Chris John

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 663, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. This bill is a product of bipartisan negotiations between not only the Committee on Energy and Commerce but also includes key members from both sides of the aisle on the Committee on Ways and Means; and I thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their very hard work on this important piece of legislation. It has been more than 3 years since the Institute of Medicine released the landmark study, ``To Err Is Human.'' The Institute of Medicine stated that our health care system is plagued with an epidemic of medical errors. However, many of these mistakes could be prevented in the health care delivery system and the way that it is delivered. With this bill, Congress is taking an important step towards reducing medical errors. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act creates a voluntary reporting system that will enable providers to learn from past mistakes. Providers could report information about medical errors to patient safety organizations who would analyze the data in confidence and recommend strategies to prevent future errors. These organizations could share knowledge with each other and with the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality so that all actors in the health care system could benefit. Congress intends for providers to take these lessons learned and modify their operations to keep their patients safer. This bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to recommend which strategies for reducing medical errors would be appropriate standards for providers in Federal health care programs. No bill can prevent all medical errors, but it is our hope that this legislation will result in real differences that patients can see. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the severe economic distress of the Louisiana agriculture industry. In particular, the Louisiana rice industry is facing disastrous economic conditions due to record low market prices coupled with storm damage from Hurricane Lili, Tropical Storm Isidore, and several additional severe storm systems. Without sustainable federal support for last year's losses, many rice producers, and much of the rural Louisiana economy, will not be able to withstand another year or hardship. As we enter the final stages of negotiations for the FY 03 Omnibus Appropriations bill, I commend Senator Cochran and the supporters of agriculture disaster assistance in the U.S. Senate. However, unfortunately, it will take more than 42 percent of direct program payments to reverse the current economic disaster in South Louisiana. For this reason, I am reintroducing the Louisiana Rice Economic Relief Act, providing a $2.42 per hundredweight payment to rice producers across the state. As Congress concludes discussion on an omnibus appropriations package, and we prepare to debate an economic stimulus package for our nation, I offer the Louisiana Rice Economic Relief Act as the cornerstone of economic stimulus for the rural agricultural economy of this region. We must keep in mind the distress of Louisiana's agricultural economy if we are serious about moving forward on a truly sustainable plan for our nation's entire agriculture industry, as well as the entire economy of the United States.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that will promote the secure sharing of information and communications within the proposed Department of Homeland Security--the Information Security Act. This Act authorizes funding to implement and maintain the enhanced security infrastructure necessary for sensitive information to be securely stored, transmitted, and disseminated within a new Department of Homeland Security. Although we have had a lot of debate about policies, procedures and the organization of a Department of Homeland Security, I believe we have not given enough attention to the need to put into place information technology systems that will allow different parts of the U.S. government to communicate and collaborate securely with each other. We will not win the war on terror if we simply put various federal agencies under the umbrella of a Department of Homeland Security without the secure infrastructure to make it into a cohesive organization. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to ignore the threats posed by cyber attacks and the urgent need to invest in secure information systems. The Information Security Act is a small, but important step toward meeting our security needs and I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for allowing me a few minutes to talk about H.R. 4793, the Mosquito Abatement for Health and Safety Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, for having the vision and having the seriousness and understanding the seriousness of this issue and expediting it through the Committee on Commerce. I really appreciate working with the staffs, both the majority and the minority staffs, working very hard to try to address this threat because without their leadership, we could not have been here today; and I really appreciate their help. I introduced this bill back in May to address an emerging threat of mosquito-borne illness. Today it is West Nile. Tomorrow it could be any number of different diseases. We could be discussing malaria or any of the other diseases today. And since May, since I introduced the bill, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) said there were over 2,300 cases. In fact, talking to the CDC today, there are reported cases every day. There are now confirmed when I left my office a few minutes ago 2,405 cases across the Nation and 117 deaths as of this morning. As we can see from this map behind me, 42 States today have experienced some cases of human or animal infections. The red States are where the human cases have been found, and the blue States where they have found infected animals. As we can see from this visual, this is a national threat. This is not just about an insect that we like to call the State insect in Louisiana, but this is about a national threat to public health, especially for our most vulnerable citizens, our senior citizens, who are most vulnerable to this disease as depicted in research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The threat today will soon force some of our State health departments into a financial crisis trying to deal with the spread of this disease, trying to deal with the health expenditures that are being caused not just in a certain section of the United States but all over including the State of California, which is now experiencing this. In Louisiana alone we have experienced 287 cases and 14 deaths. One would think that that would top the charts, but it did not. In the State of Illinois, 551 cases, 29 deaths. In the State of Michigan, 314 cases and 16 deaths. So this is truly a national threat. Parishes and counties have stretched their budgets in trying to combat and to cover the cost of mosquito abatement, and they have just been stretched to the limits. What H.R. 4793 would do would establish a one-time two-for-one grant program through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Local governments today have tax bases, and historically that is what they have used to fund these programs. But if we can pass 4793, this will enable the local governments to fund for the purchasing of equipment, for improving laboratories, or more importantly to establish a mosquito abatement program. In my parish of Acadia Parish, we have tried many times to establish it, but it is a very rural parish. It is mosquito prone, it is rice fields, it is bayous, lots of mosquitos; and we are trying very hard to establish a mosquito program, and this will go a long way to help that become a reality because the most effective way to combat this disease that is widespread is through education and most importantly abatement. Today the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides funding for education, but no Federal agency across the gamut of all of our Federal agencies addresses the need of expenses for abatement programs whether on the State level or on the parish or county level. I know that Tommy Thompson, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with the President and the Governor of our great State, have worked together to provide some emergency money for some emergency spending. We appreciate that, but we need a solid ongoing program to help. Unfortunately, not many parishes and/or counties can afford this. So that is the real need for this program. Not only is it an epidemic, but I also think the Federal Government should play a role in this. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for working together with me and the other co-sponsors of this bill. When I first filed this bill, never did I envision that I would have this many co-sponsors but certainly never envisioned that it would be as widespread as it is just a few months after introduction of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank all Members who have cosponsored the bill, and all Members who have worked so hard on this issue. I thank all Members for helping put this bill together and making this bill a reality.

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

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend 2002 National Heritage Fellow Awardees--and my constituents--Luderin Darbone and Edwin Duhon, founding members of the acclaimed South Louisiana musical group, The Hackberry Ramblers. The prestigious National Heritage Fellow Award was created in 1982 by the National Endowment for the Arts. To date, the award has honored 272 traditional artists, of all varieties, from across the United States. My home state of Louisiana has been home to fifteen fellows since 1982, and ten of those fellows have been natives of Louisiana's 7th Congressional District, which I proudly represent. The artists or groups nominated for this award have made a ``significant contribution to the cultural heritage of the United States.'' Luderin Darbone and Edwin Duhon of The Hackberry Ramblers were among this year's thirteen awardees, and indeed have made a significant contribution to the world of Cajun music. Mr. Darbone and Mr. Duhon have been thrilling audiences as the lead members of The Hackberry Ramblers since 1933. They began playing at local parties and dances in South Louisiana, and their ensemble is still playing and touring today--nearly 70 years later. Undoubtedly the oldest Cajun music group in existence, the Ramblers combine their Cajun French repertoire with rural string band, western swing, and popular ingredients to produce their unique sound. A number of musical `firsts' are attributed to The Hackberry Ramblers including being among the first Cajun musicians to de-emphasize the accordion and feature the fiddle; the first to successfully blend the Cajun music sound with western swing, blues and a variety of other medleys; the first to record and tag the name ``Jolie Blonde,'' the tune often called the `Cajun National Anthem'; and they were the first musicians to bring electronic amplification to area dancehalls by running a sound system off the engine of Mr. Darbone's Model-A Ford. Their 1997 album, ``Deep Water,'' received a grammy nomination in the traditional folk category, and on December 4, 1999, Darbone and Duhon fulfilled a life-long dream of performing at the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville. This past spring and summer, The Ramblers toured festivals across Louisiana and even ventured on their first European tour! Over the years, The Ramblers have been profiled on Entertainment Tonight, Music City Tonight, and NPR's Weekend Edition. They have garnered critical acclaim from the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and USA Today--and they have even been featured on MTV! As one report put it--``They have seen the Depression, World War II, rock and roll, flower power, disco, the computer age, and 9/11--and they're still going strong.'' Mr. Speaker, I congratulate South Louisiana's 2002 National Heritage Fellows Mr. Luderin Darbone and Mr. Edwin Duhon on their lifetime of achievement and I wish The Hackberry Ramblers many more years of good times and great music!

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the achievements of two of the staff members in my Lafayette, Louisiana Congressional District Office--Penny Frederick and Kristie Broussard. On September 11, 2002, Penny and Kristie received the ``Spirit of America'' Award from the Diocese of Lafayette, Louisiana. They received this award in recognition of their dedicated service to those in need in our community. As the commendation reads, both Penny and Kristie have ``upheld the founding spirit of America, extending a helping hand to those in need of new homes and new hope. Migration and Refugee Services extends this commendation with warmest regards and deepest appreciation.'' I applaud their patience and compassion for our constituents in Louisiana's 7th Congressional District. Their years of service to our community, and their dedication to their jobs is evidenced through this award. Along with my outstanding team of staffers both in the district and in Washington, DC, I commend Penny and Kristie on this achievement.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 349 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the ongoing efforts by our Nation's broadcasters to make the transition to digital television. This exciting new technology will open the door to a new world of possibilities like High Definition TV, interactive television, and expanded programming options. I am proud that one of the broadcasters in my congressional district has taken a lead in making this advancement. KLFY, a Young Broadcasting station, currently serves residents in Louisiana's Seventh Congressional District with a digital signal. It is no small accomplishment to make the transition to digital. Broadcasters across the country are making substantial investments in new transmitting facilities, new production equipment, and in some cases new broadcast towers. Collectively, the broadcast industry has invested over a billion dollars into this new technology. America's broadcasters have demonstrated their commitment to making the DTV transition, but they cannot do it alone. A collaborative effort by the FCC, cable operators, consumer equipment manufacturers and Congress is needed if we are to meet the timetable that has been established. Several issues must still be addressed to build on the progress that broadcasters are making in rolling out digital television to their viewers. In particular, we must work to overcome the economic and technical roadblocks that are currently preventing small broadcasters from successfully launching DTV. Mr. Speaker, with the continued efforts of our Nation's broadcasters I am sure that we will overcome these obstacles and make a successful transition to DTV. I remain confident that the future of television is digital and I believe that future is bright.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall vote number 126. I was unable to make that vote at the time. Had I been here I would have voted ``yes'' on that rollcall vote, and I would like that to be reflected in the Congressional Record.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here tonight for the next hour to talk about something that is very important to a group of individuals that I like to coalesce around here, and that is the Blue Dog Democrats. Before I get into talking about some of the substantive things that I would like to speak about tonight, mostly fiscal responsibility, I would like to give an overview who are the Blue Dog Democrats. Members might have heard several times about our group and how active we are, but we are a group of 33 individual Members of Congress from all over the country. We come from California. We have a Member from New York, a couple of Members from Georgia and Tennessee and Texas; but we come from all over the United States geographically. But what brings us together, what has brought us together and what has really gained us a lot of credibility in this body is our focus on fiscal responsibility. We meet every week and we talk about different issues, but we do not get involved in issues that split us apart, that we might not be able to get a consensus on. The Blue Dogs, when we are talking about an issue, when we take an issue, we go for it in a fiscal angle and a fiscal angle only, and that is the common thread amongst all of the Blue Dogs; and I am happy to be here tonight, along with several of my colleagues, to talk about a situation that we find ourselves in that, frankly, a year ago none of us thought that we would be in. Last year when we debated the budget, the Blue Dogs warned, and we were precluded by the majority from offering our own budget. I thought Americans in their businesses and in their families would go through the same process that the Blue Dogs went through. It was a good budget with a plan to bring some fiscal sanity and some fiscal stability in the outyears. But yet projections were that we were going to have a $5 trillion- plus surplus over the next 10 years. Frankly, the Blue Dogs did not buy that. We bought it as deeply as we could define projections, and we looked in the dictionary and we looked at projections, and Members know what it says. It is just that. It is numbers put together, and with reasonably good accuracy or with educated people putting them together, but they were just that. They were projections. Of course, we find ourselves now facing a situation of 180 degrees opposite. Not only are we not talking about a surplus, and that is really the funny thing as some of our Blue Dogs would like to talk about, the fight was over on where we were going to spend this $5 trillion. We stayed focused in that fight, not about where we were going to spend that $5 trillion projected surplus, but how we were going to handle it. Our cry back then was paying down the national debt. Mr. Speaker, the national debt accrues every minute that I speak, every day that goes by at astronomical numbers, numbers that we cannot envision back in south Louisiana. We have over a $5 trillion debt that we owe this country. We pay over $2 billion a year in interest on that debt, not principal, interest on that debt. Prior to the plus-ups of the military budget of the past few months, it was almost as much money as we were spending on defending the country is what we were paying on our debt. So the Blue Dogs wanted to spend that money, and one-third, one-third, one-third was our program. One-third for paying down the debt, one-third for tax cuts because we were for tax cuts. We thought that was healthy for the economy, and one-third for spending priorities, priorities that were important to us: prescription drugs, our military, education and other important domestic programs that are so important to the infrastructure of this great country. That was our plan. That plan was spending a third, a third, and a third. We were not successful in convincing the other side that this was the way to go. And so we have sat back and tried to revamp our plan under the new scenario that we live in today. Needs have arisen. Needs have arisen from a fiscal standpoint that we would not have even dreamed of just a few 8 months ago. We need to take care of those needs. We are spending billions of dollars. I make no apology about voting for not only the money that we have spent in bailing out the airlines but the money we have spent in homeland security, the money we have spent on border patrol and to our law enforcement agencies all across the country. That is something we have to do. But now that we have committed ourselves to doing that, I think it is more important than ever that we put together a plan, some blueprint, some master business plan that we can follow. We are a ship afloat today without a fiscal plan. Frankly, it makes me very nervous, it makes the Blue Dogs extremely concerned, and frankly it should make the American people a little concerned about what we are doing today in spending the money that we frankly do not have, that our surplus has gone away. We live in a credit card society. The scenario we find ourselves in today, imagine that I as a parent with my twin boys would run up thousands and thousands of dollars of credit card bills and pawn them off to my 3\1/ 2\-year-olds. That is what we are doing. That is how we are treating Social Security today. That is why it is important that we have a plan. The Blue Dogs came together and put together what we think is a very elementary plan, a plan that I think works for the future of this country and a plan that really brings back what we had going in the first, the middle and the latter part of this century. We were actually running surpluses in this country, running government and actually having surpluses and we could afford to give a tax cut. We could afford to make sure that we were taking Social Security off-budget. I do not know how many times I voted, but I know that it was more than a half a dozen of times that we voted in our Social Security lockbox. Frankly, the key has been found and we have been raiding Social Security to pay for some good expenditures but also for some other expenditures and spending that we need to get a handle on. Let me list some of the things that we have been spending money on, and they are some good programs. Our agricultural bill, our bill passed this body last week to the tune of, oh, $73 billion, which passed out of this bill. The energy bill that is in the process has tax implications and cost. The Department of Defense authorization bill that we are going to do tomorrow comes at a high price tag, and the supplemental appropriations bill that we are going to deal with next week of $29 billion. Are all these dollars that we are spending going to good causes? Yes, they are. But we cannot continue to spend and spend and tax cut and spend with no plan. That is what I am here tonight for and that is what you will hear from the Blue Dogs that are going to talk a lot about our plan, our vision, are some kind of blueprint that we can bring ourselves back on a course, a glide path to balancing our budget, not with Social Security, to making a commitment to paying down our debt because that is so important. That is what this plan is all about. The Blue Dogs, we like to call it our ABCD plan. It is not a plan that just has a facade. It is a real plan with real legislation. I am going to highlight them very quickly, then I am going to turn over some time to my friend from northeast Texas to talk about some of these issues. First, A, assure honesty and accountability. Enforcing the budget rules that we have today would be a very nice way to start. We have a budget. It is a nonbinding budget, but we have a budget. But we do not enforce that. We do not even look at it, to be honest with you. We have a huge fight, this side against that side, this body against that body about where we should put our money. And then once we all fight about it and it passes, the majority normally wins in this body. Then we just kind of throw it in a corner and we go on about all the other things that we intend to do and do not really blow the dust off our budget and really abide by that. So I think that that is the first thing we ought to do. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) introduced a piece of legislation to be able to do that. How about pay-go rules? That is the jargon up here in the Congress that may go right over the head of some people, but it is really simple. Pay-go rules basically say that you cannot spend a dollar unless you have a way to pay for it. That does not seem to be very difficult to do when we in our households, in our budget and our businesses that we put together, we figure out a way to pay for it before we spend it. I think that that is important. That is A. B is balancing the budget without raiding Social Security, something that this body has voted on many times, something that I really truly believe in my heart that this body wants to do. We want to make sure that we can balance our budget without Social Security. We did that for the last few years. But we are headed on a path to be able to raid the Social Security Trust Fund again and again. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) has introduced a bill, a constitutional amendment, which we hope that we can get a vote on this floor, that will basically amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. It will also make sure that Congress needs a three-fifths vote to approve a deficit or raise the debt limit. That is a whole other special order hour I think we can talk about, and doing all of that without including the Social Security Trust Fund, a constitutional amendment. Every American in this country would be for that. That is B. C is climbing out of the deficit ditch. The debt limit was put there for a purpose, to put handcuffs on Congresses, past and future, that they cannot borrow just up to whatever the debt limit is. You get to a debt limit and it is sort of like the credit card limit on your car. If it is a thousand dollars, when you get to a thousand dollars, you cannot use that card anymore. That is what the debt limit does. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) basically has a piece of legislation that is going to deal with the debt limit, making sure that we abide by the debt limit. Finally, I will end on D, something that is so simple I cannot believe that we cannot come to an agreement on trying to make this happen. If it takes a supermajority to raise taxes, why should it not take a three-fifths majority to borrow money? So if we are going to borrow money over the debt limit or borrow more money, this body should have a three-fifths vote to be able to do that. That is D. That is the Blue Dogs' ABCD plan that we have put together. Of course, the D plan with the supermajority to borrow money is a piece of legislation that was introduced by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). These three very simple but very important budget guidelines are something that we should enact, they are something that the Blue Dogs are going to continue to push because now is the time that we need to put a plan together. We are a Nation at war and we understand that and we are funding that, to the brave men and women around the country that are fighting the war for the freedoms to let me speak up here in the well, to let you watch this on C-SPAN, to let you do whatever you want to do and enjoy the freedoms. We are funding that. But we need a plan. We cannot continue, not today, not this hour, not next week without some kind of plan from a fiscal standpoint of how we climb out. Every economist in the world is telling us that we are going to be spending money and we are going to be running deficits. In fact, let me draw attention to an article that was in the USA Today yesterday that talked about the debts and the looming fiscal crises that this Congress is going to have to face. It is a very good article. It is called ``Fiscal Discipline Falters As Budget Deficit Grows.'' The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a Blue Dog member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) a Blue Dog member, sent out a Dear Colleague asking everyone to read this. This is what it is all about. I think they did a wonderful job at laying out exactly what has happened and not playing the blame game, not blaming any one particular spending item or tax cut or the economy. It is a whole market basket of things that we have to deal with to climb our way out of it. But we cannot turn our back on it. We must have a plan. We must have a vision. That is what this plan seems to do. With that, I will turn over as much time as he may consume to my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for laying out very eloquently the position of the Blue Dogs and also for giving a little background of where we need to go. The underlying message is that we need a plan, and the Blue Dogs have this plan. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps) to talk further about the Blue Dog plan and our position.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Craig Perks, 2002 winner of the PGA Players Championship. Craig and his family are residents of my congressional district in Southwest Louisiana and our community takes great pride in his outstanding accomplishments. Craig is living proof that hard work and perseverance do bring reward. He has given 110 percent effort to his pursuits since coming to this country from Palmerston North, New Zealand in 1985. His adopted home quickly became South Louisiana, where he and his wife Maureen--a Broussard, Louisiana native--live with their two young children. An All-American golfer at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Craig has continued to give back to the Lafayette community after graduation. As an assistant professional at Le Triomphe Golf Club in Lafayette, he worked on his game while coordinating tournaments and instructing beginning golfers. Now, as a professional in the spotlight, he continues to set an example of sportsmanship and make his chosen home proud. Craig is an inspiration to golfers not only in my district, but around the world. From Palmerston North, New Zealand to South Louisiana, his efforts have succeeded in promoting and opening the doors of opportunity for ``Cajun Golfers'' everywhere. I congratulate Craig on his first PGA Tour win. I have no doubt that South Louisiana will continue to follow the rise of our ``adopted son'' and applaud his efforts in the years to come.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, across the board, commodity prices have dropped to record lows since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill. Rural communities and farmers are in dire straits as to their future success. Today we are given the opportunity to help sustain our rural economies and help the lives of millions of Americans. We find ourselves at perhaps the most important crossroad in our nation's farm policy history. Today we have the power to profess our support for our nation's farm communities or risk their destruction at the hands of a well-intentioned, but potentially devastating policy proposal. Growing up in Southern Louisiana, I was surrounded by rice fields and farm communities. Southwest Louisiana is known for its Cajun heritage. A large part of this heritage comes from a strong farming tradition. This is true for many of our nation's rural communities. Since before this country's inception, farm communities have developed and sustained local economies and industry. Beyond this, these communities have developed their own way of life, their own culture of agronomy, their own agriculture. Through H.R. 2646 we have the opportunity to preserve this agriculture. We have lost many farmers over the past 5 years. However, we now are given the chance to save our local farmers and the industries that depend on a strong agricultural economy. By decreasing commodity programs through conservation policy, we sacrifice the farmers, as well as the mills, the seed and fertilizer suppliers, the crop aviators, the mechanics, and the thousands of other men and women directly affected by the health of our agricultural industry. I am a strong proponent of increased conservation programs. However, I cannot support these programs at the expense of our nation's farmers. We can, and should, find other vehicles to sustain our nation's environment. Increased conservation programs in H.R. 2646 provide a good beginning. Other policy initiatives, such as the Conservation And Reinvestment Act (CARA), can provide much needed assistance to preserve habitat and open space without coming out of the pockets of commodity producers and local economies. Without H.R. 2646, many of our nation's producers will not be able to survive. Without these farmers, many rural economies will not survive. And without a strong local economy, we run the risk of destroying even the culture of rural America. Please don't turn your backs on our nation's farming communities. As a hunter and sportsman I pledge to continue working with my colleagues to promote conservation, but not on this bill.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to offer my condolences to the families from across our great nation who are coping with the grief of yesterday's tragic events. Terrorists have broken our hearts, but they have not broken our resolve. Yesterday, we were a nation in shock. Today, we are a Nation in mourning. And while we are numb in disbelief, America is not paralyzed. Our brave rescue workers are still finding survivors and providing hope for all Americans. Our faith in God is providing Americans with solace. And, Mr. Speaker, this Congress will support and give the President all the resources he requires to provide Americans with justice. The diabolical sophistication of yesterday's attacks point to a well- coordinated conspiracy of evil and it took considerable organization in plan and implementation. We stand here tonight united as a Congress and as a nation in telling the world that we will not leave one stone unturned until we find and punish these terrorists and their supporters. America is still a nation of heroes. The men and women who gave their lives yesterday in an attempt to rescue others is a statement to the courage and bravery of everyday people when faced with enormous challenges. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here tonight surrounded by my colleagues in Congress, I have never been more sure of myself that America is up to the challenges that lay beyond. America will forever be changed because of yesterday's attacks, but we will be a stronger, not a weaker Nation for them. God bless America.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Cox-Waxman amendment. This debate should not be about an oxygenate waiver. This debate should be about fixing the underground storage tanks not only in California but all over the country. Instead of addressing the leaking underground storage tank problem, which has allowed MTBEs to enter the water supply, California has chosen to ban it. Now that the State of California is faced with the prospect of increased costs to comply with the Clean Air Act, it is proposing to toss out the oxygenate requirements to solve their fiscal concerns. Well, H.R. 4 already authorizes $200 million for the leaking underground storage trust fund for assessment, for corrective action, inspection, and monitoring activities to address California's concerns. I commend the efforts of our Nation's refineries to develop clean burning fuel, but today California cannot meet the same level of air quality with these blends that it would otherwise with oxygenated fuels. If we adopt this amendment today, we will open the floodgates for other States to opt out of the oxygenate requirements, and decades and decades of progress that we have made to improve America's air quality will be undone. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has already voted down a very similar amendment. Do not backslide the progress that we have made on improving America's air quality. Please vote ``no'' on the Cox- Waxman amendment.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, while I rise in opposition to the Markey- Johnson amendment, I appreciate the Committee on Rules making it in order that we can have a good debate on this very important issue. As a former member of the House Committee on Resources, I had an opportunity to visit ANWR. I also had an opportunity to visit the current production facilities down at Prudhoe Bay. I stand here today to tell Members that with today's technology we can develop ANWR without unleashing an environmental apocalypse on the coastal plains of Alaska as some here may make you believe. ANWR is not a silver bullet to stop our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, but it is our best prospect. As hard as we try, this Nation cannot meet its oil needs by drilling off the coast of Louisiana and the other gulf States. If my colleagues from other States insist on stopping exploration and production in Federal and State lands in the lower 48, then we cannot shut out opportunities on Federal lands that are supported by the State of Alaska and a majority of its residents. I am constantly amazed at my colleagues who stand up and attack the oil and gas industry as some evil forces at work in America. Where does the gasoline come from that fuels your cars that you came to work in today? Where does the natural gas come from that heats our home on those cold days? It reminds me of a little adage that we have in Louisiana: gasoline is like boudin. You do not like to see any of it being made, but we all want it. Please do not vote for this amendment. This is bad public policy.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from California's price cap amendment. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and over again searching for different results. The history of man both past and present is rife with failed attempts about price caps. This amendment asks Members to continue that same cycle. In the 1950s, before I was born, and in the 1960s, we controlled the price of natural gas and oil. By the 1970s, we had shortages and curtailments of gas and we had gas lines all over America. Over a million people were laid off and money poured out of the United States to countries such as Algeria for high-priced LNG. Members may not know that the California wholesale market also has had price caps. What happened? The power and the capital investment went elsewhere. So on June 19 of this year FERC applied price caps to the entire West. What happened? Blackouts in Las Vegas. California also had retail price caps in place at the start of its failed restructuring experiment in April of 1998. In the spring of 2001, the biggest growth industry for the California Public Utilities Commission was the processing of blackout exemption applications. When will we learn? Oppose the price caps.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert-Markey amendment. I do not have any auto manufacturing plants in my district, so I am not opposing this amendment out of concerns for that industry. Representing the seventh district of Louisiana, which is very rural and agricultural and whose people's livelihood depends on light trucks and pickup trucks, I am concerned that this amendment would put unrealistic standards, given the time tables, on this class of vehicles. Even if these stringent standards, and I emphasize, even if these stringent standards can be met, it will certainly increase the cost of these vehicles, in some reports up to $7,000. My concern is that the manufacturers who make these vehicles, these light trucks and pickups, that this amendment will threaten their ability to continue making them. In fact, DaimlerChrysler says that they could not raise the fuel economy standards of their Dakota or Dodge Ram pickup trucks 50 percent in 5 years, as this amendment requires; and it would therefore possibly stop them from producing them. I am not sure if it was the intent of the authors of this amendment to unduly hurt the farmers, ranchers, contractors, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, construction workers, and many others who use pickups and light pickup trucks as their office on wheels. By forcing heavy commercial pickup trucks that weigh less than 10,000 pounds to achieve car CAFE standards, this amendment sets a standard that no one, and, I repeat, no one, has demonstrated achievable without compromising safety. I urge Members to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate both the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and also the subcommittee chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for putting together what I think is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Congress can handle this year. No economic prosperity can thrive and grow without an energy policy in place. I like to describe this situation that we have as Americans that when it deals with energy policy, we have attention deficit disorder. When oil was $10 a barrel and gasoline was 72 cents not very long ago, less than 2 years, energy was not on anyone's radar screen. But now when we have prices of oil that have risen to $30 a barrel, gasoline that reached $2, sometimes we make some hasty decisions. Mr. Chairman, I think that that in itself should underscore the importance of why we should finally implement a national energy policy. It is something I talked about for many, many years being from the great State of Louisiana, but it is troubling in the times of the peaks and the valleys. If we just look at USA Today, front page yesterday, it says, Energy Crisis: What Energy Crisis? Well, I can tell Members that my friends in the State of California and some of my friends in the Northeast will look at this a little differently. I believe if it is not a crisis today and we get lower prices in gasoline and natural gas, when is it going to be the next crisis? Next year, 2 years? But it is going to come, that is the history of this industry. Mr. Chairman, I think it is paramountly important to not just the jobs in my district, and that is something that is important and precious to me, but it is about national security. We must pass this energy policy. It is balanced, and I am very proud to be a cosponsor of it.