Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, again, I appreciate that help with what I was saying because it reminds me of another point that I want to make, and that is, by not allowing this new exploration, we are ensuring that Big Oil will stay in control of the issues. When new areas are opened up, it opens up the opportunities for smaller oil companies and for new entrepreneurs to get involved in the business. So the best thing that could happen to the ``big oil companies,'' those people who the Democrats demonize constantly, is for us not to open up new areas for drilling, because they have such a lock on the existing areas, and so they are helping, unwittingly perhaps, the existing oil companies to stay big by decreasing the competition for them. Now let's talk a little bit about what is the Democrats' plan. They say no, no, no, no, no to all of the things which we have proposed which we believe the American people want. We know that from the surveys. Our hope in coming back here for this session is that the American people will have put a lot of pressure on our Democratic colleagues in saying to them: ``You must tell the Speaker that she needs to bring up a bill for a vote, and that's all we're asking for. We want a clean up or down vote.'' Now, I had said this many of the times that I was here during August. One day in July, before we went on recess and when the Republicans were talking about this--we'd been talking about this all of this year that we needed to do something to increase the supply and bring down the price of gasoline--somebody asked one of Speaker Pelosi's aides: ``Well, what is your plan for bringing down the price of gasoline?'' The answer was: ``Drive small cars and wait for the wind.'' Well, this is how somebody has characterized this. This is the Democrats' energy plan: drive small cars and wait for the wind. Well, most people in this country can't trade their big cars for small cars. They need their big cars. They have families, and they need to transport them or they have so much invested in those cars already, and they're not wealthy people like our Speaker is. They are people who are working hard for a living, and they can't do that. Well, I have likened this to when the French people told the Queen of France that the people had no bread. She said, ``Let them eat cake.'' Well, that's, I think, what the Democrats are saying to the American people. Let them eat cake. Whereas, the Republicans are saying we have alternatives. Let's vote on those alternatives. Yes, I think this deals with some of the quotes that Mr. Gingrey was talking about, that Congressman Gingrey from Georgia was talking about a few minutes ago. We did get promises. In fact, the Speaker promised in 2006 that the Democrats had a commonsense plan for bringing down the price of gasoline. That was when the price of gasoline was around $2. Now it's almost $4. They've done nothing about it. This is what one of their Members said: ``We sort of stretched the truth, and people ate it up.'' This was stated by Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, on the Democrats' campaign promises. They made those promises. Now, what have Republicans done? Thirty-five times the Democrats have voted down Rules Committee Republican-offered solutions to lower your gas prices and to address America's urgent energy needs. The Speaker said we'll have to use our imagination for ways that we can get a vote. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have used every opportunity presented to us in this Congress to force a vote on providing American-made energy. And every time the Democrats have stifled that. We're not asking for a lot. We are asking for an up-or-down vote. Now, we have it broken down. We are not asking you to take our word for it. We have it broken down. Eleven times they voted ``no'' to consider amendments that would lower the average price of regular unleaded gasoline; four times to lower the price of gasoline and diesel by increasing our domestic fuel supply; six times they voted ``no'' to address alternative fuels; and fourteen times to address additional energy solutions provided by the American Energy Act, No More Excuses Energy Act, Coal-Liquid Fuel Act, Deep Ocean Resources Energy Act, Boutique Fuel Reduction Act, and the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act. Republicans continue to try, and we are going to continue to bring up these issues every day that the Congress is in session and when we go out of session. But we do need the American people to help on this. We're going to bring it up. But if you live in the district of a Democrat who has not yet said he or she will vote ``yes'' for additional energy, then you need to be calling the House of Representatives and you need to be calling the Speaker's office to let them know. But it's better to call your Member of Congress and ask that Member to tell them. Now, here's the other energy plan presented by their nominee for President. Our nominee for President, Senator McCain, has said he wants to increase American-made energy. Senator Obama's plan is check your tires and get them inflated properly and that's the solution to the American energy needs. That's just not going to cut it, Senator Obama. I'm sorry. We have got to increase supply. Americans have been doing a wonderful job of conserving. And, again, I want to make it very clear Republicans believe in all of the above. We support conservation, but we support alternatives such as solar, wind, hydro, every other alternative that there is out there. We are willing to do that. But we know we cannot do this without increasing supply. And I simply think that we need to ask the Democrats are you pro-American energy or are you anti-American energy? If you're not interested in increasing the supply that we have within our borders, then you're anti-American energy. That is being anti-American people because it's the average working person, the retired people, young people who are being hurt by the high price of gasoline. And I think that that approach is the approach of people who are totally out of touch with the real world, and I am very disappointed in that. I am going to yield back to my colleague now, Mr. Gingrey, from the great State of Georgia.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose this 190-page bill, hastily offered under suspension of the rules, which establishes a new Federal authority for the regulation of the tobacco industry. This legislation adds another layer of bureaucracy to the already overburdened Food and Drug Administration, and another layer of regulation to American consumers' lives. This bill includes more than $5 billion in new tax increases on tobacco companies and gives sweeping control of the tobacco market to the FDA. Chairman Dingell, discussing the recent salmonella outbreak, was recently quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that ``there's a total inability of the FDA to carry out its mission.'' This isn't the first Democrat to raise questions about the effectiveness of the FDA. Thus, it is highly hypocritical of them to extend the agency's regulatory authority to a multi-billion dollar industry of which the FDA has no expertise. Furthermore, as FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in October 2007, the FDA is an agency intended to promote and protect the public health. In the Commissioner's opinion, requiring the FDA to ``approve'' tobacco products as a result of this bill would dramatically change the agency's focus. Mr. von Eschenbach stated, ``Associating any agency whose mission is to promote public health with the approval of inherently dangerous products would undermine its mission and likely have perverse incentive effects.'' While establishing FDA authority to regulate tobacco products, this bill would also retain the FTC's Federal authority to regulate tobacco advertising and circulation. It would provide only limited pre-emption of State laws, allowing more rigid State restrictions on tobacco advertising. These multiple layers of regulation will impose undue bureaucratic and logistical hardships on tobacco manufacturers. It is important to remember that the sale of tobacco, according to current law and expressly reinforced in this bill, is legal in the United States and can be credited with hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. As Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt noted, this legislation could also be viewed by foreign governments as a hostile trade action. Many of the clove and other flavored cigarettes that are banned under this bill are manufactured in foreign countries. However, this bill expressly permits production of menthol cigarettes. This could lead Indonesia or other foreign governments to file complaints at the World Trade Organization claiming discrimination against their products. Ultimately, retaliatory measures could be taken against American-made products, which could lead to unnecessary trade disputes with a negative effect on economic growth. Finally, this legislation would have little impact on overall tobacco use. If this bill is enacted, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that smoking by adults would decline only by 2 percent after 10 years. This marginal reduction does not warrant this legislation's significant intrusion on free speech rights and expansion of government-run regulatory bureaucracy. Therefore, I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank Ranking Member McKeon for his work on this bill. I find it very interesting that our colleagues have such hubris that they think we are going to solve all of the problems of the world here in the Congress. I wish that it were so. I worked all my life for equal rights for women, and I don't take a back seat to anyone on this floor or in this body for that. But I want to say that this bill is not going to solve the problem that we face in terms of equal pay for equal work. My colleagues have reviewed very well the existing law. They have stated well why this bill is not needed. But I have to say that the Democrats have been very clever in the way that they have named bills here this year. The Free Choice Act, which takes away the choice of a secret ballot for voting for unions, does exactly the opposite. This bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, will not do what the Democrats purport that it will do. It will help trial lawyers. Those in charge of the House of Representatives, I believe, are being controlled by trial lawyers, union leaders, and radical environmentalists. I think this bill will make it easier for trial lawyers to cash in. It includes several steps that will make it more lucrative for trial lawyers to pursue sex discrimination claims under the EPA. This may be good for lawyers, but it will be costly for businesses and their workers. I agree, discrimination against anyone is wrong. No one who serves in this House or who lives in this country wants to see that. But I want to quote from an article by Carrie Lukas, and I will put the entire article in the Record. The subtitle is: The Paycheck Fairness Act, and the title is: Feminists Meddle with the Market. It's in National Review. ``Today is a rare moment when Congress has the potential to meaningfully address a real economic problem, rising energy prices, with sensible legislation to allow more drilling to increase energy supplies. So what has Congress slated for consideration this week? The Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that is the equivalent of throwing sand into the wheels of our economic machine.'' She goes on to say, ``Of course, no congressional legislation would be complete without a healthy serving of waste, and the Paycheck Fairness Act doesn't disappoint. It would create a new grant program to instruct women on salary negotiation tactics and require the Department of Labor to train employers in strategies for eliminating pay disparities. It seems almost quaint to ask, but where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to engage in this type of activity? Taxpayers should be outraged that their money is being put to such use.'' If we are really concerned about working women and wanting to see them treated fairly, the Democrats in charge would bring up the American Energy Act and let us vote to create more sources of energy, thereby bringing down the cost of oil and gas and other forms of energy. This would do a lot more to help working women than this bill is going to do. [From NRO Contributor July 30, 2008] Feminists Meddle With the Market--the Paycheck Fairness Act (By Carrie Lukas) When an economic issue makes headlines, you can usually count on Congress to respond, more often than not with an over-reach that creates more problems than it solves (think Sarbanes-Oxley or the recent housing bailout bill). Today is a rare moment when Congress has the potential to meaningfully address a real economic problem--rising energy prices--with sensible legislation to allow more drilling to increase energy supplies. So what has Congress slated for consideration this week? The Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that is the equivalent of throwing sand into the wheels of our economic machine. Underlying the bill are the assumptions that our workplace is systematically hostile to women and that existing laws don't provide enough protection for women. As committee chairman George Miller (D., Calif.) said when celebrating the passage of the bill out of his committee: ``This is a historic day in the fight for equal rights for women. If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the weak sanctions under current law.'' The committee's press release, like essentially every public statement supporting expanded ``equal pay'' laws, cites the statistic that women earn just 77 percent of men's earnings. This ``wage gap'' is considered proof that the work world's deck is still stacked against women and government needs to do more to make sure that everyone plays fair. Yet a statistic that simply compares the wages of the median full-time working man and the full-time working woman tells us nothing about the existence (or lack thereof) of systematic wage discrimination. Many factors contribute to how much one earns, from occupation and area of specialty to education and years of experience. Not surprisingly, once those factors are taken into account, the wage gap shrinks. Men tend to take jobs that are dirtier, more dangerous, and distasteful than those performed by women. Overwhelmingly, men are the ones working in our sewers, guarding our prisons, laying concrete in the scorching sun, and catching and gutting our fish. They work more graveyard shifts and longer hours, in fact, the Department of Labor estimates that even full-time working women spend about a half an hour less each day on the job than men do. Women disproportionately work indoors, in safe, climate controlled buildings, with regular, or even flexible, hours. More people are interested in working in libraries and school buildings than on the fishing boats featured in Deadliest Catch, which is why physically strenuous, dangerous jobs pay higher salaries. Feminist activists tend to be frustrated with this analysis, and the explanation that the market (not nefarious men) is primarily responsible for women earning less. They don't think it's fair that jobs that require an education, like social work or teaching, are less valued in the marketplace than positions in trucking and sanitation work that require only characteristics like stamina and a high tolerance for filth. They've long championed policies, dubbed as ``comparable worth,'' that would give government officials the power to supersede the market to make sure that women's contributions aren't undervalued. The Paycheck Fairness Act takes steps in that direction. The Department of Labor would issue ``guidelines'' that compare the wages of different jobs to give employers a sense of what is considered ``fair.'' The guidelines may not have the force of law (yet) but certainly would be a powerful specter hanging over employers seeking to avoid costly litigation. And employers would have additional reason to fear that they would be targets for litigation if the Paycheck Fairness Act becomes law. This bill would subject employers to unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, even for unintentional pay disparities, creating potential paydays certain to inspire trial lawyers to action. The bill would also strip employers of the ability to defend differences in pay as based on factors other than sex, such as experience and performance, leaving courts to dictate what constitutes a legitimate pay structure. Of course, no congressional legislation would be complete without a healthy serving of waste, and the Paycheck Fairness Act doesn't disappoint. It would create a new grant program to instruct women on salary negotiation tactics and require the Department of Labor to train employers in strategies for eliminating pay disparities. It seems almost quaint to ask, but where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to engage in this type of activity? Taxpayers should be outraged that their money is being put to such use. Federal law already outlaws sex discrimination. This legislation would afford women few new protections against actual sex discrimination, but would raise the cost of employment and discourage workplace flexibility. It is exactly what women--and the economy--don't need. If this is what we can expect from the rest of this Congress, Americans should hope for an early recess.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. McKeon. I want to continue with what I was saying before. Republicans are deeply concerned about working families. Every day we come to this Congress and we do everything that we can to help those working families. We believe that if any worker is subject to discrimination in the workplace because of their sex, or for any other reason, that that discrimination should be rooted out and punished accordingly. That is why current law protections are so important. Again, we have outlined why those laws are adequate currently. We are also concerned about other workplace policies and proposals that threaten workers' wages, flexibility, and freedom. However, unfortunately, Democrats have once again stifled debate in the House and blocked the minority from offering amendments that address the real concerns of working women and families. They have done the exact opposite of what they promised to do in 2006, make this the most open Congress ever, make this the most ethical Congress ever, make this the fairest Congress ever. It has been just the opposite of that. Again, what we should be doing today is we should be debating how we can bring down the price of gasoline and heating oil and all of those things that are harming working Americans every day, but instead we are dealing with bills that are going to do nothing but line the pockets of trial lawyers and create what I call high-priced welfare, which are high-priced bureaucratic jobs which don't really do anything to help working men and women in this country, especially working women, increase their pay. We will be stifling businesses. It seems as though they hate business and industry, and want to do everything that they can to shut it down in this country. This bill will certainly help do that. So I say we vote ``no'' on this bill because this bill doesn't do what the title pretends it does, and in fact harms working women. What we need to do is be doing something to bring down the price of energy.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 40th anniversary of Pilot Mountain State Park in Surry County, North Carolina. Pilot Mountain rises above the North Carolina Piedmont to a height of 2,421 feet and has been a local landmark since the first settlers came to the region. It's been said that climbers can see more than 3,000 square miles of beautiful North Carolina country from the peak when skies are clear. The mountain received the name Pilot Mountain in 1753 and the State of North Carolina designated the mountain a State park in 1968. Before becoming North Carolina's 14th State park, it was privately owned and changed hands many times. Pilot Mountain is a distinctive and beautiful piece of North Carolina's natural heritage. Its peak, a bald crop of quartzite, stands in stark contrast to the farmland and wooded areas that surround it. According to local lore, the Saura Indian tribe employed the mountain as a very intuitive guide to the outlying lands and it is their use of the mountain that may have contributed to its eventual naming. Today the Pilot Mountain State Park takes in more than 3,600 acres and attracts more than 400,000 visitors a year. It is undoubtedly one of North Carolina's greatest natural treasures and I join the county and State in celebrating 40 years of conservation and public enjoyment of this wonderful State park.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute the innovative and hardworking folks at D&D Displays in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina. Earlier this week, I visited D&D's manufacturing facilities in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina to learn more about this fine company's contributions to the local economy in Wilkes County. I toured D&D Displays' facility and spoke with company employees about policies that promote economic growth and well-paying jobs in North Carolina. I was honored to be joined by D&D Displays' CEO, James D. Brown, as well as by representatives from the Chamber of Commerce. Our great Nation has a long tradition of economic growth that provides one of the foundations of our freedoms, so it is exciting to see the progress that D&D Displays has made in Wilkes County to create good jobs and to boost the local economy. During my visit, I also learned that this local employer recently landed a new project that could provide up to $22 million in new revenue for the North Wilkesboro-based company and that could double or triple the company's employment rolls. Success stories like D&D Displays are based on the innovative, creative and hardworking people of this country who ask nothing from government except to get out of their way so they can thrive. Congratulations to D&D Displays on their upcoming expansion. My hope is to see them continue to expand their business and to contribute to North Carolina's economy.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this bill is aimed at making the Federal Government more friendly and responsive to citizens who interact with the government. How sad that we are not responding to what Americans are asking for right now and what is most on their mind. And I'm quoting a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released last week revealed that 75 percent of Americans and 66 percent of Democrats support immediate oil and gas exploration here at home. According to a CNN poll, 73 percent of Americans favor more exploration of deep ocean energy resources far off American shores. A Reuters/Zogby poll conducted in June shows that 75 percent of Americans support drilling for oil offshore, and 59 percent support drilling in ANWR. A Rasmussen survey from June showed 67 percent of Americans support deepwater energy exploration, with 64 percent expecting it will lower gas prices. And a recent IBD/TIPP poll shows 64 percent of Americans surveyed support offshore drilling, 65 percent support oil shale development. We could bring down the price of gas by voting to create more oil supply, but the Speaker, Senator Reid, and Senator Obama are blocking such votes. It's a shame that very wealthy people who are out of touch with average Americans are blocking the ability to bring down the price of gas. I'm in favor of doing everything we can to make the Federal Government more responsive to our citizens, including this bill, and I certainly do support it, but I think we need to do more. We need to vote to drill and to create more energy and help the American public. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, every year the government asks Americans to provide many kinds information. These forms can often be confusing and complicated. It would be better if we could find a way to reduce the total number of information requests the government makes to the public, but failing that, we ought at least to make sure someone is available to answer questions from people who are trying to comply with these requirements. H.R. 6113 amends the Paperwork Reduction Act to require agencies to provide contact information for the agency on information collection. I am happy to support this legislation, and I look forward to the day when we actually cut the number and size of information requests generated by this government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Davis, and Mr. Davis from Illinois for their assistance in bringing this bill out of committee and to the floor. I think it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to seek every way possible to save money for the taxpayers of this country, and I appreciate the fact that we're moving this bill along because it is an excellent way for us to save the taxpayers of this country some money. There are currently 2.7 million Federal employees. Many of these 2.7 million Federal employees have the option of accessing their leave and earnings statement, pay stubs electronically rather than the paper version which we receive in our mailboxes. But there are still executive branch agencies that do not offer this option to their employees. H.R. 6073 would direct the Office of Personnel Management to take such measures as they see appropriate to ensure that all executive agency employees have the option of receiving their pay stub electronically. The reason that H.R. 6073 affects only the executive branch agencies and not the legislative branch or the judicial branch is because each branch of the Federal Government has different rules and means of payment regulations. Currently, there are 17 executive branch agencies that do not offer their employees the option of receiving their pay stubs electronically. H.R. 6073 would give these employees the option of having access to their pay stubs electronically. This is not a mandate. Finally, this sensible legislation will save millions of taxpayer dollars and immeasurable amounts of paper. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the folks who have helped bring this bill to the floor. I am pleased, again, that we have the potential for saving taxpayers much money, but I hope that by the end of this week we're also going to vote on legislation that would bring down gas prices and save much, much more money on behalf of the American people. I think that we need to do that as responsible Members of this Congress. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. 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.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the Apple Crunch and the Nation's domestic apple industry. In an era that sees food serving sizes skyrocketing and in an America that is quickly forgetting the meaning of the phrase ``a la carte,'' it is important to continually encourage children to eat healthily. The goal of the Apple Crunch is just that, to promote healthier snacking by America's youth. First established in Pennsylvania, the success of Apple Crunch has spread. Apple Crunch, the pinnacle of the celebration of Apple Month in October, is now in its 2nd year as a national practice, with schools and communities across the country joining in festivities. During the 2006-2007 school year, more than 930 schools and 495,000 citizens in Pennsylvania alone came together to celebrate Apple Crunch. Schools, families, local communities, grocery stores, and the domestic apple industry all join together to encourage adding more fruits and vegetables to our everyday diets. Many schools have gone far past simply featuring apples on the dining menu, integrating apples into classroom lessons and even scheduling field trips to local farmers' markets. The focus on promoting healthy eating in our schools is vital to the health of our children and society. According to one of the organizers, ``By making fruits and vegetables fun for kids, our message of healthy snacking is going home and influencing the entire family.'' By joining in the Apple Crunch and bringing more attention to the goal of healthier snacking, we can move our country further towards the future of a healthier Nation. I urge my colleagues to join in support of the Apple Crunch and embrace an easy and available step toward healthier living. After all, as true now as ever, ``an apple a day keeps the doctor away.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I need to respond to my colleague from Kansas, who made some comments earlier about working across the aisle to do something about drilling and providing additional supply. It sounded, from her experience of going home this weekend, that the message is getting through to some of our Democratic colleagues, and I'm very glad to hear that. She alluded to some legislation which we have dealt with in committee and on the floor in the past couple of weeks. She mentions the myth again of all these acres that the oil companies have that they have not drilled on and, therefore, we should take away their leases. Well, I think we have pretty well debunked that myth here on the floor and in committee, and I think the media has done a pretty good job of it too. The oil companies have the greatest incentive to drill on land that they have leased now if there were oil under the ground there. They obviously are smart business people. They know the price of oil is as high as it's ever been. And if there were oil there, they'd be drilling. Obviously, again, our colleagues who are out of touch with how business works don't quite understand that or don't want to accept that. On the issue of speculators, even in the Agriculture Committee when we had hearings, people who came in there who wanted to say that speculators were causing the high price of gasoline absolutely could provide no proof that that was happening. What we have to do is increase the supply of oil to this country. Republicans have stood ready to work with the Democrats all year long on this issue, in fact, ever since the price of gas started going up, again, in direct relationship to the Democrats' being in charge of this Congress. It's a sham what has been happening in this House in terms of our being able to vote on real bills that would increase the supply. These bills wouldn't have failed over and over and over again if that's what the bills were doing. We are hearing increasing comments from Democrats, and we are glad to hear it. Again, we hope the American public continues to put the pressure on them so that they will bring pressure on their leadership. Certainly we want to work with them to increase supply. It appears that they think the law of supply and demand can be repealed, but it can't. So I urge the leadership of the House to bring real bills, bills that would do something to increase the supply of oil and gas to this country, and we will vote with you. But we are not going to try to pass sham bills that do nothing to help the average American citizen. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution we have just debated, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. 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.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. 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.

Ms. FOXX. My colleague, Representative Akin, has made very eloquent remarks on this bill. I will submit my comments for the Record, but I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6208. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in Chesterfield, MO, as the ``Lance Corporal Matthew P. Pathenos Post Office Building.'' Marine LCpl Matthew P. Pathenos was more than a selfless patriot. He was a loving son, brother, and friend. As one of his comrades in arms reflected, ``The best thing about Matt was his ability to wake up every day with a smile and hold it all day long.'' Even in the hardships of war, Matt strove to bring joy to his friends. A native of Ballwin, MO, Matt was an avid golfer and accomplished pilot, earning his license at the age of 14. After graduating high school in 2003, Matt followed in the footsteps of his older brother and mentor, Marine Sgt Christopher Pathenos who enlisted in the wake of September 11. In the words of one relative, ``For Matty, the motivation was more about Christopher, seeing how the Corps treated him.'' A member of the 3rd Battalion, 24th Marines, Matthew was one of 80 members of his unit that attached to a sister unit, the 1st Battalion, 24th Marines, for deployment to Iraq in September of 2006. Tragically, on February 6, 2007, Lance Corporal Pathenos lost his life near Fallujah when his Humvee was stuck by an improvised explosive device. His family will always remember him as the smiling young man who ``sang as though no one could hear him and danced as though no one was watching him.'' In a release shortly after his tragic loss, the family captured the sentiments of a grateful nation. ``Like his brother, Christopher, Matthew was proud to be a Marine and volunteered to serve his country. Matthew paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and the future generations of this country. He loved his country and family, and we will miss him terribly.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill honoring a courageous young man that embodied the deepest ideals of this great Nation. He lost his life in defense of freedom and this sacrifice shall not be forgotten. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Missouri and the sponsor of this legislation (Mr. Akin).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, we've seen an exponential growth in the number and types of non-classified information control designations. These designations carry little, if any, statutory authority, and no Federal entity is monitoring their use. So there is a need for some legislative control over the creation and use of those vague designations. H.R. 6576 attempts to achieve that goal. This legislation makes it clear Congress intends agencies to limit the use of information control designations, so that government-wide information-sharing is increased and information is more available to the public. One important component to this legislation is it creates a government-wide solution to this problem, as opposed to allowing each agency to create its own rules for how these designations are handled. For too long, Federal departments have insisted on treating information they develop as their information. To protect their information, agencies have imposed a variety of sanctions on employees. The net effect of this hyper-protectiveness has been to create an environment where everyone knew something, but no one knew everything. In May of this year, the President issued a memo establishing new procedures designating the National Archives as responsible for overseeing and managing the implementation of the controlled unclassified information framework. Our intent with this legislation, for the most part, is to codify the processes laid out in that memo so future administrations cannot roll back these modernizing procedures. The proliferation of ``sensitive but unclassified'' and ``for official use only'' designations is clogging the arteries meant to take critical information to Federal, State and local agencies, and the public. This legislation instructs the Archivist to establish regulations regarding the use of information control designations, with an emphasis on minimizing agency use, and establishes a process allowing the public to review these documents at the appropriate time. One section which deviates from the President's plan is a section which would provide an incentive for employees to challenge control designations and be rewarded for succeeding in these challenges. Upon reflection, I'm concerned this creates the wrong incentive. Are we putting employee personal gain at odds with agency security? And, how would this system actually work? Who will make awards decisions? When is such a challenge eligible for an award? I expect we will need to clarify this system before the bill becomes law. On the whole, I am satisfied this legislation will go a long way toward clarifying what types of control designations may be used and when they are not appropriate. Mr. Speaker, as the security needs of our country change, we need to adjust with them. Our future safety depends on moving from a need-to- know culture to a need-to-share culture. This legislation will help us reach that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill and it should pass. However, we should be dealing with what is most on the minds of Americans today, the high cost of gasoline brought on since the Democrats gained control of the Congress. Poll after poll underscores the American people's strong support for increased American energy production to help bring down gas prices. And an increasing number of rank-and-file Democrats in Congress are listening to them and calling for a vote on more environmentally safe oil and gas drilling here at home. We know that at least two House Democrats have spoken up about this issue and are asking the Democratic leadership to call for more drilling to help lower gas prices, and I want to quote from two of them. It's in Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/08, by Subcommittee Chairman Peter Visclosky: ``We ought to have a vote in the House of Representatives about it,'' meaning lower gas prices. Representative Tim Holden from Pennsylvania has said: ``Drill everywhere . . . I'm for off-shore (oil) drilling. It needs to be part of a multi-pronged approach.'' This appeared in the Pottsville Republican Herald, 7/28/08. So how does Speaker Pelosi respond to these ever-intensifying calls for more American energy? She calls it a hoax, and I want to quote from a press release from the Leader's office. In an appearance this morning on NBC's Today show, Speaker Pelosi coldly dismissed the views held by a solid majority of the American people, not to mention a bipartisan majority in Congress, saying, ``It's really a hoax. It's really a hoax on the American people.'' This is just the latest illustration of how out of touch the Speaker and her colleagues in the Democratic leadership are with American families and small businesses who are being pummeled day in and day out by soaring energy prices. So, Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of this bill, but I call on the Speaker and the Democratic leadership to bring for a vote bills, among them the American Energy Act introduced last week by the House Republicans, to explore for more oil and to lower the cost of energy in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. 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.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. 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.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Conaway and Mr. Davis, my colleagues, have spoken very eloquently about the bravery and sacrifice of Corporal Wilson, so I will submit my remarks for the Record, but I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 6437. Mr. Speaker, today I am here to recognize the bravery of Corporal Alfred ``Mac'' Wilson for his heroism in Vietnam by naming the Post Office located at 200 North Texas Avenue in Odessa, Texas in his honor. Shortly after Corporal Wilson's birth on January 13, 1948, he and his family moved from Olney, Illinois to Odessa, Texas. At Odessa Senior High, he was very involved in athletics and was on the football and track teams. A well rounded young man, he also enjoyed shooting, hunting, fishing, and tennis. After graduating from high school and demonstrating a sense of patriotism and duty to country, Corporal Wilson first joined the Marine Corps Reserve and subsequently, enlisted in the Regular Marine Corps. Upon acceptance into the Corps, Corporal Wilson reported to duty in Abilene, Texas with three friends under the Buddy Plan, which placed friends in the same training platoon. Corporal Wilson and his buddies then underwent their recruit training in California. On July 21, 1968, he was deployed as a Private First Class to Vietnam. In Vietnam, while returning from a reconnaissance mission on March 3, 1969, he and his squad were attacked by a concealed enemy force. While facing fire to retrieve a machine gun from an injured gunner, an enemy grenade was thrown between Corporal Wilson and a fellow Marine. At that moment, Corporal Wilson signaled a warning to his comrade and bravely proceeded to throw himself on the grenade, thus sacrificing his own life. His sacrifice ultimately enabled his unit to continue the fight and successfully defeat the enemy. Corporal Wilson's courage under fire was recognized posthumously when he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in addition to his posthumous promotion to Corporal. Corporal Wilson's devastated family proudly accepted the Medal of Honor presented by Vice President Spiro T. Agnew on April 20, 1970 at a White House ceremony. We can never show adequate appreciation in honoring the brave men and women who give their lives in service to our country. However, naming the post office in his honor is a fitting and meaningful tribute to a proud Marine who served selflessly on behalf of his town and nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague and my classmate from the State of Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone could have heard that wonderful 5-minute speech just given by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) without being touched and without reflecting on how much we owe our men and women who are fighting every day to protect us and to allow us the opportunity to do what we do here and for everyone else in this country to do what they do. I also want to express my appreciation. I feel very humbled to come here and speak after him. But I do want to talk about something that is very important to all of our military families, and that is the price of gasoline in our country and what is happening and not happening in our country related to that. In 2006, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and many other leaders in the Democratic Party promised the American people if they would give them control of Congress, they would do things differently. They said that they would bring down the price of gasoline. Well, the price of gasoline has almost doubled under their watch, and we have yet to see any kind of plan. However today, House Republicans introduced a bill, H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, that is a comprehensive measure to reduce gas prices ``by harnessing new technologies, encouraging greater conservation and efficiency, and increasing American energy production in an environmentally safe manner.'' House Republicans will push for an up-or-down vote on the legislation before Congress adjourns for the August recess in 9 days. Our leader, Congressman Boehner, has issued a statement on this bill: House Republicans have a plan to lower gas prices by supporting more production of American energy, encouraging more conservation and efficiency, and promoting greater use of alternative fuels. Today we have transferred our plan into a single bill that reflects our all-of-the-above strategy. We have only 9 days remaining before the August recess, and it is time for Speaker Pelosi to bring this bill to the floor so Members on both sides of the aisle can give it the support we all know it would receive. A solid majority of Americans and a bipartisan majority in Congress support more production of American-made energy to help bring down the price at the pump. For months on end, Democratic leaders have instead clung to the anti-American energy policies that have driven gas prices to historic levels and increased our costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas. By blocking a vote on the all-of-the- above plan to reduce energy costs, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and their colleagues in the Democratic leadership are proving themselves complicit in the financial crunch American families feel every time they fill up their tanks. Congress must not adjourn for the August recess without giving the American Energy Act an up-or-down vote, and House Republicans will continue to fight to hold Democratic leaders accountable until the American people get the vote they expect and deserve. What Americans need to say to the Democratic leadership: Do it here; do it now; do it for America. We can be energy independent. We have the means. The good Lord has given us the resources we need. Americans need to demand it of the Democratic leadership in the House.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, 50 years ago on September 11, 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower went before the Nation in a radio- television broadcast to speak to the matter of what we today refer to as the Second Taiwan Crisis. The Second Taiwan Crisis was when mainland China had been shelling Taiwan's Quemoy and Matsu Islands for almost 3 weeks. Records from the Republic of China report that over the course of the Second Taiwan Crisis, there were 3,000 civilian and 1,000 military casualities. President Eisenhower explained that the United States would not waver in its commitment to assist Taiwan in its struggle to remain free of communist domination. Taiwan, and the islands of Penghu, Quemoy and Matsu have been home of the Republic of China, ROC, ever since the Chinese nationalists, under General Chiang Kai-shek, lost their battle to secure democracy on the Chinese mainland to Mao Zedong in that Nation's civil war, which ended in 1949. President Eisenhower strongly reaffirmed the United States support of Chiang Kai-shek and his ROC government, noting, ``Some misguided persons have said that Quemoy is nothing to become excited about,'' but pointed out their error, warning that the Red Chinese, under Mao Zedong were using the attacks on the islands to test the free world's courage in resisting aggression. President Eisenhower stated that it was the opinion of his government that the bombardment and blockade of Quemoy and Matsu were not so much a genuine attempt to conquer the Taiwanese islands, but were as part of a plan ``to liquidate all of the free world positions in the Western Pacific.'' In a firm statement of policy, President Eisenhower promised U.S. allies that there would be ``no Pacific Munich.'' Eisenhower also expressed a sincere hope for ``negotiations'' for peaceful and honorable solutions, directly or through the U.N. Americans have not forgotten the free China on Taiwan, but need to be ``reminded'' of it. And while many today fail to grasp the difference between the ROC and the People's Republic of China they need to know that it is the difference between freedom and communism. Today, having recently elected its third president, Taiwan is a thriving democratic republic. As citizens of United States of America, we must insure that Taiwan is assisted in its desire to remain a democratic nation. To that end, we will hold faith with the Taiwan Relations Act. When running for the Republican nomination as President of the United States, George W. Bush was asked on national TV what he would do if push ever came to shove with mainland China on Taiwan--in other words, what would he be willing to do if the communist PRC ever threatened to take over the ROC on Taiwan. He responded in clear and concise language: ``Whatever it takes.'' Thus, as Taiwan celebrates the 50th anniversary of the August 23, 1958, Bombardment War, we join with Taiwan's President Ma, in his August 23, 2008, visit to Quemoy, where he will personally salute his nation's military, all the citizens of Taiwan and their United States military allies, in their ongoing struggle for self-determination. Henceforth, let the word go forth that at one time there were people willing to sacrifice, even to death, to protect what they considered payment towards a future of freedom, one not dictated by any outside ``detractor,'' but by those of a citizenry choosing their destiny. Nor should the world forget that today, because of their sacrifice, Taiwan is a free democratic republic. God has blessed the world with a free, vibrant and productive society in the democratic people on all the islands of Taiwan. May the citizens of Taiwan live long in freedom.