Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I stand and I hope we all stand in support of our troops. But I also rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63. While I believe that we all share the same goal of winning this war on terror and bringing our brave young men and women home, I regret that this bill before us today absolutely will not lead to that goal. Nobody wants this war to end more than those fighting in it and we need now to do what it takes to bring our brave men and women home, but to bring them home in victory. If we don't achieve victory, the consequences are going to be disastrous for the progression of freedom all over the world, and instead of taking a step forward, we would be taking multiple steps backward. So what is the point of this resolution? Is it going to block the troop surge? Absolutely not. Will it end the war? Not a chance. Will it help our chances of achieving victory? Absolutely not. This resolution will demoralize our troops who are sacrificing themselves for us today and tonight, and this resolution will give comfort to an enemy. This resolution puts politics before the lives of our brave soldiers and there is no way in the world that I can support it. The only chance we have for victory is to support the President's troop escalation. It's not a sure thing, but it's our best chance for victory. These added troops will help us secure Baghdad, stabilize the area, and accelerate the training necessary for the Iraqis to stand on their own. Only after these things happen can we leave Iraq the way we should and that is victorious. I fully support our Commander in Chief, and I think he has much more information than I have or any other Member or combination of Members in regard to our war on terrorism, and particularly the war in Iraq. I think President Bush is a godly person, intelligent and educated, and cares for this country and cares for those who defend it. I will continue to support him as long as he holds the title of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. I heard the President loud and clear in his State of the Union address on January 23, 2007. What I gleaned from his speech is that he is asking for calendar year 2007 to complete the existing plan being implemented by General Petraeus and those who serve under him. And at such time, he fully expects the Iraqis to be in a position to defend their borders and protect their people, resulting in an executive order hopefully to bring the process of withdrawal of these American forces still defending our Nation, to bring them home. This resolution will absolutely undermine the efforts of our troops in Iraq. I strongly oppose it.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield to my fellow Texan.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike what I really hope deep down and pray might be one of the last words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be practical about this. You know, I sat this morning in the ranking position as a Republican with Bart as chairman over there, and we listened to the First Lady. She came before us, everybody was gracious to her, she made a good speech. One of our Members used his rights under the rules to ask her some questions. She graciously answered them. Then we came on over here. I came on over here hoping that this would be about an hour and a half or maybe 2 hours. I served as ranking member under Bart today, and I was ranking as a Democrat under Boehlert and Sensenbrenner, and the only airplane I would like to be thinking about was the one I wanted to be on at 12:30 today heading for Texas. But really and truly, I don't call anybody silly or anybody's speech that they want to make here, they need to be heard and express themselves. That is just what a lot of people call the music of democracy. But we started out, I thought, talking about a bill that would direct the EPA, the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Standards and Technology to initiate an R&D program to make biofuels more compatible with present-day infrastructure and to direct agencies to do so and so, to provide low-cost, affordable and accurate measurements and do all that; and it is going to cost $10 million to carry this act out. This bill was introduced in the 109th Congress and was included in Congresswoman Biggert's comprehensive energy bill. It passed under suspension of the rules last year. We didn't have all this debate about it. Everybody was for that bill. It encompassed more than what this bill started out with. Somehow--and I like Bart Gordon, and I respect him. I have known very few people from Tennessee I didn't like. If it weren't for Tennessee, there probably wouldn't even be a Texas, and that may be better off for a lot of people. And I wrote Bart a letter, what is it, in the Merchant of Venice or Othello, where they said, ``O, that mine enemy might write me a letter.'' Maybe you should have read it, Bart. Maybe you should have answered it. I wrote him a letter to this effect, that I have conferred with my leadership, who agree that the best way to bring H.R. 547 to the floor is under a unanimous consent agreement. Given the uncontroversial nature of the bill, there is no need for us to go before the Rules Committee. And for some reason, we wound up with an open rule. Now, I can only guess why that is. I wondered why. An open rule for a bill that everybody is already for? Give me a break. That doesn't make any sense. So I can only think that perhaps maybe you, Bart, or somebody over you, made the suggestion that, well, it looks like we are fair with that bunch of poor people over there that are in the minority now to give them a shot and tell them, yes, we have given you an open rule, probably thinking they wouldn't use it. Well, I did not think it would be used either, but we have talked all day about everything in the world here. And there is a poem that says, ``Maud Muller, on a summer's day, raked the meadow sweet with hay.'' The last verse lines are, ``For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been!''' It might have been that I would be on that airplane if we had taken that unanimous consent, sent this on over and gone about our business. All this other is just the music of democracy. It doesn't bother me 15 cents. And it might be a little cheaper on my government for me to ride the bus from here to Dallas every week, you know. Maybe we could talk about that some afternoon: Why doesn't Ralph Hall ride the bus to Texas and back every year? That would save money for this country. But I have another feeling about the third person in command in this country. That is the leader, and I think she is entitled to protection and to a good way to go and to cut short the time that she has to spend in the air to get there and get home. Those things don't really bother me. But what really bothers me is for us to sit here throwing things at one another when there is better work to do. We need to get about our business and pass this bill and let me get strapped in that airplane and go back to my grandchildren, who need me. My son is a district judge, and I have got to go home and do a terrible thing. I have to go home and file suit against him in his own court. He threatened to spank one of my granddaughters last week. I don't have to stand for that type of thing.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Dent, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, of course, in support of H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. It is a good noncontroversial bill that was passed unanimously by the Republican-led Congress last session as part of a larger energy efficiency research and development bill. I am pleased that Chairman Gordon has indicated that we will be addressing other provisions of that bill in the coming weeks and months ahead. Subcommittee Chairman Lampson has already described what this bill does, so I don't really need to go into that again. But I feel it is important to point out that this bill not only addresses our energy independence issues, but it also addresses clean energy issues by working to mitigate potential problems that can rise from transporting clean fuels, such as ethanol and ultra-low sulfur diesel. By doing this, it ensures that clean burning and alternative fuels can be a viable part of our Nation's transportation fuel mix. Energy independence and clean coal are not just buzzwords that you hear thrown around these days. They are noble and necessary goals that we are one step closer to by the passing of this bill. This bill may be a small piece of the puzzle, but every piece is important and every piece is needed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Are you going to answer my letter? See, we can all laugh. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I will be brief. In our drive towards energy independence, we cannot exclude one of our greatest natural resources. I am a fossil fuels guy. I am from Texas, and I am for fossil fuels, but I also know the value of coal. Coal must continue to be part of our energy portfolio, along with alternative fuels and renewable fuels. The Republican motion to recommit recognizes this fact, and I thank you for it. It ensures that coal is going to continue to have a place at the table by clearly defining coal-to-liquids as an alternative fuel and including ultra low sulfur diesel derived from coal-to-liquids in the bill. The U.S. is in no danger of running out of coal. At current consumption rates, U.S. recoverable coal reserves are estimated to last for 250 years. The U.S. currently has over a quarter of the world's recoverable coal, more than Russia, over twice the amount of China. This compares to the U.S. oil reserves that are 2 percent of the world's total natural gas which are 3 percent of the world's total. We have plenty of coal. Actually, coal reserves are spread also over 38 of your States. Thirty-eight of you there have coal, and it is important to you. I would just say this. John McKetta, noted author and writer from the University of Texas, said 14 years ago, We have enough coal in the mid- section of the United States to double the total output of the OPEC Nations all combined if we could but mine it. Let's don't send our kids overseas to take some energy away from someone when we got plenty right here at home.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And just to comment, this bill was originally introduced by the 109th Congress as H.R. 5658 and included in Congresswoman Biggert's comprehensive energy R&D bill, 6203, which was passed by the House under suspension of the rules. And I see no reason why this one couldn't have been handled that way. As a matter of fact, I am a cosponsor with the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, Bob Inglis, and with the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Gordon, and Mr. Lampson. Actually, at leadership's suggestion and working together with our leadership over here, I sent a letter to Chairman Gordon requesting that he bring this up on the floor under unanimous consent agreement. It could have easily been done and bypassed the Rules Committee. It is easy to bring an open rule up when there is not any opposition to it. I hope they will follow this pattern for the rest of this session.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I do have requests for time, if the gentleman pleases. I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Weller, the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution. I am pleased to see that the Appropriations Committee followed the President's recommendations with the American Competitiveness Initiative by increasing funds to physical sciences research. The funding that we put into basic research at the National Science Foundation and the Departments of Energy and Commerce will pave the way for innovative breakthroughs. I am hopeful that the Senate will also prioritize these important science initiatives so that we can ensure that America remains globally competitive well into the future. While many science accounts are adequately supported, the NASA account is not. H.J. Res. 20 reduces NASA's planned FY 2007 funding by $545.3 million. Most of the savings come from the Exploration Systems account, the program that funds development of the next space vehicle. As this Congress understands, we need to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010 and introduce its successor shortly thereafter. The more we cut this budget item, the longer our nation must wait for continued manned access to space. At a time when countries like China and India are challenging America in outer space, we need to remain leaders in this field. We cannot do that if Congress does not adequately fund our ventures into space. I am also disappointed that the Space Shuttle and International Space Station as well as the Space Science and Aeronautics programs are also underfunded. It is for these reasons that I introduced an amendment yesterday to restore funding to NASA. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not accept any amendments to this bill, and Congress will not have the opportunity to vote on this important program. In the last Congress, we voted to support the Vision for Space Exploration and return to the Moon. If we are to live up to that promise, then we need to follow through with adequate appropriations. We also need to give our current programs the best chance to succeed. I will work with Chairman Bart Gordon and the appropriators to ensure that the Fiscal Year 2008 budget will adequately address our Nation's space and aeronautics needs.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H. Res. 59, of course, supports the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week, which is going to be celebrated this year during the week of February 18. The National Society of Professional Engineers established the first National Engineers Week back in 1951. The purpose of the week is to increase the understanding of and interest in engineering and technology careers, and to promote K-12 literacy in math and science. It also showcases the important contributions that engineers have made to our society. Engineers have a critical role to play to help keep our Nation ahead of the innovation curve. It is essential that we capitalize on opportunities such as National Engineers Week to raise the awareness of the valuable work and contributions of engineers to society and to attract young people of all ages to this very rewarding profession. As such, I ask my colleagues to support H. Res. 59. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri who is an engineer, Mr. Akin.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), the ranking member on Energy.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for 3 minutes.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have 30 seconds. We do not need that. I will be glad to yield to Chairman Gordon all 30 of those seconds.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, in opposition to H.R. 6. While I would like to believe that we all have the same goal in creating energy independence for our country, I really regret that this bill before us today would not lead us to that goal. This is really, I am very fearful, just the initial attack or one of the early attacks on an industry that is going to have other attacks this year, that survived the windfall profit tax that passed during the Jimmy Carter years of disaster, as far as energy was concerned. This energy act is more likely to increase the dependence on foreign oil. By decreasing after-tax revenues for oil and gas companies, including the small independent producers that are considered small businessmen, the effect will be an increase in the cost of energy to consumers and a decrease in domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas, because companies will have less money available to them for their activities. This will, of course, require our country to import more oil and natural gas from countries that are not our natural allies. We will be dependent on these countries and to the OPEC group to supply us with the lifeblood of our economy. I just can't in good conscience vote for anything that would have that type of outcome. I have said all along that this country will fight for energy, and the way to prevent our sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters from having to go overseas to take some oil away from someone or another country is to ensure that we utilize our own natural resources efficiently and effectively. I am well aware that drilling alone on U.S. soil is not going to quickly solve all of our problems. I know that we also need to expand our usage of renewable energy and increase the efficiency of how we use fossil fuels. This is why I am supportive of the legislation that passed last Congress on a voice vote under suspension of the rules by my colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Biggert. Among other initiatives, her bill supports the development and advancement of renewable energy in areas such as solar, wind, biofuels, coal, and encourages energy efficiency in buildings and technology. I am fully supportive of seeing these initiatives enacted now. We have unanimous bipartisan support. Why do we need to wait for ``subsequent legislation,'' as is stated in the Rahall bill? Let's not wait any longer to ensure energy independence. The United States has substantial amounts of oil and natural gas, but our laws prevent our domestic companies from accessing these resources in both onshore and offshore areas. In fact, we are the only country in the world that has limited ourselves like this. If our goal really is energy independence, then we need to increase access to our domestic resources, not increase taxes on one industry. The point to remember here is that the Tax Code has little to do with the increase in energy prices. So penalizing oil and gas companies by increasing their taxes is not going to solve our energy problem. Make no mistake, this country will fight for energy, and if we have to we will send our sons and daughters across the ocean to take energy away from someone when we have plenty right here at home. Let us help our constituents, not hurt them. Vote against H.R. 6. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) on the Science Committee.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have left.