K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. At the risk of unnecessarily continuing this debate, I must stand in opposition to the Obey amendment and in favor of the Hunter amendment. The words ``coercive and abusive proselytizing'' are particularly troubling. I too am a Christian and one of the basic tenets of my faith is that I must share that faith. I am instructed to go and tell. And the going and telling of that involves looking someone face to face and explaining the tenets of my religion, one of which is a heaven and a hell. If I were to do that on the Air Force Academy, then I could be accused of abusive and coercive proselytizing and be charged, and that is not the case. Of course, were that charge to be made, then I would make a charge of the religious intolerance of the person that made that charge against me. We seem to get into a loop here that does not make any sense. Both sides want freedom of religion. Both sides want freedom of expression of religion. The Hunter amendment calls for doing it in a way that allows for a due process on the campus to continue, all of the studies and reviews to get done. The Obey amendment unfortunately is a ready-aim-fire approach that I stand in opposition to.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good colleagues from Montana and others who have spoken in favor of this, I rise in opposition to it. It is not about food safety. If it were about food safety, then the 52 percent of meat that Americans consume would be involved in this labeling process, and that is not the case. Any meat consumed in retail food establishments is not affected by this labeling. So when one goes into their local restaurant and orders a steak, it will not come out labeled as to where that steak comes from. So if it was really about food safety, my colleagues would be speaking about that. It is really a marketing program, a heavy-handed approach by this Federal Government to demand a marketing program that may or may not work. The voluntary COOL program that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is proposing, of which I am a cosponsor, will give the industry an opportunity to design a system that works for them. We all have to look at the Certified Angus Beef programs and Idaho potatoes to understand that the free market can, in fact, devise labeling opportunities or labeling programs that do benefit consumers and allow consumers to make that choice. So I stand against this amendment, with all due respect.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me this time and appreciate this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak against the Bradley amendment. Many of my colleagues have stood at these microphones this afternoon and said it is our responsibility as Members of this House to perform this function. I would respectfully disagree with that. No one member of this committee could speak or vote to close a facility in their district. I represent a community that has a base that was not on the list, and the euphoria of that day would be lost if we have to put that community back through this process over again. All of the communities affected have an opportunity to present their best foot forward through the BRAC Commission's visits. The gentleman from Georgia has already said he met with one of the members of the BRAC Commission on that base that was affected today. That process will go on. Those communities will be able to demonstrate to the Commission that the criteria were improperly applied to their bases and present their case for keeping those open. So I respectfully disagree with the Members who have spoken in favor of the amendment and ask my colleagues to vote against the Bradley amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would speak today in strong opposition to this amendment of my colleague from California. First, let me say that I certainly understand their concern about the safety and well-being of our dedicated men and women of our Armed Forces who are currently deployed in Iraq. I, too, look forward to their safe and expeditious return home to the United States and to their loved ones. However, I cannot support this amendment, as I believe it sends exactly the wrong message concerning our current commitment in Iraq and gives aid and comfort to those who oppose us. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that passing this amendment will send a clear signal to the insurgents in Iraq that Congress, and by extension the United States, is wavering in our commitment to their defeat. Doing so would create the impression that their terrorist tactics are working and that a U.S. withdrawal from the region is imminent. The last thing we want to do is create a new burst of enthusiasm for the misguided causes championed by the insurgents and al Qaeda. Establishing a plan for withdrawal would give those groups the hope that they are wearing down our resolve when, instead, we need to be clear in our commitment to defeating the insurgents in Iraq. Further, I believe that this amendment would serve only to discourage those Iraqi citizens who are dedicated to building a stable and secure democracy and defending it against terrorist factions. The coalition forces involved in the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq are working hard to build and train a competent Iraqi security force capable of defending their government and aiding the transition to democracy. Thus far, they have demonstrated initial success, as evidenced by the ISF's role in securing polling locations during the January elections. It is imperative that we continue to mirror their commitment and remain dedicated to the stabilization efforts as they work toward the ultimate goal of a free and democratic Iraq. This amendment would, in my opinion, undermine the Iraqis' confidence in our continuing support. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to stress that we in Congress, in addition to the President and the Department of Defense leadership, do not want to maintain a U.S. military presence in Iraq one day longer than is necessary. Clearly, the goal is to bring our troops home as quickly and as efficiently as possible. However, we cannot do so until we succeed in enabling the Iraqis to defend themselves, secure their borders, and ensure the success of this new democracy. We agree there are certain milestones that must be met before we can in good conscience withdraw our forces from Iraq. It is not prudent to set an arbitrary date or timeline about which we can only speculate. While my colleague's amendment does not specify specifically a required date or timeline, I believe any formal plan would be misinterpreted and would send the wrong message. As the President has stated, ``It is inappropriate to put a specific timeline on the ultimate goal of ensuring that the Iraqi people can take care of themselves, protect themselves and provide for their fellow citizens.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and send a message to the Iraqi forces and the Iraqi people, as well as to the insurgent groups, that the U.S. Congress and, by extension, the United States of America, is fully committed to the establishment of a stable and secure democracy in Iraq.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, during the month of May, many parents and grandparents, as myself, will begin to celebrate college graduations and high school graduations of the next generation of workers in this country. This is the group that we should be engaging in the debate on Social Security reform. This is the group that stands the most risk if the current system cannot sustain itself. I encourage my colleagues to engage this group of individuals as we begin this debate, to help them understand how important it is that we put back the security in Social Security for this generation, and that we help them understand the role that a safety net of Social Security has within an overall retirement package. So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to begin this debate with these newly fresh-minted graduates as they take their place in exciting new careers and as they conduct their lives and help us with Social Security.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 191 and 192, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Terry

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a situation in Africa. President Abasanjo of Nigeria promised, as a result of a lawsuit several years ago, to withdraw Nigerian troops from the Bakassi Peninsula in the Republic of Cameroon. Today he has not done this, and it is time we see some action from Nigeria. As the president of the African Union, President Obasanjo has an obligation to set an example for the rest of the African nations by adhering to the International Court of Justice's decision and obey the rule of law. I call on President Abasanjo to withdraw all Nigerian troops from the Bakassi Peninsula and return the Bakassi Peninsula to its rightful owner, the fine Republic of Cameroon.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we are experiencing a growing economy in this country, a growing economy which creates jobs. Figures just released show that 274,000 additional jobs were created in this economy this last month. That is 274,000 families that are better off because they are working. They have also revised the figures to show that 93,000 additional jobs were created in February and March. I participated in a needs assessment in Midland, Texas, back in the early 1990s, a process about figuring out what was going on within those communities. We came up with the top 10 needs that the folks in Midland, Texas, told them about. Nine of those top 10 needs would have been positively impacted by a job. And so we have now created 274,000 jobs. The economy grew at 3.1 percent during the first quarter of this year. We continue to experience a growing economy led by the pro-growth policies of this administration and this House and this Senate.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding to me and allowing me to visit with our colleagues tonight on a very important topic of Social Security reform, and I am indeed hearing a good bit about this. Mr. Speaker, I am a CPA, an accountant, and I address problem solving by first deciding whether or not there is a problem. My colleagues tonight have presented a very good case for the fact that we do have a problem. Now, you can call it a crisis. You can call it a problem, or you can call it challenges. I think we should not get hung up on the descriptor; let us just simply look at the math. A lot of what we do in Congress is based on things that are not quite as verifiable as the math associated with this issue. And you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand the math, to have gone through the number of employees working versus the number of recipients and how that ratio is closing to get to two to one and the fact that in the law today is built in a 27 percent cut in those benefits in the year 2041, 2042. It is at that point that the trust system, the trust fund will have exhausted, and there is a cut in benefits at that point in time. I have a son that will be retiring at about that point in time, and I am not interested in him having a 27 percent cut in his benefits. The other thing that I think each of us has to tell all of the seniors, and I have a mom and dad out there who are dependent upon Social Security, that your benefits are fixed. They will continue to grow under the existing laws. And my colleagues who are in the 55-and- up bracket, the same rules apply to you. Your initial benefit, that primary insurance amount that is talked about, is in the law now, and when you turn 62 or 65, then that number will be set, as you are expecting it to be set today, and it will continue to grow over your lifetime so that your benefits are assured. Every single plan that is being discussed does absolutely nothing, repeat nothing, to affect those promised benefits. So once you have assured the folks that have retired and are near-term retirees, those people who have the least amount of time to react to whatever changes are made, that they are not going to be affected, then they should be on the side of those of us who want to change it, who want to put security in the Social Security for our children and grandchildren. My colleague from Minnesota mentioned his four grandchildren. You know, the first liar never stands a chance. I have six grandchildren that I am very proud of. And I believe that the lifetime benefit, the lifetime annuity that is Social Security, that this country has put in place for 75 years, that has stood us in good stead for 75 years, is important for my parents. It is going to be important for me, but more important to me as a grandfather, it ought to be in place for my grandchildren and my children. And we have the opportunity now to address that and to put the security back in Social Security for our grandkids. Another fact that is reasonably undeniable is that, each year we delay in whatever the fix is, whatever the compromises we make, whatever the solutions are, each year we delay that, we do a couple of things: One, we add $600 billion to the unfunded liabilities that are accumulating on the balance sheet of this country. The other thing that we do is we begin to narrow the options that we have to fix Social Security. Not only do we narrow those options, but we make whatever the fix is more extreme in those options that are available to us. So in my mind, we do not have to argue it is a crisis or whatever. In my mind, we ought to be about fixing Social Security today, so that when we begin to face what I think is a much heavier problem and heavier lift, which is Medicare and Medicaid, we will have Social Security behind us and set for the foreseeable future, infinite horizon, whatever you want to talk about, that we have in fact put this behind us and are now working on those two very daunting challenges. Some of the opposition that I hear, and most of that opposition until recently has been what I refer to as our outside voices; we have not had too many conversations using inside voices. Remember the kindergarten days, when you would come in off the playground, and the teacher would say, Let's begin to use our inside voices. We listen to each other better when we are using voices than when we are screaming at each other at the top of our lungs. Recently, I participated in a meeting with some representatives from AARP and a couple of my Democratic colleagues and some of my Republican colleagues, including the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup). We sat in a room for about an hour and a half using inside voices, looking each other in the eye, trying to understand what the other person's position was, trying to understand how they see the problem, how they see the solutions and at the same time trying to convey to our colleagues as well as to the leadership of AARP, our positions and why we think our solutions are the ones that ought to be a part of the ongoing situation. As I understand it, that may have been one of the first opportunities for Members of both sides of the aisle to sit and look at each other in a quiet environment and to talk. I think the last 30 minutes of that meeting is probably one of the most productive we have had anywhere, because everybody had kind of gone through the initial party-line rhetoric and got that out of our system, and then we began to talk seriously about how we see Social Security and this need for change. Let me give one illustration. I mentioned I have six grandchildren. I cannot find one grandparent who would gather their, my number is six, did I mention I have six, three boys and three girls, gather their grandchildren up and take them down to their local banker and say, Mr. Local Banker, I want to borrow a lot of money that I want to spend on myself, and I want you to draw up the loan papers so that my six grandkids will pay that loan off. I am talking the money, but they have to pay it off. I do not find many grandparents on an individual basis that would do that to their own grandchildren. But, somehow, we collectively, as a society, think that is okay, because that is what we are doing, that exact same thing. We are writing checks that we cannot cash, that we are going to require our children and grandchildren to pay off. And Social Security is in that mix. And so we should be very serious about this process of reforming it. I am excited that, tomorrow, as I understand it, we will begin to have hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means to begin to look at specific things. Until this point in time, the effort has been to try to convince each other that we do in fact have a problem that needs addressing and needs addressing now. We are coming to the end of that stage, and now is the stage we begin to look at the individual solutions, adopt the ones that ought to stick with us and cull the ones that should not. So we are in the process of gathering all those good ideas up to see which ones fit. My guess is, it will be a multifaceted fix. There is no one single change or new policy that will fix Social Security. It is going to require a lot of pushing and shoving in a lot of different areas. Two things, and then I will close and yield back. In my mind, personal savings accounts ought to be an integral part of whatever solutions we come up with. They are not a panacea. They do not in and of themselves fix this issue, but what they do address is a way to improve Social Security, to add an element of ownership to Social Security that we do not currently have. If I work 40 years and die, there is a little bit of survivor benefits that go to my wife, but the bulk of what I have accumulated in terms of Social Security benefits forfeits back into the system. We can do a better system than that, and these personal savings accounts will add ownership-like issues to Social Security, which in my mind is an improvement to the overall system. So I think that is important. And I have lost my second thought, so with that, I will yield back to my dear friend from Kentucky.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I appreciate and thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for coming over tonight and spending his time with us to point out to us, Mr. Speaker, that some of the great things that we have, in fact, accomplished during this first 100 days, as I mentioned, if it is a fact, it is not over-reaching, it is not puffing, it is not exaggerating. And these are facts that we lay on the record, facts that most often have wide Democratic support for the initiatives that have been brought forward on the Republican side. For that I am thankful for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have looked at the issues, looked at what is best for America, looked at the solutions that are being presented and voted their conscience as opposed to being obstructionist or just simply taking the party line on issues that are of importance to our great country. Mr. Speaker, I have also been joined tonight by another colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina. He also is cutting a wide swath through the activities around here, and he has done a good job for the folks of Western North Carolina. I would like to amplify a theme that he has talked about, and that is the strong bipartisan support we have had on six major pieces of legislation. As I walk through these and explain kind of what the legislation did, I will also point out the number of Democrats who joined the Republicans in passage of these bills. One of the early pieces of legislation was the class action lawsuit reform, the Class Action Fairness Act, in which 50 Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in passing this bill that addresses some very serious problems facing our courts with respect to the large interstate class action cases that are being heard. This legislation moves those cases into Federal courts and allows for the defendants in those cases to have a fair chance of having their rights not abused in forum shopping in State courts. We also passed the REAL ID Border Security Act. There again 42 Democrats joined the Republican colleagues in passage of this very important first step. As my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) mentioned about immigration reform, which is something that this body ought to be taking up in serious ways, but this is a great first step in that instance by requiring that States, if they want their citizens to use their driver's license to get on to airplanes and get into Federal facilities, that they will have to have certain standards by which they issue those driver's licenses to their citizens and to others in their State. It also closes some loopholes in the asylum laws as well as strengthening our deportation laws. We have an interesting, odd fact; that if a person were on a terrorist watch list and attempted to get into this country, we have every right to not let them in. We can simply refuse to let them in. But if we come across this same person already in this country who had these terrorist ties and connections, those are not grounds for deportation. So this REAL ID Act will address that inconsistency. We also go about finishing an important physical border problem that we have in Southern California and about a 3-mile stretch of a long- needed fence and barrier between Mexico and Southern California. We have also passed and sent to the Senate the death tax repeal. This is something all good Republicans, of course, have campaigned on every time they have run for office and run for election. This is an important repeal of, in my mind, a bad public policy. We tax every single thing we do in life: We tax our incomes, we tax our sales, we tax purchases, we have excise taxes on everything. We ought to be able to get out of this life tax free. Taxing death seems to me on its face a bad public policy, and this Congress in 2001 and 2003 began the process of repealing the death tax over a 10-year period so that in 2010 it goes away fully. The bad news is that in 2011 it comes back in, fully, with a 55 percent partner in the Federal Government. The repeal of the death tax will make that repeal in 2011 permanent so that families can be about passing on their inheritances to their families and children and their heirs and their charities in ways they choose and that they are not forced to do this in ways that has Uncle Sam as a 55 percent partner in that deal. Did I mention that 42 Democrats joined the Republicans in passing that bill and sending it to the Senate? We also passed a bankruptcy abuse bill in this Congress, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which closed many of the loopholes being taken advantage of by folks who really should not have been taking advantage of them. The bankruptcy laws, for those truly bankrupt, are there and in place, but it provides for a review of their cases to make sure that if they can, in fact, pay something back to their creditors, that they are required to do that. We had 73 Democrats join us in the passage of that bill.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank both the gentlemen from the great State of Georgia for joining me tonight. We have been joined in the chamber by another freshman colleague of mine from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and I would be pleased to yield to him.

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, I spent 30-plus years as a CPA working for a variety of clients and situations, and it has been my experience with those clients that, as Congress has reduced taxes, as tax bills have gone down, that most employers use that money to invest in new employees and invest in new equipment, in new process, to expand their businesses, and as the gentleman pointed out, when taxes go up, somebody loses a job. I would also like to point out one other thing while we are talking about Social Security and, that is, current beneficiaries and near-term beneficiaries. Every chance I have gotten, every chance I hear of anyone talking about a plan, it includes a clear, unequivocal statement that if you are on Social Security benefits, if you are a near-term beneficiary, those benefits will continue; you will continue to get your checks. So whatever it is, whatever solutions we come up with, I will be able to look at my mom and dad, who are current beneficiaries, and tell them that on the 3rd of every month, that direct deposit is going to hit the bank, just like it did last month and the month before that. You will not, Mom and Dad, be able to outlive your Social Security benefits because, in my mind, Social Security is a contract with ourselves. We are not going to breach Social Security. It is a public policy issue that I think has served this country well for 75 years. It is a great concept to have a floor, a level of lifetime annuity that you know will be there for the rest of your life. We have got that for the current generation of beneficiaries. I think it is a good idea that we ought to have it for my grandchildren, that they also would have a plan in place, funded over their work life, that would allow them to have a lifetime annuity, that would provide them and their families, at a modest level, of course, because Social Security was never intended to be a robust retirement. It was always intended to be a safety net, a bare minimum, a modest lifestyle that you would lead, but nevertheless, one that would allow you to exist in your retirement age. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am concerned about Social Security. Probably the single heaviest lift, as that phrase is used in these Chambers, that we have ahead of us. It will look like a walk in the park when we begin to consider Medicaid and Medicare and overall health care spending and costs in this Chamber. So we need to get it done now. As we address the issue of Social Security we have got more options today than we will as each year passes. If we do not act, if we continue to keep our heads in the sand, which if you think about the posture that you are in with your head in the sand it is not particularly flattering. If we continue that posture, we have add a $600 billion increase to the unfunded liabilities that are Social Security for each year that we fail to act, for each year that we do not consider those 23-years-old as they enter the workforce. Our oldest son is 32 years old, and he will be retiring about the point in time where benefits look like they are going to cut under current conditions, about 27 percent. And that is not something I am particularly excited about. I am also not excited about the opportunity of taking our six wonderful grandchildren, of which we are very proud, I am not particularly interested in taking those six down to my local banker, convincing him to draw up a major huge loan packet, in which I will get the proceeds and I will make those six little critters sign on that note and they have to pay it off. That is a plan that is not particularly attractive to this grandfather. I do not imagine it is particularly attractive to any grandfather in this body that would consider that. But that is what we are doing as we continue to delay and delay and delay and not address the bad math problem we have with Social Security.

Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments tonight. She has done an excellent job of reviewing many of the terrific accomplishments that this 109th Congress has done so far. Accomplishments are gauged by the legislation that is passed and sent to the Senate, or that comes from the Senate and is passed and sent on to the President of the United States. Much of that success ought to be bipartisan. This may sound a bit heretical to some of my Republican colleagues, but we Republicans do not necessarily have all of the good answers, all the right answers; and by the same token, the Democrats do not have all of the right answers as well. So what we ought to be about crafting are those solutions and those answers to the problems that face Americans that do have bipartisan support. And later on this evening, I will run throw a litany of the legislation that has been passed through this body, which from 41 to 122 Democrats have joined their Republican colleagues in the passage of this legislation, clear evidence that the work coming out of this body can be bipartisan and that we can have a meeting of the minds among folks with different philosophies. I have also been joined tonight by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). I find a great pleasure to yield to him as much time as he may consume to continue this discussion.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to take what will be a brief look back at the first 100 or so days of activity in this House of Representatives. While each new session of Congress holds great promise, it is the actions that that Congress takes that determines whether or not that Congress has been successful. Our success has been as a result, in my mind, of the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay), the majority leader, whose responsibility it is to shepherd legislation through this body. In a community and a town where exaggeration and hyperbole, overreaching and puffery has been elevated to a state of art, you have to be very careful to not indulge in those tendencies, although some in this Chamber have on occasion, rare occasions, I suspect, done that. But if you are looking at facts, if you are talking about things that have been accomplished, then you are less likely to be accused of puffing and of exaggeration. So during this next 60 minutes, my colleagues and I who have joined me tonight will spend this hour talking about things that we have accomplished, the things that we have done, the good we have done, how it will impact America and Americans, if the bulk of this legislation does, in fact, reach the President's desk. So to start us off tonight, I have asked my good colleague and fellow freshman, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), to share with us what is on her mind. So I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this special order.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia. There are two other reported bills we have passed in this first hundred days of the 109th Congress that have gained broad Democratic support. The first was the Continuity of Government Act. This would provide set procedures for holding elections should 100 or more of our colleagues be killed in some sort of an event. That bill enjoyed 122 Democrats joining with their Republican colleagues in the passage of that bill. The final one I want to talk about which the Democrats showed support for is the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We have all had, those of us who drive automobiles, have had the wonderful opportunity of pulling up to the pump and paying prices for gasoline that are the highest we have ever paid, in our minds. I am not speaking to whether that is right or wrong, but it is certainly an expensive process to drive an automobile these days. We passed the Energy Policy Act, which, unfortunately, is not designed and does not have the capacity to have an immediate impact on gasoline prices. That is a long-term problem, it has been a long time coming, and there is no silver bullet. There is no immediate solution to that. It is simply supply and demand. As more of us continue to drive, as China continues to go from a bicycle economy to a moped economy to a 4-cylinder engine economy, to a 6-cylinder engine economy, their demands for crude oil and gasoline continues to grow much faster than anywhere else. India, likewise, has significant growth in their demand for the use of gasoline and crude oil. So it is a supply-and-demand issue that the Energy Policy Act we have just passed and sent over to the Senate just cannot address. However, it can address opportunities to reduce our dependency on crude oil imported and natural gas imported from other countries. Each barrel of oil and each MCF of natural gas that we need to import from other sources makes us more dependent on those sources. Now, while we will never wean ourselves, or certainly not in our lifetimes, from imported crude oil and natural gas, we can take the necessary steps and the rational well-thought-out steps to reduce our dependency on that imported crude oil and imported natural gas through a variety of opportunities. These opportunities include encouraging renewable energy sources, like wind generation for creating electricity. We have to know how to learn to burn coal cleanly. We currently capture sulfur properly, but we do not capture the CO\2\ that is emitted when coal is burned. India and China will dwarf our coal consumption in their own capacity, in their usage of coal to generate electricity. We have to develop technologies that will capture that CO\2\ and dispose of it properly. Because whether you believe in greenhouse gases or global warming or not, the evidence is pretty clear there is more carbon dioxide in the air today than certainly in any of our lifetimes. So capturing that CO\2\ that is created when coal is burned is an essential part of this. This energy bill would provide dollars for the research for that technology. It also creates jobs. Because as we continue to develop new ways to provide energy for this country, jobs are created when that happens. We have a litany of other things I want to quickly run through in the final 5 minutes I have to brag on this House for the first 109 days. We passed a Supplemental Appropriations Act that will provide for the global war on terror funding in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as some modest tsunami relief and other funding. This has gone to the Senate, is in a conference now, and will be back to us later this week. We passed a budget resolution last week that for the first time since Ronald Reagan we cut nondefense, nonHomeland Security discretionary spending, and it provides for reconciliation for the first time since 1997. This is another real accomplishment given the circumstances that we find ourselves in. We have also passed the Transportation Equity Act of 2005. This provides for $284 billion in transportation spending on the needed infrastructure improvements for our highways and bridges and other transportation infrastructure needs that will be spent over the next 6 years. We need that legislation to pass in the Senate so that the President can sign that bill and we can get on with the process of building a transportation infrastructure that will allow our economy to continue to grow and expand. We have also passed the Job Training Improvement Act earlier in this session, which simplifies and combines some of the job training programs that are in our community colleges and colleges. Mr. Speaker, we have had a terrific first hundred days. As a freshman, it is my first term here and it has been an exciting hundred days. I suspect the next hundred days will be as exciting as well, as we take up hopefully some specific plans on Social Security, and I look forward to joining with my Democrat colleagues, as we have done on six of these bills that I mentioned, in passing solutions to problems that face this country.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, in a community where overreaching and puffery is a state of art, it is always dangerous to begin to talk about things we have actually accomplished, but I want to join my colleague from Georgia in bragging about what this House has done in its first 100 days. The leader of this House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), is in no small part responsible for the aggressive legislative agenda that we have accomplished. In addition to those acts that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) mentioned, we have also passed a supplemental appropriations act to provide the necessary funding for the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and to continue the fight on the war on terrorism. We have also passed and sent to the Senate a budget resolution, which includes reconciliation for the first time since 1997. We have also passed a highway bill, which will provide needed infrastructure improvements and growth for this country for the next 6 years. Again, sent to the Senate and we are awaiting their action. We have also passed and had the President sign a bankruptcy reform bill as well as the class action lawsuit reform. So this House, in the first 100 days, has accomplished much and I am proud to be a part of that; and we should thank Leader DeLay for his leadership in that regard.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Lloyd Hill on his induction to the Texas High School Football Hall of Fame. Lloyd played high school football at Odessa Permian. In his senior year of high school, Lloyd Hill was a vital cog in Odessa Permian's high powered offense in 1989. The Panthers outscored their opponents 620-97 and won the Texas 5A state championship with a 16-0 record. Permian defeated Houston Aldine 28-14 in the Texas State title game that year. Hill was an all-state receiver in 1989 and was a two-time all-district pick. He was also selected to play in the Texas High School Coaches Association All-Star Game. Lloyd Hill lettered at Texas Tech University from 1990-1993 and still holds school receiving records for--yards in a season (1,261), most 100 yard games in a season (7), and most TDs in a season (12). He ranks second on the Red Raider career yardage list. Hill played professional football for the Shreveport Pirates in the Canadian Football League and with the Houston ThunderBears of the Arena Football League. Again congratulations to Mr. Lloyd Hill on receiving this recognition for his high school career.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to congratulate Coach Gene Mayfield on his induction into the Texas High School Hall of Fame. On May 7, 2005, Coach Mayfield will be inducted into the Texas High School Hall of Fame. Coach Mayfield was a master at turning mediocre football programs into State title contenders. A graduate of Quitaque High School, Mayfield played quarterback for Coach Frank Kimbrough at West Texas State University. In 1950, Mayfield led his team to a Border Conference Championship and a win over the University of Cincinnati in the 1951 Sun Bowl. After serving as Kimbrough's assistant for two seasons, Mayfield accepted the job at Littlefield High School, where his teams advanced to the Texas State semi-final games in 1954 and 1956. Coach Mayfield began rebuilding the football program at Borger High School in 1958 with a district title in his first season. His 1962 squad was undefeated until losing the Texas State championship game to San Antonio Brackenridge 30 to 26. In 1965, the ``Father of Mojo'' took over an Odessa Permian team picked to finish last in the district. The Panthers went on to win the Texas State championship, beating San Antonio Lee 11 to 6. Mayfield's teams also advanced to the title game in 1968 and 1970. Mayfield left Odessa Permian and took the West Texas State University job in 1971. He finished his coaching career at Levelland High School. Coach Mayfield posted a career high school record of 156 wins, 35 losses and 4 ties. While his teams were very successful, Coach Mayfield's greatest accomplishment was the influence he had on the lives of the young men he coached. He instilled in all of us the value of hard work, responsibility, discipline, and being prepared. Coach Mayfield left a lasting impression on everyone he coached. I credit much of my personal success to his influence on my life during these years since 1965. Congratulations, Coach Mayfield, on a life well led.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to address what is a critical shortage of labor within the oil and gas industry and the mineral industries. Since 1999 there has been a significant drop in the number of jobs in the oil field. As the price of oil and natural gas have fluctuated, workers have come and gone in this industry. We are now at a point where we are at a critical shortage of workers across the spectrum, roughnecks, well service hands, pulling unit hands and others, as well as the technical engineers, geologists, geophysicists. They are key to continuing the search for domestic production. As an example, one community in my district, Kermit, Texas, in 1998- 1999 had some 9,000 people living there. As a result of the downturn in those years and the loss of jobs, that community now has 6,000 people living there. Even with the significant increases in the price of natural gas and crude oil that we are experiencing today, those people have not come back to Kermit, Texas. We are facing this critical shortage. My amendment would simply require the Energy Department, in consultation with the Interior Department as well as the Labor Department, to conduct a study of the impact that this shortage is having and to present possible solutions to the shortage. By way of trying to be a bit dramatic, each barrel of oil we import, each MCF of natural gas we import, adds to our trade deficit each and every day. The need to import a barrel of oil or the need to import an MCF of natural gas causes us to remain dependent on those foreign sources. I speak in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a former oil and gas company owner.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with one statistic. In 1981 there were some 1.6 million people employed in the oil and gas industry. Today, at the end of 2004, that number now just barely reaches 500,000. A dramatic decrease in the number of good, solid jobs in this economy and jobs in an industry that is clearly vital to our national interest. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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