by Miles Prentice and Bob Richmond, are a community institution in the Permian Basin. Miles and Bob both have a deep passion for America's pastime, and it shows in the success of the RockHounds. Together with their management team, headed by longtime General Manager Monty Hoppel, Miles and Bob have created one of the most successful teams in the history of the Texas League. Under the direction of Miles, Bob, and Monty, the RockHounds have twice won the Texas League Championship and have been honored as the Double-A organization of the year. In choosing the RockHounds as the recipients of the President's Trophy, Minor League Baseball has recognized the many years of hard work and deep community involvement as the best in the nation. The RockHounds would not be the team they are today without the people of the Permian Basin who have generously rewarded their efforts with over 270,000 clicks of the turnstile this year alone--a franchise attendance record. In addition to fielding a great ball club, the RockHounds management works tirelessly to raise money for the community--especially local schools and youth sports organizations. Led by the hugely successful West Texas Sports Banquet and Memorabilia Auction, the RockHounds participated in over 80 fundraisers this year and helped to raise over $100,000 this year for programs in the Permian Basin. The President's Trophy is the most coveted award in Minor League Baseball as it is given in recognition of ``overall franchise excellence''. It takes into account the success of the franchise, its relationship with the surrounding community, and its contributions to baseball. On all of these measures, the Midland RockHounds are a model team and I am honored to represent the organization and its fans here in Washington. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and tremendous respect that I recognize the achievements of the Midland RockHounds today. Their successes on and off the baseball field have made the Permian Basin a better place to live and I can think of no team more deserving to earn the 2007 John H. Johnson President's Trophy.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the SandHills Stock Show and Rodeo on its 75th anniversary. Since 1932, the SandHills Rodeo has had an invaluable impact on the economy and heritage of West Texas. From its beginnings as the first ``Pure Hereford'' Show in Texas in 1932 to the present-day exposition--including the horse show, stock show, and rodeo--the SandHills Rodeo has generated millions of dollars in revenue for the Permian Basin and has attracted thousands of visitors from across the country. Like the City of Odessa itself, the SandHills Stock Show and Rodeo has grown and flourished over the past 75 years and has become as much a part of Texas as the cowboys themselves. Growing up in Odessa, I attended the rodeo and marveled at the brave cowboys on their bucking broncos and the fine animals that compete in the Stock and Horse shows. From the crowning of Miss SandHills Rodeo to the always exciting (at least for the parents) Boot Scramble, the rodeo has something for everyone. I am pleased that West Texans of all generations continue to enjoy this unique and exciting event. Congratulations to all of those who have made the SandHills Stock Show and Rodeo such a fine Texas tradition!

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, the previous speaker mentioned that the current energy policy was crafted in the dark. I would have to agree that the current energy policy that's being proposed has certainly kept the Republicans in the dark because we have yet to see the language on the policy that we will be asked to vote on over the next couple of days. In all likelihood, it will require mandates. Mandates are good ideas that I've come up with that you have to pay for. There will be a lot of talk on this floor, there will be a lot of good arguments made, but to cut to the chase, if it were cheaper to produce electricity today by using solar and wind and other alternatives, we would be doing it. That's the American way. That's the commerce of the circumstances, but it is not. And so, as we look at these proposals that will require how we go about providing America with the electricity and energy we need over the next decades, let's don't forget that there is a cost associated with it. We ought to know that cost. We ought to know the cost to consumers and to the businesses that have to use that energy. There's an old saying, ``If you don't like the high cost of eggs, then why would you kill chickens?'' Let's be careful that with this new energy policy that's being proposed, that we don't, in fact, kill the chickens that produce the eggs that generate the electricity and the energy that we need.

Mr. CONAWAY

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

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Will the gentleman help us understand, as we talk about these supplies, a variety of energy resources, we assume, for the lack of this conversation, that it's all equal and that it all costs the same amount of money to produce, and that's the fallacy. One of the problems with a renewable portfolio standard of 15 percent, now, that our chart does not depict just electricity, but if we had a chart that did just electricity, the big players are going to be the same.

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, we have an hour's worth of comments today about an issue that there is little debate, and that is that we have got an energy problem in this country. How do we continue to power the factories and the plants and the office buildings, hospitals, our homes, our cars? How do we continue to use energy? Where do we get that energy from? And at what cost? There is not a lot of debate these days that we are in fact too dependent on imported foreign oil and natural gas, and that is a national security issue that I suspect the folks at the Pentagon chew on every single day. It is an issue for factory owners and businessmen and women all over this country as they look at ways to reduce their energy usage, as they look at ways to reduce their costs, their input costs on the product that they are trying to manufacture and sell to others. That is an issue to every family in this country as they decide how to pay for gasoline for their automobiles and home heating oil and natural gas to heat their homes or electricity to heat their homes. Energy should have a central front in our debate, in our actions, particularly in this body. Mr. Speaker, there is a story about a fellow who went to visit a neighbor. And when he got there, the neighbor was on the front porch. So they are sitting there visiting about things, and the neighbor's dog is in the front yard, and the dog is just howling to beat the band. He is making all kinds of racket. He is just howling. So finally the visitor says to the owner of the house, he says, ``What is the matter with your dog?'' And the owner looks out there and says, ``Well, he is sitting on a cactus.'' And the visitor says, ``Why doesn't he get up and get off the cactus?'' And the neighbor says, ``Well, I guess he would just rather howl.'' Well, we are doing a lot of howling in this country today about energy. And rather than get up and get off the cactus and do some things about it, we continue to just howl and gripe about the price and the cost and solutions, and are unwilling to focus and study on this issue that is of terrific importance to every household, every business, every governmental entity, because they buy fuel as well, they buy electricity, they buy power. Let me give you a couple statistics. The crude oil December contract, the good news, it fell for the fourth time in 5 days to close at $91.17 a barrel; but the bad news is, it closed above $80 a barrel for the 40th time in 44 days, 22 consecutive days above 85, and the 14th time ever above $90 a barrel. This will ultimately translate into much higher gasoline prices. Let's talk about home heating oil, which is of grave concern to my colleagues in the northeast. The home heating oil for contract December did fall for the fifth time in 15 days, down 8 cents, to close at $2.50 a gallon. However, home heating oil has closed above $2 a gallon for the 53rd consecutive day. Home heating oil prices are above a year ago prices for the 57th consecutive day, up almost 81 cents. This does not bode well for this year's coming winter. We can all hope and pray for a mild winter, but that doesn't make for very good public policy. We ought to be doing some things today. We should have been doing things yesterday, and tomorrow is open to us to do some things. I don't hold out a lot of hope for tomorrow, but maybe a few days from now the colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle can come to some rational conclusions about how do we power plants? How do we heat homes and hospitals? How do we drive our cars, and on what fuels? What costs are we going to live with as we transition from carbon-based fuels to some other based fuels? That has to be a part of the equation. We cannot simply just immediately wean ourselves off of crude oil and natural gas, because the replacement for that product is not in hand, nor is it in hand for the foreseeable future. Later on this evening we will talk about some reports that have recently been issued by some groups who should get some respect from us that the makeup of the energy usage in America 25 years from now, carbon-based products of crude oil, natural gas, and coal, will make up about the same percentage of that total demand that it does today. These projections are done by reputable people and ones that we should look at in terms of relying on those as we begin to craft public policy. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield to my good colleague from Illinois, John Shimkus, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for some comments that he may have.

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleague for his comments tonight. They are spot on. It really is about the supply of energy and where we're going to get it, what form it's going to take, how we should transition from where we are today to where we want to get to and what that will cost. Much of the debate to date has ignored the cost to the consumers, the cost to businesses. And should we do that, we do so at our own peril because if we artificially or arbitrarily raise costs to American manufacturers, American producers, and ultimately American families and homes, that makes us less competitive around the world as we try to compete. We've got 5 percent of the world's population, and so 95 percent of the world is our market. And if we're going to make things in America that we can sell to somebody else, we need every single competitive advantage that we can have. Clearly, we've been coming out of a period where energy was relatively cheap. We've enjoyed very cheap gasoline prices almost as if a right of being an American. That right and those low prices has come as the result of some incredibly efficient and risk-taking people who've been willing to risk fortunes and make a lot of money and lose a lot of money trying to provide crude oil for our refineries that have allowed us to drive on cheap gasoline when the rest of the world isn't. Before I turn to my colleague from Pennsylvania, my colleague did make some rather benign comments about the legislation, energy legislation that's already come across the floor. And I'd like to call his attention to a study that's just been released by API, which was prepared by the Charles River Associates International. This study looks at the legislation that's pending or has passed so far. It looks at the oil savings provisions, the increased CAFE standards, the increased taxes on the industry, the renewable portfolio standards, expanded renewable fuel standards. All of the bills that are passed or talked about passed were reviewed by this group. And there's some pretty startling impacts that this legislation will have. Every vote has a consequence, and to the extent that we do things to reduce supply and to harm our own country, here's what some of the impacts could be. This study, and I hope my colleagues across the aisle will get the study and study it, try to poke some holes in it, try to show where it's wrong. But to the extent that this is a reasonable analysis of what those bills do, I hope that they also take that into consideration as they continue to formulate the energy bill that we may see this week which has no Republican input. I don't know that it's got a lot of Democrat input in it. It seems to be a leadership, Speaker/ leader of Senate kind of a bill. But these bills so far will cost, 5 million jobs will be lost by the year 2030. The average American household's purchasing power could drop by $1,700 by 2030. Aggregate business investments in the United States could drop by as much as $220 billion by 2030. Our national GDP could decline by more than $1 trillion by 2030, relative to the baseline. And cost of petroleum products could more than double by 2030, just on the bills that have been threatened and some that have already passed so far in this House. So the energy bills that have passed this House and have been introduced on this floor have a consequence, and these consequences appear very dire. What I don't see is what the benefits are from the bills that have passed. It is clearly not a supply-based concept that's being worked on from the other side. So now it's my great pleasure to turn to John Peterson, a Member from Pennsylvania who's on the Interior Committee. And John has studied this issue quite at length, and is one of our go-to guys when it comes to particularly natural gas. So, John, let's hear what you have to say.

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for sharing those facts with us. And pesky though they may be and inconvenient though they may be, they're nevertheless facts; and I appreciate you sharing those with us. I again would like to turn to my colleague from Illinois for other comments that he might have.

Mr. CONAWAY. And it's very close to the same. And if we demand or mandate 15 percent total electricity produced from renewables, what does that do to the cost of that electricity to the consumer?

Mr. CONAWAY. And, in effect, that is a tax on families in this country. Now, we all want to get to a, I would refer to it as an energy security, not only American energy security, but we ought to be talking about global energy security in this context. Right now we're focused just on the U.S. And so as we look at this energy security, not understanding that a global portfolio standard increased to an unworkable 15 percent is a heavy tax on consumers, it's a tax on businesses, it's a tax on anybody who turns on a light, anybody who gets in a car, anybody who uses electricity, that's a tax that they're not currently paying; and those increased taxes go to a narrow margin of the energy supply. And our real goal should be energy security at a cost that we can afford. And I yield back.

Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank both my colleagues for joining me tonight. As we opened the conversation tonight, I think it is time we quit howling and begin to do something that is important to all Americans. With that I yield back.

Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank both my colleagues tonight for coming in and sharing this hour and hopefully shedding a little bit of light on an issue that is of interest to every single American. We all use electricity in some form or fashion. It is all important to us. In the couple of minutes we have left, I want to bring both my colleagues' attention to a study that came out this summer called ``Facing the Hard Truths About Energy.'' This is a study that was done by the National Petroleum Council. It involves some 350 contributors. It was not a new study in the sense that it went out and did the research, but it gathered the research from these 350 participants that cover a very broad spectrum. It included of course energy producers. It included environmentalists. It included everybody who might have something intelligent to say about the issues and problems that we face. It was transparent. Everybody got to see what was going on. There weren't any hidden agendas. There weren't any preconceived ideas. I want to quickly run through the things that this study shows that we must do in the United States. Some I agree with wholeheartedly, and others I am still questioning and understanding the impact. But this study, which I hope over the next several months we are able to show to the American people and have them look at it and understand the issue as you and I do, but this study would say that we need to moderate the growing demand for energy by increasing efficiency of transportation, residential, commercial and other industrial uses. That is one we can all agree with. Expand and diversify production from clean coal, nuclear, biomass, other renewables and unconventional oil and gas; moderate the decline of conventional domestic oil and gas production, which means lifting those restrictions and going after domestic crude oil and increased access for development of new resources; integrated energy policy into trade, economic, environmental, security, foreign policies; strengthen global energy trade and investment; and broaden dialogue with both producing and consuming nations to improve global energy security. Not just energy security of the United States, but global energy security, because a world that has global energy security will be much more peaceful than a world that is fighting for the energy. Enhanced science and engineering capabilities and create long-term opportunities for research and development in all phases of the energy supply and demand system. And finally develop the legal and regulatory framework to enable carbon capture and sequestration. In addition, as policymakers consider options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, provide an effective global framework for carbon management, including establishment of a transparent, predictable economywide cost for carbon dioxide emissions. A couple of their findings unrelated directly to their recommendations were that the majority of the U.S. energy sector workforce, including skilled scientists and engineers, is eligible to retire within the next decade. The workforce must be replenished and trained. These are millions of jobs across a broad spectrum, from roughnecks all the way to the smartest scientists, that we have got in this country. So I want to thank both my colleagues for coming to us tonight. We have 1 minute to close. John, anything? John, anything?

Mr. CONAWAY. That will do the research to be able to learn how to burn all forms of coal from the lignite that we have in Texas to the hard coals in Pennsylvania and Illinois, learn how to burn that coal to generate electricity but yet capture the CO2, and then take that CO2 and either sell it back to the oil and gas business to sweep oil reservoirs to enhance the oil recovery, or in many places we will have to learn how to put it underground, deeply buried, permanently buried in the ground so it is not in our atmosphere. That is essential that we get that done, and the sooner the better, because all of us believe coal is a long-time solution to electricity production, but it ought to be clean-burning coal, zero-emission coal- fired plant. That is important not only for the coal plants that we ought to be building in the United States, but India and China are also part of this consortium that is going to develop this technology. China is bringing on a 500-megawatt power plant every 2 weeks or so. India is in a similar mode. They are going to burn coal however they need to in order to generate electricity because electricity and an increased electricity supply drives growth and economies. The availability of the electricity helps drive the growth in these economies. China and India are going to continue to burn coal and spew CO2 into the atmosphere no matter what we do. So it is in all of our best interests to learn how to burn coal cleanly and take advantage of that 250-year supply that my colleague from Illinois was talking about.

Mr. CONAWAY. Before we get away from the coal comments, I want to make sure that, I know my colleagues agree with this, as we look at coal usage, it ought to be clean-burning coal. None of us argue in support of continued CO2 emissions from coal-fired electricity plants. There is in the works right now a future gen project which is going to be about a billion eight research project. There are four sites that are in the hopper still competing for that one final selection: two in Illinois, two in Texas, one in my district.