K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Texas Utilities announced that they were going to build, I think the number was 12, 300-megawatt coal fire plants in Texas. And the reason for that was that over in that time frame of construction, the demand in Texas was expected to increase, electricity demand was expected to increase to the point that our grid, ERCOT, which is separate from the rest of the United States, the differential between demand and supply would narrow to a margin that is unacceptable from a safety standpoint. And these 12 plants were going to help keep that margin at the 9 or 10 or 12 percent excess capacity to allow for spurts in daily demand or to allow for continued growth in demand without getting to a point where you turned the light on and it didn't work, the experience in California where they had brown-outs because supply outstripped demand. You mentioned earlier about the opponents to coal fire plants. They went to work, Texas Utilities, to demand that they not build those plants. And as a result of that, and a takeover by a private entity, eight or nine of those plants have now been scrapped and they're only going to build three. Now, what got lost in that conversation was, where is the extra electricity production going to come from in order to keep ERCOT at a margin of safety for the differential between supply and demand that it has had over these years and should have in the going-forward future. So as we look at how we produce electricity, and all of us who have always turned lights on with the assumption that they would come on, left unchecked and left to our own devices, the growth in demand will get us to a point in the not-too-distant future where we will turn light switches on and nothing happens because the electricity is just not there to be used.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 963, H.R. 20--Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 962, H.R. 2089--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post Office.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 961, H. Res. 738-- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the Government of Syria's continued interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker on rollcall Nos. 961, 962 and 963. My flight from Midland was cancelled and I did not arrive in D.C. until 1:15 a.m. on October 16, 2007. I left Midland at 4:30 p.m. on October 15, 2007. My original flight was scheduled to leave at 8:40 a.m. October 15, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to rise today to honor three courageous police officers from Odessa, Texas who risked and ultimately lost their lives responding to a domestic violence call. Corporal Arlie Jones, Corporal John ``Scott'' Gardner, and Corporal Abel Marquez are true heroes that will be missed by their families and friends, the community of Odessa, and this country. Corporal Jones was 48 years and had served with the Odessa Police Department for 23 of those years. He is survived by his wife, Rhonda Jones; children, Kathleen Jones, Chelsea Jones, Shanna Foppiano, Mandy Boren, Shonda Boren; and parents, Arlie and Lolly Jones. Corporal Gardner was only 30 years old and had served the Odessa Police Department for 4 years and 5 months. He is survived by his parents, E.D. and Sally Gardner, and brothers Jack and David Gardner, who both work for the Odessa Fire Department. Corporal Marquez was only 32 years old and served the Odessa Police Department for 7 years and 1 month. He is survived by his children, Isaac Marquez and Sandra Marquez; his parents, Pete and Epi Marquez; and brothers Pete and Philip Marquez, who also work for the Odessa Police Department. On September 8, 2007, these three men answered their final call of duty to a frantic domestic violence call, a 911 call. It was not the first time the police had visited this specific residence. But these three men didn't think twice about the danger they were stepping in to; to serve, to protect, and to defend was all that was on their minds that fateful night. Three days later, members of the Odessa community were busy preparing for the September 11 anniversary ceremony. However, the ceremony was a little different this year. In addition to the 3,000 American flags that traditionally fly in the somber west Texas sky, there were three more flags, one for each of the fallen officers. In an ironic and touching service, the people of west Texas honored all of our fallen heroic first responders, both close and far from home. The community outpouring of love and support shown for the victims' families has been extraordinary, an obvious display of how these three men lived their lives. I want to offer my deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims. During the month of October, we will observe National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. This year as we work in Congress to pass legislation to provide leadership in the ongoing effort against domestic violence, I will personally remember the three heroes from Odessa, Texas who made the ultimate sacrifice for this cause. Mr. Speaker, I rise to the floor today to honor these three heroes who have been described by Odessa Police Deputy Chief Lou Orras as ``hard-working and dedicated officers with a passion for law enforcement.'' They will be missed, but never forgotten.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Ohio and South Carolina. I rise today to recognize the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force as an independent military service and to support House Concurrent Resolution 207, a bill which acknowledges and commemorates this significant milestone in our country's history. From the days the sky was ruled by such pioneers of aviation as Eddie Rickenbacker and Hap Arnold, the United States Air Force has continued its commitment to fielding a world-class Air Force by recruiting, training, and educating its active duty, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and civilian personnel. Over the past 60 years, the United States Air Force has repeatedly proved its value to the Nation by fulfilling its critical role in national defense and protecting liberty and humanity throughout the world. On September 11, 2001, the United States Air Force fighters took to the skies to fly combat patrols over major U.S. cities to protect our loved ones from further attack. Today, United States airmen continue their great service around the world to defend our liberties and freedoms in the global war on terror. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas, a facility that's dedicated to training of intelligence specialists and firefighters. I'm proud to represent the folks who used to serve there, who serve there today, and who will serve this great Nation tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join with me and others in celebrating this anniversary by supporting this resolution.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, the Preamble of the Constitution reads: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' On this day, 220 years ago, the 55 delegates to the Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia to hold their final meeting and sign a document that would change the course of history. Our Founding Fathers created a monumental plan to govern a sprawling young country dedicated to the idea that citizens were sovereign and should be as free from the tyranny of unchecked authority. Constitution Day presents us with an opportunity to pause and reflect on what a magnificent job these 55 individuals did in crafting a compromise which has provided us with a unified and stable Nation. In their wisdom, they sought to protect the rights and liberties of individuals by dividing power and authority between States and the national government. The result is a system of shared roles designed to prevent any one element from gaining too much power. Members of Congress have taken an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and with that responsibility in mind it is vital for us to fully understand this sacred document. That is why today on the 220th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution I am introducing the AMERICA Act: A Modest Effort to Read and Instill the Constitution Again. The AMERICA Act simply states that Members of Congress, Senators, and their respective staff read the Constitution annually. Mr. Speaker, we Members of Congress are pledged to uphold this Constitution, to defend this Constitution, write the laws that implement this Constitution and from time to time propose constitutional amendments to change this Constitution. It is my hope that this modest yearly effort will renew and deepen our appreciation for the brilliance of the Constitution and the division and constraints on power contained within it. The AMERICA Act is meant to be a reminder to lawmakers to stay within our country's founding framework as we conduct our legislative business. To our detriment, we often take the path of political expedience and ignore the limits so clearly written into the Constitution Today, I call on all Members of Congress to join me and rededicate ourselves to our founding principles of limited, constrained governance as enshrined in our Constitution. By studying our founding document, we will continue the legacy of these great men and their groundbreaking ideas, as well as develop the habits of citizenship that keep the Constitution alive and relevant for our new generation of Americans. I urge you all to join me in cosponsoring the Support America Act and its vital passage

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that was not made in order that would have allowed us to have a conversation about States' rights. There is a provision in the bill that severely rejects States' abilities to run their food stamp programs in ways they see fit in ways that are economical, provide benefits to beneficiaries in a respectful way; and it was not made in order. I think States' rights and a conversation about that is a worthy topic this evening to have this discussion. It's unfortunate that a select few on the Rules Committee, on the majority, are afraid of that conversation. I don't know if I would have won it or lost it. I think every time we trample on a State's rights to do things, the 10th amendment to the Constitution, that that's worthy of a conversation for this floor. I am flabbergasted that the majority on the Rules Committee were afraid of having that conversation tonight. So let me add my voice to the long line of Members on this side who whined about being cut out of this process. This is a legitimate issue, the right of a State to run its business the way that it sees fit, and if it does things correctly, and we develop new ways to do things, allowing other States to adopt those same models. This bill prohibits that from happening. This tramples on States' rights. It's an issue we should have had a full debate on, at least 5 minutes on each side, but we are not going to because of some fear on the other side.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, we are all anticipating the report David Petraeus will bring us in mid-September. But between now and then, there is hard work, dangerous work, and important work that has to be done. For Members on the other side of the aisle to begin to anticipate what David may say to us and to plan political spinning of that is irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, that is the ``ready, fire, aim'' approach to taking a position. That works well in a target-rich environment like the Alamo or Little Bighorn, but it is unworthy of Members of this body. Let's don't anticipate what David might say. Let's don't undermine that work that is going on in Iraq. Let's take the responsible position and listen to what he has to say before we try to spin it.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving me a quick minute. I, too, rise in opposition to the Udall amendment, not because I am opposed to conservation of grasslands, but simply because hard choices were made to craft a bill that was as balanced as we can get it. If you were on the living end of the commodity program and cotton, you know already the dramatic changes that are going to be in the offing if this bill does pass. To come in now and ask for one more change, one more reduction, is inappropriate, and I would oppose that and hope that our good colleagues who support conservation would understand this is a very difficult process. We have set priorities, and I think the finely tuned bill that came out of the committee is one we ought to support and not make this change. I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, in the immortal words of Doc Holiday in Tombstone, ``Our hypocrisy knows no bounds.'' Both sides equally applied. The arguments earlier that half of a percent cut, 5 basis points of a cut, as if that's some sort of a draconian decision to be made, the truth of the matter is the committee, the subcommittee had a fixed amount of money to work with, and they chose to make some trade-offs. They chose to fund more here and less here, more here and less there. But none of those decisions that they made were couched in the terms of some sort of mean spiritedness. And at the risk of prolonging the debate, which I think is an important debate for us to have, I'm going to offer up an amendment that I know has a point of order which stands against that. Before I do that though, I'd like to quote something from Justice George Sutherland. A lot of us heard earlier about the way tax planning is done, used, misused, and it was used in the pejorative; that only big oil companies or other companies could use the code that we currently have in place, that you and I and our colleagues put in place, to affect their tax affairs and that families don't get to do that. Well, I would argue based on this quote: ``The legal right,'' and that's a right, ``of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his or her taxes, or altogether avoid them by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.'' Gregory v. Helvering, Justice George Sutherland. So as we listen to this debate about how much we ought to spend, let's understand that we put in place this code, and if we don't like the way that's done, then there are forums to debate that, and we ought to have that debate. But let's not denigrate people who are using the code we put in place to lower their tax liability and call that some sort of a pejorative. This is the classic argument that you cannot throw enough money at any subject to fix it. And that's what we heard from the other side; that the more money you throw at it, the more you're going to fix the problem. And I don't necessarily agree with that. My colleagues on the other side used the word ``take'' in reference to revenues from oil companies, and that's exactly what they would intend to do. They would take those revenues and spend them the way they would like to. Legitimate way of doing government. I'll also argue that in the next 2 weeks we may have some sort of a conversation about an energy bill, and during that time frame we will argue vociferously that there's enough in reinvestment in domestic sources of energy, and those revenues taken from these mean, ugly oil companies would otherwise go back into that reinvestment into energy. So, as I mentioned, our hypocrisy knows no bounds. My amendment is simple. All of this great work that's been done, and bad work according to our colleagues on the other side, or wasteful work according to our colleagues on the other side, to try to reduce spending in the bill is for naught. In addition to the ringing defeats that my colleagues endure, were they to be successful, the rules of this House do not allow those cuts to actually be implemented. If my colleague had actually won the argument that we could trim 5 cents out of $100 out of this budget, whichever budget, that money would still get spent. The money that stays within the 302(b) allocation, which is code for inside the beltway stuff, but then would simply not get spent. And so we've spent hours and hours and hours down here debating, trying to reduce the spending in a particular bill. The harsh reality is that were we to win some of those amendments, it would simply be a piratic victory, because that money would still get spent. My amendment, sense of Congress, would say were we to win one of those arguments, that money, the reduction in spending would actually go against the deficit, or, heaven forbid, that we would ever be in a surplus circumstance, that money would increase the surplus. So this is something I'm trying to point out on each one of our bills, that we've got a goofy set of rules that only you and I understand, only you and I appreciate, and maybe only appropriators embrace, that does not allow all of this hard debate and work to really mean anything at the end of the day. And so while I challenge my colleague's characterization of our use of this debate time as wasteful in some way, I think it's important for the American people to understand as they go about managing their affairs that we couch the terms of managing our affairs, their affairs through us, in those kinds of terms. So, Mr. Chairman, I understand that a point of order lies against this, and I will not prolong the debate much further. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank Mr. Goodlatte for yielding. The subcommittee rejected this bill's predecessor on a 0-18 vote. There were no hearings on this activity. We have already heard the chairman say that the unintended consequences just of the scoring of this has not been done. This speaks to the fallacy of coming to this body tonight with a policy that is as broad and important for America as farm policy and to try to fix it with 20 minutes of debate on each side. It is just nonsense. This did not go through any hearings. We had field hearings, we had committee hearings, we had testimony from experts, we had testimony from producers throughout this process. And while that may have come to a result they don't like, it at least came to a result that has broad support. This process that they are bringing to us tonight should be subjected to the same scrutiny, to the same opportunity to look at what it does and what it does not do that all of the farm bill that we are looking at tonight does. They have not done that, and they have a lot of unintended consequences, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kind amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, for 18 months I've worked, along with my Democrat colleagues, to try to craft a bipartisan bill that we could be very proud of. Last week, it went through committee with some very hard work on both sides, both sides gave a little, got a little, and we thought left the committee with a great bipartisan bill, a bill which would have Democrats and Republicans for it, and perhaps Democrats and Republicans against it, but a bipartisan bill. We were assured on every turn there would not be a tax increase. I was a member of the bipartisan whip team on Tuesday and was told as late as noon that there would be no tax increases to pay for the $4 billion. I was misled, and that's unfortunate. All of the good bipartisan work accomplished by this committee has been squandered by, I believe, the top leadership of the Democratic Party in an attempt to strip Republican support for this bill away. We were going to have a bipartisan bill that was going to pass this floor. We're not going to have that now. I vote against this rule. It's unfortunate that the other side has seen fit to waste the good bipartisan work that we did. If we can't trust what we tell each other, you cannot work in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, this bill left our committee on a bipartisan basis and with my enthusiastic support. I agree with many of the laudatory comments made by my colleagues across the aisle. You will hear that there is a broad group of associations, commodity groups, and, most importantly, producers that support the bill that left our committee. Now you need to know the rest of the story. My colleagues and I were repeatedly told that the necessary offsets would not come from tax increases. We have just heard Chairman Rangel confirm that his taxing committee provided taxes for the offset. I was misled, I hope unintentionally, but nonetheless misled. Over the last 48 hours, poison pills have been added that the cynical among us would conclude were intentional; short-sighted, but intentional. Each of us must weigh the good and bad in all the legislation that we consider. Great judgment is required. Last week at this time, almost at this exact time, I fully expected to be here tonight perhaps fighting off bipartisan opposition to this bill, but nonetheless supporting this bill, not participating in a raw, partisan fight that was totally unnecessary. This bill is proproducer and prohungry around the world, but it is antibusiness and antimanufacturing jobs. It is an affront to States rights and unnecessarily panders to unions. Sadly, we have gone from a bill that should have passed with broad bipartisan support to one that will not enjoy that support. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity tonight to point out one more time one of the quirks of the rules that we operate under. We have heard over the last 2 days many of my colleagues come to these microphones and propose reductions in spending in this particular area of the Federal budget, very eloquent, very passioned, to try to reduce this spending. But the harsh reality is, should any of those amendments have passed or should any of the ones that we're about to vote on pass, the reality is that that spending does not, in fact, get cut out of this budget. This spending would simply be spent in conference and would not reduce the deficit or, should we ever get to that point, increase the surplus. So my amendment would simply state the sense that instead of continuing the practice, the age-old practice of spending whatever is in 302(b) allocation, whether it's warranted or not, we would actually take an opportunity to reduce spending which I think folks on both sides of the aisle, many people on both sides of the aisle would say is arguably one of the things that we ought to be doing and studying. This is not a revolutionary position to take, but it's one in which I think it makes sense. Most folks in Texas in District 11 would clearly understand the intent of what I'm trying to do. In fact, it would come as a shock to them to know that if we found 218 votes to adopt the 1 percent cut or the half a percent cut or the 25-basis point cut, that all of that hard work would be for naught and that that money would still get spent. So I understand there's a point of order that lies against this. I will not push for a ruling from the Chair. I just wanted to simply take the opportunity tonight to point out to my colleagues that we need to change the rules. We need to change the way we operate in this House, and this would be one of those that we ought to seriously consider doing so that the will of the House could operate to actually change spending if that were, in fact, the case. So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to say this tonight, and I will not push the point of order. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, this is an attempt to do some stuff tonight that will eliminate otherwise doing it tomorrow and perhaps shortening tomorrow. Amendment after amendment has come before this body seeking to reduce spending out of this appropriations bills. We took some 16 votes earlier this evening. The harsh truth of the matter is, should any of those votes to reduce spending have been successful, the reality is that money would not have been saved. The deficit for 2008 would still be exactly the same as it was under this bill that was presented. What my amendment would do is to create a sense of Congress that should we be successful in reducing spending coming up out of these appropriations bills, that that money would in fact reduce the deficit; and, hopefully, in the near future when we are in a surplus circumstance, that would increase the surplus as opposed to simply being recycled back through the Appropriations Committee to spend in perhaps some other area, but nevertheless spend that money. I understand there is a point of order that lies against this, and I will not insist on a ruling from the Chair. But I did want to highlight again on this bill tonight that, should any of my colleagues be successful in getting a vote to reduce spending, that reduction in spending does not actually happen; the money stays in 302(b) allocations and is spent somewhere else. So all of the conversations we have in here on the pros and cons about those issues is really wasted rhetoric under our current set of rules. Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, again in an attempt to get a little work done tonight that we would otherwise have to put off until tomorrow, I am offering up an amendment that would say straightforwardly that we will not spend money. None of the funds made available under this act for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program would be spent as long as we keep restrictions into place on drilling in ANWR and our intercontinental shelves. It seems illogical to me to drive the costs of home heating oil and natural gas up by restricting domestic production of those two commodities and, at the same time, try to fill an insatiable demand for LIHEAP funding. We added $400 million in LIHEAP money to the continuing resolution for 2007. This adds another $880 million in LIHEAP spending, again, an insatiable demand for these funds. And, at the same time, we are driving up the cost of that commodity so that the funds that we actually do plow back into LIHEAP don't go as far in terms of buying and giving relief to those folks who qualify for this program. So while I am not so much opposed to LIHEAP, I am opposed to the illogical public policy of limiting domestic production of crude oil and natural gas through artificial restraints on drilling in those places of the United States where we have our own production and thereby increasing the cost to consumers in States that take advantage of these LIHEAP funds. So, again, I understand a point of order lies against this. I do not intend to push that to a ruling of the Chair, but I did want to bring to the attention of my colleagues what I believe is the illogical position to take to restrict domestic production of crude oil and natural gas and, at the same time, try to fund as I see it is an insatiable demand for LIHEAP funding. Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my friend from Nebraska hosting this hour tonight. We listened earlier tonight to one of our colleagues from Ohio who recited some of the same statistics that you and I work off of, and that is, most reputable projections of energy usage in this country by 2025 and 2030 shows that, no matter what, even the rosiest predictions show that we still will be importing millions of barrels of crude oil and refined products every single day. And I don't know of any of us who thinks that America is better off by importing crude oil and refined products. Most of us would agree that that is a bad thing. Our balance of payments is out of whack. As you mentioned earlier, our foreign policy options are different. Our risks and threats to this country are exacerbated by that dependence. And then you begin to talk about the solutions. We agree on those facts. It is kind of looking at the glass half full or half empty. The amount of water in the glass is the same; it is just how do we look at it. And the proposals that she began to tout and promote seem to cost American taxpayers an awful lot of money. They also seem to involve some sort of price-control scheme that would not allow the natural market forces to work and operate as we begin to export these ideas. We will hear, as you said, over the next 2 weeks a lot of policies, and I think we ought to look at those polices through a lens that has four pieces. One lens would say does this policy help or hurt domestic production of crude oil and natural gas. I am a CPA by trade and I operate pretty often just by straight logic, and the logic is that if we increase domestic production of crude oil and natural gas, it means we are less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil and natural gas. I have yet to have anybody refute that argument in any way that makes sense. So, promoting production of crude oil and natural gas I think is a positive. So as you look at their policies, challenge them. If their policy continues to close off areas of domestic production and domestic exploration like ANWR, like the Inner Continental Shelf, then that policy does not make sense for America today. And many of the policies they have in place or want to continue in place have that result. If their policies retard or restrict the construction of new refineries in this country, the ability to process our domestic crude into refined products, gasoline, jet fuels and other kind of things, and force us to import refined products, it seems to me that that is a policy we ought to challenge. We in the minority spend a lot of time being against stuff, and I guess that is pretty much our role, but part of that is to be responsible devil's advocates. And if a policy curtails domestic production of crude oil and natural gas, that seems to be on its face something that you and I can challenge pretty easily. The second lens would be does it increase our reliance on foreign sources of crude oil. And in this category, it would be things like does it promote or inhibit personal responsibility for conservation. Republicans get beat up about not being wanting to conserve and wanting to use less fuel, but at the heart of that is the personal responsibility to use a little less gasoline than you used last week. The idea is that if all of us would use just 1 gallon of gasoline next week, if we did that, you would see an immediate increase of inventories. You would see a drop in the prices because the folks holding those inventories are wanting to sell them and sell them at a profit. So policies that either encourage personal responsibility for conservation or discourage personal responsibility for conservation, I think we have got to be for and against. If it encourages that and those policies come forward in the next couple of weeks, I think we ought to back those policies and help us do a better job making good choices ourselves, goofy little thing like keeping the tires in our car aired up properly, taking all the extra weight out of the trunk. Doing those kinds of things, you would probably pick up 3, 4, 5 percent efficiencies in the use of gasoline and see a dramatic impact. Just using less, that helps reduce our imported refined products. So policies that they bring forward that increase our reliance on foreign sources of crude oil and natural gas, I think we have to challenge those. The third would be does it encourage private investment in all sources of domestic energy, and that includes oil and natural gas. It includes coal, nuclear, wind and solar, and all those kinds of things that are out there.

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes. Let me say this: Even if the occasional turbine helped a bird commit suicide, yes, I would encourage wind turbines.

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, that folds into this exact policy, because things of uncertain public policies contribute to a decrease in private investment solutions.