Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close. I would like to inquire of the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee: I don't know if the gentleman has other speakers.

Mr. HENSARLING. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Robert Ayers Gould, Sr. on the occasion of his retirement after twelve years of service on the City Council of Athens, Texas, where he has overseen many projects benefiting his community. After graduating from Athens High School in 1957, Bob joined the United States Navy where he served aboard the USS Coral Sea. Following an Honorable Discharge, he returned to Athens where he opened the Gould Insurance Agency in 1962, which he has owned and operated for over forty years. Among his many civic activities, Bob has been the Director and Vice- President of the Athens Chamber of Commerce, Co-Founder of the Texas High School Basketball Hall of Fame, and the Charter Director for the Henderson County YMCA. He has also received many awards from his community including the Roadhand Award from the Texas Highway Commission and the Athens Citizen of the Year Award in 1984. In addition to faithfully serving his community, Bob is a husband to Mrs. Peggy Lorene Lubben Gould, and father of four children: Robert Jr., Joseph, Patricia, and Mary. I want to recognize Bob for his service and commitment to his community. Due to Bob's leadership in the city and throughout the business community, Athens remains a strong, supportive, and vibrant community. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the 5th District of Texas, it is my pleasure to congratulate Mr. Robert Ayers Gould, Sr. on his retirement from the City Council and thank him for a job well done.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, we all understand that without action many of our citizens will find themselves laid off from their jobs. They won't be able to refinance their homes. This crisis is real. House conservatives know that inaction is not an option, and we have worked tirelessly to put different plans, ideas, and legislation on the table to remedy the crisis. We take some measure of pride in knowing that the underlying legislation has now been improved twice. We believe our efforts help. But, Madam Speaker, I still have many fears about the legislation before us. No one knows if this plan will truly work. We all hope it does. No one knows the true mount of taxpayer liability. The Secretary of the Treasury can go through $700 billion in no time flat and come right back to Congress for $700 billion more. I fear that this legislation still remains more of a bailout than a workout. I fear that it undermines the ethic of personal responsibility. I fear that it still rewards bad behavior and punishes good. But my greatest fear, Madam Speaker, is that it fundamentally changes the role of the government in our free enterprise economy and, despite its current problems, this economy remains the envy of the world. How can we have capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down? If we lose our ability to fail, will we not soon lose our ability to succeed? If Congress bails out some firms and sectors, how can it say no to others? We must be very careful as we address this financial crisis that we ensure that any short-term gain does not come at the expense of even longer term pain, that being the slippery slope to socialism. Madam Speaker, the thought of my children growing up in an America with less freedom, less opportunity, and a lower standard of living is a long-term pain I cannot and will not bear. Therefore, I will vote again ``no'' on this legislation. I vote ``no'' with some doubt. But, Madam Speaker, there is a better way.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this is clearly one of the most important votes that many of us will cast in our congressional careers. We are all concerned about the state of our economy. We are all concerned about the state of our capital markets. What has infected Wall Street may soon reach Main Street. Inaction has never been an option. But, again, the Paulson plan should never have been our only option. I fear other options, Madam Speaker, have never been considered seriously in the body. Although I certainly want to congratulate our ranking member, Spencer Bachus; our Republican leadership--Eric Cantor of Virginia, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin--for the work they've done to improve this bill, this is clearly a better bill, Madam Speaker, than it was a week ago, but that's not the relevant test. The relevant test is when you look at the good in the bill, when you look at the bad in the bill, does it take America in a direction that you believe America should go? By that test, Madam Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this legislation. I fear this legislation before us is fraught with unintended consequences. I fear that ultimately it may not work. I fear that it is too much bailout and not enough workout. I fear that taxpayers may end up inheriting the mother of all debts. Now, some have come to the House floor and said, well, the taxpayer's going to make money on this. You know what, Madam Speaker: They may be right. I can tell you this much, Madam Speaker: as history as our guide, the taxpayer lost $200 billion on the S&L bailout. I can raid my neighbor's college fund for his children, go put it on a roulette table in Las Vegas, maybe I'll triple his money for him, but you know what, Madam Speaker, it's not a risk my neighbor voluntarily assumed. I fear that under this plan, ultimately the Federal Government will become the guarantor of last resort and, Madam Speaker, that does put us on the slippery slope to socialism. If you lose your ability to fail, soon you will lose your ability to succeed. That's why, Madam Speaker, House conservatives have put forth an alternative plan, and we are happy to work on it today and all next week. As important as it is to act quickly, it is more important to act rightly. We would hope this plan would get serious consideration. And, Madam Speaker, once it does, we hope that we can go on--that we can address the taxpayer crisis, as our fellow citizens are looking at the largest tax increase in American history; the spending crisis of an out-of-control Congress; the energy crisis where we see too many of our fellow citizens struggling to pay their bills. Madam Speaker, as we look at this legislation, and I respect all regardless of what side they come down on, if in doubt, err on the side of freedom.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, again, don't take my word for it, but the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has written that if restrictive proposals like these were to become law, ``credit card issuers could also respond in a variety of ways. They may increase loan rates across the board on all borrowers, making it more expensive for both good and delinquent borrowers to use revolving credit. Issuers may also increase minimum monthly payments, reduce credit limits, or reduce the number of credit cards issued to people with impaired credit.'' Madam Speaker, we have seen a similar piece of legislation across the pond in the U.K. Britain decided that credit card default fees were too high. They ordered credit card issuers to cut them or face legal action, and guess what happened? Two of the three biggest issuers imposed annual fees on their credit card holders, 19 have raised interest rates, and we have seen studies that 60 percent of new credit applicants are being rejected. I don't want to repeat that experience in the United States of America in the midst of a credit crunch. We should reject this legislation.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership. I certainly understand the intent and the purpose of the gentlelady's bill, and her intent is good. Unfortunately, I believe the policy is bad. It is entitled the Credit Card Bill of Rights Act. I fear, if enacted, it will prove to be a ``credit card bill of wrongs'' for credit card holders all over America. I view it as a most decisively anti-consumer piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, I believe that this piece of legislation helps turn back the clock to a different era in America where there is little competition for credit cards, where a third fewer Americans had access to credit cards which so many now view as a necessity of everyday economic life. Those people in this previous era who did have credit cards universally paid a high, high interest rate. I believe this bill also represents another assault on our personal economic freedoms and will exacerbate the credit crunch that we see today. Why would we want to bring a bill to the floor that could make credit even less accessible and more expensive at a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills? This bill ultimately would limit the ability in some instances to charge interest; it would limit the ability in some respects to change terms; limit the ability to impose certain late fees; limit the ability to impose over-the-limit fees. Essentially, it erodes what we call risk-based pricing. And what has risk-based pricing and competition brought us? Number one, what we have seen is where interest rates used to be in the 20 percent range, they have now fallen below the 15 percent range. We have seen a virtual disappearance in our entire economy of the dreaded annual fees, which typically most cards had charged anywhere from $20 to $50. We have seen a flowering, a myriad of benefits that are now available from product protection to free plane tickets because of the competition, and an unprecedented surge in credit card use from under 300 million a day to almost 700. Credit cards are just an absolutely vital tool for the small business in America, which is the job engine in our Nation. Madam Speaker, I hear from a lot of hardworking small business people in my district, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I am proud to represent. I hear from the Mayhall family that runs a small business in Athens, Texas. They write, ``Dear Congressman. I run a small business, and I do not have very good credit. I have four credit cards which have very low limits. I try not to use them very often, but sometimes the cash flow isn't there, and I have to have something for my business. Without access to this credit, I would not be able to purchase the items for my business when I need it. ``Please do not make it more difficult for me to run my business. I have enough problems.'' I don't want to tell the Mayhall family of Athens, Texas, that maybe their small business just won't have access to one of those credit cards any more. I don't want to have to tell them that they may have to pay more. That simply isn't right. Now I don't come here today to defend credit card companies and all of their practices. There is one certain credit card company that my wife and I just refuse to do business with. We don't like them. We've changed our main credit cards several times because we didn't like some of the provisions. But we had that choice, Madam Speaker. We had that choice in a competitive economy. We should also mention a phrase that is rarely used in the Halls of Congress, and that is ``individual responsibility.'' We all bear some individual responsibility for knowing what is in our credit card bills. Now listen. If we don't know what the terms are, either, one, we've been misled by a credit card company--and, Madam Speaker, it happens. There are some misleading and fraudulent practices, and they need to be cracked down on. That's why we have the Truth in Lending Act, that's why we have the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, that's why we have the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, and others. Another reason that we don't know the terms, Madam Speaker, is because we didn't read them, in which case we have ourselves to blame. Another reason that people don't know their terms is because they're incomprehensible. We can't understand them because of too many crazy government mandates that give us voluminous disclosure written in legalese as opposed to effective disclosure written in English.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats took control of Congress the price of gas has increased 75 percent. Mr. Speaker, their first response was to declare a 6-week vacation while the American people suffered. Republicans spoke out. The American people heard. They demanded action. So now what do we have, Mr. Speaker? In the dark of night, we have produced a 240-page nonenergy energy bill, with no amendments, no substitutes, no committee hearings, supposedly from a Speaker who promised us the most open, democratic, and fair process known to mankind. These are strong-arm tactics that are more befitting of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela than they are the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not produce American energy. It is a sham. It is a fraud. There are no new refineries, no clean coal, no ANWR, no nuclear, and regardless of what they say, Mr. Speaker, no production of our deep sea resources. And, in fact, this bill makes matters worse. It would permanently ban the development of our oil and gas resources on almost 88 percent of our offshore resources. You know, it's ironic, Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats would do nothing--and certainly, they've had lots of practice doing nothing-- this moratorium on development would go away in just 2 weeks. Decades and decades of American energy, oil and gas in the ground, ready to be developed, but the Democrats won't let us do it. In fact, this has called the publication Roll Call to ask, ``Is this just an elaborate exercise to give their Democrat Members a heaping dose of political cover?'' The answer, Mr. Speaker, is ``yes.'' We need all of the above. We need conservation. We need renewables. We need alternative energy. But we need more American energy, too. Democrats view our oil and gas resources as toxic waste sites. Republicans view them as valuable natural resources that can be used to ease pain at the pump. Vote against that bill. Vote for American energy.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats took control of the House, prices at the pump have increased 75 percent, I would say to my friend from New York. Their response, take a 6-week vacation while the American people suffer. Then they come back and, in the dead of night, present us with a 240- page nonenergy bill, no amendments, no substitutes, no committee hearings. Is this democracy? No. Is there any difference in Nancy Pelosi's America and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela? I think not. This is a sham. This is a fraud. This is a bill designed to ensure Democrats' reelection, not designed to ensure affordable energy in America. No new refineries in their bill, no clean coal, no ANWR, no nuclear and, if you read it, no Outer Continental Shelf; 85 percent still off limits. Democrats look at our oil and gas reserves and say these are toxic waste reserves. Republicans look at our oil and gas reserves and say valuable natural resources to ease the pain at the pump. Mr. Speaker, we need American energy made in America for Americans. We don't need a sham political bill.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the individuals who sacrificed their lives on September 11, 2001 to protect the safety of our citizens and preserve our great Nation's freedom. The world was forever changed 7 years ago on the morning of September 11. Nearly 3,000 innocent people were murdered at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on a quiet field in Pennsylvania. While we think back to the massive destruction of that day and mourn the lives lost, we will also never forget the shared spirit of togetherness that followed our sorrow. The countless acts of heroism and bravery on 9/11 gave birth to a dawn of unity and camaraderie. We must thank our first responders who go to work each day willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to save a complete stranger. We must thank the men and women of our armed forces who defend our freedom and Nation. Because of their sacrifices, our Nation stands tall on the great progress that has been achieved by these brave men and women. Since September 11, 2001, we have reshaped our homeland's defense and significantly improved our readiness to deal with terrorist attacks. The war on terror is a struggle for freedom unlike any other that our Nation has faced. We must always be as united behind our cause as they are behind theirs. When America unites to defend the same ideals and virtues that our fathers, grandfathers and generations prior have defended, we know that she will remain a beacon of liberty around the world. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I would like to express my eternal gratitude to the men and women that defended our Nation 7 years ago and to the individuals who continue to protect us at home and abroad.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman and my dear friend from Texas for yielding. Madam Speaker, the fiscal mismanagement of the Democrats continues. In just 19 months, our friends on the other side of the aisle have managed to double the Federal deficit. They have given us the single largest 1-year increase in the Federal debt, an extra $600 billion. They've given us the largest unfunded obligation ever of the Nation, $57.3 trillion, that's trillion with a T, Madam Speaker, roughly $400,000 of debt per American family under this Democrat leadership. They've given us the largest Federal budget ever. They've given us the largest tax increase ever. They've given a blank check to Fannie and Freddie drawn on the checking accounts of working men and women all over the Nation. And today, today, to the best of my knowledge, for the first time in America's history, they are raiding a bankrupt Treasury in order to give money to the highway trust fund. Now, Madam Speaker, how did we get here? I submit to you it's two reasons. Our friends on the other side of the aisle love earmarks, but, unfortunately, they don't love American made energy. In the last highway bill, as my friend, the gentleman from Arizona, pointed out, 6,300 different earmarks, $24 billion worth. We wouldn't be here, Madam Speaker, if it wasn't for this ``earmarkaholism.'' Now, not all these earmarks are bad. But, Madam Speaker, something called the highway trust fund, why do we have Democrat earmarks for landscaping? Why do we have Democrat earmarks for hiking trails in Tennessee? Why do we have Democrat earmarks, a quarter million dollars for boardwalks? Madam Speaker, why did we end up with $600,000 for horse riding trails in the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia? Madam Speaker, why did the Democrats bring us earmarks, $8 million for a parking facility in Harlem? And the list goes on and on. Now, I'll admit, Madam Speaker, there's been a number of earmarks on our side of the aisle. But this side of the aisle woke up. They understand the American people, and the American people want a moratorium, and it's Republicans that have called for a moratorium. But more importantly, right now, Madam Speaker, one of the reasons there's no money in the trust fund is people can't afford to drive because Democrats view our oil and gas reserves in our Nation as toxic waste sites, and Republicans view them as natural resources to relieve pain at the pump. And that's why, Madam Speaker, if we would simply enact the American Energy Act, the All-of-the-Above Act, Americans could drive again and we could fill up these coffers, and we wouldn't be here today. And, finally, to be here today without any offsets is an absolute tragedy for this Nation. And this bill should be rejected.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize two World War II veterans, 1st Class Machinist Mate Royce David and Signalman Third Class Jack Goodwin, for their distinguished service in the U.S. Navy. On the morning of April 16, 1945, Japanese suicide pilots in the South Pacific attacked the USS Laffey and nearby sister ship USS LCS 51. The heavy strikes began at 8:27 a.m. when two planes headed for the bow and two other planes headed for the stern of USS Laffey. With the assistance of USS LCS 51, all four planes were shot down. In fact, it would take six more kamikazes to finally penetrate the ships. The USS Laffey caught fire when the seventh plane crashed. While most ships would sink after just one plane hit, Laffey withstood eight more plane crashes and bombs. All total, twenty-two planes attempted to attack the USS Laffey, nine of which were shot down. Laffey survived the attacks, despite heavy damage to the ship, including a complete loss of electrical power, and pulled into port the following day. On board these two ships were two men from North Texas. Mr. David, of Mesquite, Texas, was serving in the engine room of USS Laffey. Meanwhile, Mr. Goodwin, of Garland, Texas, was aboard the USS 51, which picked up several of Laffey's overboard crewmembers, fought fires, and helped shoot down suicide bombers. Mr. Goodwin, along with the rest of USS LCS 51 crew, earned the Presidential Unit Citation for his action and assistance on April 16, 1945. A year later, Mr. Goodwin received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy Reserves as a Signalman Third Class and returned to Texas to work as a structural ironworker and in the freight industry as a truck driver. Mr. David served in the U.S. Navy for two more years and then returned to Texas to work for the U.S. Post Office. Sixty-three years later, these two gentlemen are finally receiving their long overdue medals. I am honored to recognize Mr. David for earning the Navy Good Conduct Medal, World War II Victory Medal, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign with one bronze star, the Combat Action Ribbon, a Honorable Service Lapel Pin (Ruptured Duck), and a Discharge Button. I also want to recognize Mr. Goodwin for earning the Combat Action Ribbon, the Honorable Service Lapel Pin (Ruptured Duck), and the Navy Discharge Button. Today, these gentlemen live in neighboring cities in North Texas, attend the same church, and have formed a deep friendship. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am humbled and privileged to recognize Mr. Royce David and Mr. Jack Goodwin. As Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.'' I for one am committed to ensuring this nation never forgets.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding citizen and public servant, J.R. Ronny Brownlow, in honor of his retirement from law enforcement after serving the public for 44 years. In 1964, Sheriff Brownlow began his life of public service at the Mesquite Police Department. Three years later, Sheriff Brownlow moved to the Texas Department of Public Safety where he served for 27 years as a Highway Patrolman and a Texas Ranger. Since then, Sheriff Brownlow has worked as the Anderson County Chief Deputy Sheriff, spent 1 year with the U.S. Marshals Service, and worked 3 years as the Henderson County Chief Deputy Sheriff. In 2000, he was elected Henderson County Sheriff and has worked tirelessly since then. Sheriff Brownlow's work has not gone unnoticed. In addition to receiving the Peace Officer Award for Excellence, Sheriff Brownlow secured a spot in the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and in 2004 won the Chairman's Award from the Texas Ranger Association Foundation. This year, Sheriff Brownlow was named the 2008 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year. Sheriff Brownlow accomplished all this while raising three sons and a daughter. Currently, he is a proud grandfather of four and husband to wife Theresa. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Sheriff J.R. Ronny Brownlow for his courage in protecting and serving citizens all across the Fifth District of Texas.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to all the speakers on both sides of the aisle, and I have no doubt that those who may still be viewing this at 12:30 a.m. east coast time may be a little bit confused. We have heard a couple of speakers say that bureaucrats have no monopoly on wisdom and that we as Members ought to be exercising our prerogatives, and, certainly, Mr. Chairman, we have that right. But at the same time, we have heard other speakers say, well, Members of that same bureaucracy are actually requesting these particular earmarks. So I could see how some might be confused. On the one hand, if they're requesting it, I am kind of curious why it wasn't in their budget in the first place. So I am not really sure who has the monopoly on wisdom. My assumption is that each and every one of these earmarks is probably a very good expenditure of the taxpayers' money. I don't necessarily know if it's the best expenditure of the taxpayers' money. But I know the Members who serve. They're very serious. They're very diligent. I have no doubt that they have done very good work. I also heard my friend the gentleman from Texas say that this particular amendment would harm our troops or military readiness, harm our veterans, families, and a very long laundry list of others who might be harmed. The underlying assumption is that I believe that this money would somehow disappear. Well, I find that interesting because usually when we debate somebody on the point of earmarks, they tell us don't you realize you're not saving any money? That money stays in the bill, and it's going to get used for some other purpose. So, again, I could see, Mr. Chairman, how people who are watching this debate might be a little bit confused. Which is it? Does the money disappear or does the money stay and maybe fund other readiness centers, other barracks, other military projects? Which is it? We seemingly hear speakers on both sides or several sides on that issue. But if the money does disappear, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle you had an opportunity to support the Republican budget on which, last I looked, had a billion extra dollars more to help our veterans than the Democrat budget did. I know that in the Budget Committee there were amendments to strike earmarks and add to the veterans funding. So if you spent less money, maybe the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle harmed our veterans or their families or their military readiness. I think at some point, Mr. Chairman, you have to lead by example. And although I have no doubt, again, that these earmarks are good expenditures of the taxpayers' funds, the system is broken. It's not just that there are a few bad apples in the barrel. The barrel is full of rotten apples. And all too often--and maybe not in this bill, and I certainly accept the passion with which the gentleman from Tennessee spoke, and I know his sincerity in wanting to reform this process, and I regret the fact that under the Democrat majority this appears to be the only bill that we can debate earmarks. But what I know about the system and what the American people know about the system is that it's broken and that all too often it represents the triumph of secrecy over transparency. All too often it represents a triumph of the special interests over the national interests. All too often it represents the triumph of seniority and privilege over merit. Mr. Chairman, when my party was in the majority, there were a lot of abuses in earmarks. But when the Democrats took over, they said they would do it different. They said they would cut the earmarks in half, and yet last year we had the second highest number of earmarks we've ever had. They claimed there would be no more secrecy in the process, but if we look to the New York Times recently, if I can quote from an August, 2007, news clip: ``Despite promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects, the House of Representatives has quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers.'' The Democrats said that there would be across-the-board reform, and yet we had bills initially come to the floor that we were expected to vote on and the earmarks were to come later. The Speaker of the House said she would just as soon do without them, and yet she is on the top 20 list of those who request them. The American people want something different. It is time to join the Republican proposal that the gentleman from Tennessee spoke about and have a moratorium on earmarks, reform this process, start it tonight. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the chairman for agreeing to the amendment. I know how to take yes for an answer. I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a simple one. Earlier this year, in one of the occasionally non-energy energy bills that we see in the House, we had a section 526 added to something called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In part, this section of the bill says that no Federal agencies shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative fuel if the ``life cycle greenhouse gas emissions,'' a phrase that has yet to be legally defined, that they must be less or equal to such emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. Mr. Chairman, that is very problematic language to our Defense Department. It is very problematic language to our veterans. And in specific, the author of that provision, the distinguished gentleman from California, who is the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told us what his purpose was by putting this section into the bill. And I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman, correspondence dated March 17 from the distinguished gentleman from California to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. It reads, in part, ``It was developed,'' it, referring to section 526, ``it was included in the legislation in response to proposals under consideration by the Air Force to develop coal-to-liquid fuels.'' That was the purpose of this section. And so, Mr. Chairman, what we have is a portion of a bill that makes it more difficult for our Defense Department to become more energy independent, to rely more on North American and specifically, American fuels than Middle Eastern fuels. This is very problematic for our Defense Department. I also, Mr. Chairman, have in my hand correspondence dated July 9 from the Defense Department, written to the Honorable James Inhofe, ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. In part, the letter reads, ``it,'' referring to 526, ``creates uncertainty about what fuels DOD can procure and will discourage the development of new sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of energy supplies for the Armed Forces.'' This is the Pentagon, Mr. Chairman. It also goes on to say, ``As written, section 526 could apply to alternative and synthetic fuels, including E85, fuel that is 85 percent ethanol, and B20, diesel fuel that contains 20 percent bio fuels, that the department is encouraged or required to use under other statutes.'' The letter from the Pentagon continues to say, ``The provision opens the Department up to court or administrative challenges to every fuel purchase it makes.'' And this is a very important provision of this letter, Mr. Chairman. ``It could cause significant harm to the readiness of the Armed Forces because these fuels may be widely used and particularly important in certain geographic areas.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, we have got an opportunity in this legislation, and my amendment is a very simple one. It simply says that none of the funds provided in this act that we are debating tonight, shall be available to enforce section 526, this problematic language that the Pentagon says can have an adverse effect on the readiness of our Armed Forces. So, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we would pay very careful attention when we are dealing with a bill dealing with our Army, our veterans, our Nation's veterans, with military construction. I would hope that we would pay very, very careful attention and do everything we can to get rid of this section of this law that is hampering our national defense at this time. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, March 17, 2008. Hon. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am writing regarding questions that have arisen with respect to the interpretation of section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 526 addresses government contracts to purchase alternative fuels. As the author of this provision and Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction in the House, I would like to share my views as to how the language should be interpreted. Section 526 provides: ``No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.'' This provision ensures that Federal agencies are not spending taxpayer dollars on new fuel sources that will exacerbate global warming. It was included in the legislation in response to proposals under consideration by the Air Force to develop coal-to-liquid fuels. As you may know, coal-to- liquid fuels are estimated to produce almost double the greenhouse gas emissions of the comparable conventional fuel. The provision is also applicable to fuels derived from tar sands, which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from conventional petroleum sources. The development and expanded use of these fuels could significantly exacerbate global warming, with highly dangerous effects. Thus, it is important to ensure that the Federal government does not subsidize or otherwise support the expanded use of these fuels through government purchasing decisions. Section 526 applies specifically to contracts to purchase fuels, and it must be interpreted in a manner that makes sense in light of Federal contracting practices. The purpose of the provision is to bar federal agencies from spending taxpayer dollars to support the development and expansion of alternative fuels and fuels from unconventional sources, if those fuels have higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than the comparable conventional fuels. It was not intended to bar federal agencies from entering into contracts to purchase fuels that are generally available in the market, such as diesel or jet fuel, that may contain incidental amounts of fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources. Thus, section 526 would clearly apply to a contract that specifically requires the contractor to provide an alternative fuel, such as coal-to-liquids fuel, or a fuel produced from a nonconventional petroleum source, such as fuel from tar sands. The provision also would apply to such a contract where the purpose of the contract is to obtain such an alternative fuel or fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source, even if the source of the fuel is not explicitly identified in the contract. Similarly, a contract that supports or provides incentives for a refinery upgrade or expansion to allow a refinery to use or increase its use of tar sands oils would also be subject to section 526. This provision would not apply to contracts to purchase a generally available fuel, such as a specific diesel or jet fuel blend, if that fuel is not an alternative fuel or predominantly produced from an unconventional fuel source. Questions have also been raised as to whether the implementation of this provision must await the development of specific lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions profiles for each fuel type. The language of section 526 requires only a determination of whether a fuel has higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than the comparable conventional fuel, not a precise estimate of each fuel's specific greenhouse gas emissions. While there is a range of numeric estimates of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of coal- to-liquids fuels produced without carbon capture and sequestration and fuels derived from tar sands, there is no debate over the fact that both of these fuels have substantially higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than the comparable conventional fuels. There is no barrier to the immediate implementation of section 526 with respect to these fuels. I hope this clarification of my understanding of section 526 is helpful as your Committee oversees federal agencies' implementation of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman, Chairman.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. And if the gentleman would yield again, I had asked the question earlier, what is preventing us from taking advantage of American resources on American soil? Isn't it also true that recently the Democrat majority passed legislation known as Section 526, that prevents the Federal Government from entering into long-term energy contracts, something I believe the United States Air Force wanted to do to wean itself away from foreign oil and develop coal to liquids on American soil; but yet our friends on the other side of the aisle, I believe, have prevented our Pentagon or our United States Air Force from doing that. Is that correct?

Mr. HENSARLING. If the gentleman would yield again, isn't it true that we have several hundred years' worth of coal in our country today? Is that correct? I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. HENSARLING. We know that America has an incredible amount of coal reserves. And the solution, the partial solution the gentleman is suggesting makes imminent sense. What is it that is preventing people in America from doing this now? I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HENSARLING. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this institution, particularly on the piece of legislation that we are working together on in trying to repeal something known as section 526, that disallows the Federal Government from entering into long-term supply contracts for alternative fuels to help jump-start that needed industry. The gentleman from Texas brought up a number of good points in his comments. And, again, you would think this would not be particularly controversial. Just last week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve stated: A one percent increase in supply could lower prices by 10 percent. Now, that is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Supply matters. And yet, our friends from the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, refuses; not only do they refuse to produce any more American-made oil and gas, not only do they refuse to do that, Mr. Speaker, they won't even let us have a vote. So, Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that the American people could do tonight that would help bring down the cost of energy at the pump is go to their computers, go to their telephones, contact their Members of Congress and say, at least let's have a vote. Let's have a vote on the American Energy Act. Survey after survey after survey shows that three-quarters, 80 percent of Americans want more supply and they want it now. We have to start today, Mr. Speaker. And it is just absolutely ludicrous when families are suffering, like the Gardner family of Dallas, Texas, that I have the pleasure of representing who wrote to me that, ``In order to afford to send our youngest to camp, we have had to cancel the family vacation due to the increased cost of fuel.'' Family vacations all across America are getting cancelled because the Democrat majority will not allow more American energy to be produced in America. Since they have taken over, the energy policy in this Nation 18 months ago, the cost of gas has gone from roughly $2.50 a gallon to roughly $4 a gallon. Now, I am not saying it is all their fault, but they are moving this country in the complete wrong direction. And now, Mr. Speaker, again I am very pleased that I have been joined by a number of my colleagues who have a lot of expertise on this issue of energy, and one of the great leaders we have on this side of the aisle is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). I yield to him at this time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, we come here tonight to talk about an issue that is clearly the number one issue challenging families all across America, and that is the high cost of energy at the gas pump. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was just ending what we call a tele-town hall meeting talking with the good folks of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I have the privilege of representing in the House of Representatives, and I would say out of, oh, I don't know, 15 or 20 questions that I was able to take, I would say probably three-quarters of them had to do with what is Congress going to do to help bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump. All across America, Mr. Speaker, families are going to their local convenience stores and they are having to decide, do I buy a gallon of gas, or do I buy an a gallon of milk? I can't an afford to do both. At roughly $4 a gallon, working families in America cannot make ends meet. You would think on something of this national import that this institution, that this great deliberative body, that the people's House would act. You would think maybe we would act in concert, Mr. Speaker, but at least we would act. Instead, we don't see it, Mr. Speaker. We don't see it. What we see is the Democrat majority saying, well, maybe we can somehow sue our way into lower gas prices. Let's sue OPEC. I don't know what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to send a legion of trial lawyers to the Middle East to sue OPEC? Is that somehow going to solve our problems with the price of gas at the pump? Well, that didn't work, so they came up with the idea, the Democrats, let's tax the oil companies. Nobody likes them. Well, that is something that was tried in the seventies, and guess what? When you tax something, they will put it in the price and it raises the price to you. What we found in the seventies is that we became even more dependent upon foreign oil when we did that. Now their latest idea, Mr. Speaker, is let's somehow say we are going to try to outlaw investment. They call it ``speculation.'' I thought in a capitalistic economy investment was a pretty good thing. But the reason the price is going up is when we see that demand increases and there is no commitment to supply in the U.S., Congress, try as they may, cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand, Mr. Speaker. It can't be done, anymore than we can say that the sun no longer rises in the east. So Republicans have a different plan. Actually, Republicans have a plan, the American Energy Act. And what we want to do is do all of the above. We want to support renewable energy. Prior to coming to Congress, I worked for a renewable electricity company. I was very proud of the work that was done in the area of solar energy, in the area of wind power, in the area of biomass. It was an important part of my passion and my professional life, and Republicans support renewables. We want to do more work in alternative energy, particularly in, for example, coal-to-liquids. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, Mr. Speaker, but somehow the Democrats won't let us use it. They won't allow the Federal Government, for example, to enter into long-term supply contracts for these alternative fuels, oil shale, tar sands, coal-to- liquids. Conservation is a very important part of the mix as well. But, Mr. Speaker, so is producing our oil and gas resources that we have in America. Why can't we produce American energy in America for Americans? And that is what the American Energy Act, supported by Republicans in the House, is all about. All we ask for, Mr. Speaker, is in the people's House, can't we have a vote? But Speaker Pelosi will not allow a vote. She simply says, no, we are not even going to vote on it. The people don't even have a choice. In fact, Mr. Speaker, recently the Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought, said, ``Why not have a vote on offshore drilling?'' They recognize that Speaker Pelosi won't even allow a simple up-or-down vote. Let me continue to quote from their op- ed of July 25th: ``When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives.'' Why not on drilling, the Washington Post says? Why not on drilling? But again, as people are suffering in the small businesses, in the homes, in the coffee shops of East Texas that I represent, maybe they are not suffering in the salons of San Francisco represented by Speaker Pelosi and maybe that is why she doesn't necessarily understand the pain that people are feeling. And that is why it is so critical, Mr. Speaker, so critical that we get an up or down vote in producing some supply. For all intents and purposes, Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of our offshore resources are illegal to develop. For all intents and purposes, Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of our onshore resources of oil and gas are illegal to develop. Recently Brazil found a huge offshore find of energy, and the whole Nation celebrated. It seems like, in America, when we find energy it is some kind of point of shame and we want to cover it up and we want to make sure that nobody knows about it and nobody develops it. We appear to be the only industrialized nation in the world that won't develop its own energy. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is all of the above. We have got to do it all to bring down the price of gas at the pump. So Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that I have been joined by some other colleagues who are real leaders in this institution in trying to create more American energy for Americans, in America, and help those families who are having to commute to work every day, who are trying to help take an elderly parent to the doctor, who are trying in just a couple of weeks taking their kids to school. I just had a person tell me this weekend that they now are spending 1\1/2\ days a week just to pay to commute to work. Out of a five-day work week, they are spending 1\1/2\ days just paying to commute so they can get the 3\1/2\ days of pay. That is just not right, Mr. Speaker. It is just not right. And so again, I am glad I am joined by a couple of my colleagues here. And at this time I would be very happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) to get some of his comments.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate his leadership. I look forward to voting on his amendment. Again, Mr. Speaker, it's a very simple matter. If you believe in more American energy in America for Americans, you will tell Speaker Pelosi: Allow there to be a vote on the American Energy Act. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow colleagues from the Republican Study Committee for participating in this Special Order. I yield back the balance of my time.