Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, my congressional office in Hickory, North Carolina, got news that Broyhill Industries, the big furniture company, would be cutting up to 1,009 jobs in Caldwell and Rutherford Counties. This is devastating to my people in my district. This is only one chapter in a long story of continuous layoffs in western North Carolina. My district, North Carolina's 10th, is called by the Almanac of American Politics the most blue-collar district in America. But many of those blue-collar jobs are being lost. The textile industry has been devastated. The furniture industry, we have lost a lot of jobs there as well. Towns Lenoir and Rutherfordton are only the latest chapter in a long series of job losses in the region. But I want my constituents to know, Mr. Speaker, that there is help, there is hope, and they can contact my congressional office. In Congress we cannot keep companies from closing, but there are some things we can do, and we will act and do what is right for our people and do what is best for our country.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 236 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, there is a growing drug problem in my home State of North Carolina and across America, and it is one we in Congress must face this year. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has called methamphetamines one of the fastest growing drugs in America. Worst of all, those producing and trafficking meth often do so in the presence of children. In 2004 alone, 2,754 children were found in 34 percent of the methamphetamine busts. Along with 14 other Members of Congress, I have introduced H.R. 1616, which would double the maximum jail time of Federal sentencing for those involved in the production or transportation of illicit drugs in the presence of children. Almost as much as abusing meth, being exposed to chemicals involved in its production is extremely dangerous and children found in meth labs have often been physically abused and neglected. I ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting H.R. 1616 to protect kids from illicit drug production and trafficking.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding me this time. We are here debating H.R. 810, which directs the Federal Government to spend tax dollars on embryonic stem cell research. This bill, therefore, implies that stem cell research is not already going on, but stem cell research is alive and well in America. Adult stem cells are currently being used to treat people, and successfully. This bill's approach, however, will remove stem cells from human embryos. This will kill the embryo. And whether we like to think about it or not, embryos are indeed human beings. Every human life begins as a human embryo; and by extracting their stem cells, this bill uses American tax dollars to destroy human life. The embryonic stem cell research in this bill destroys human life, and I believe that we as the American people should not destroy human life with American taxpayers' dollars, not even in the name of research.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, goodness gracious. The day has finally come. The Democrats, after 5 months, have proposed a way to fix Social Security, and they will fix it all right, by raising our taxes. That is right. The new Democrat plan would increase taxes to fix Social Security. The proposal would hike taxes by 6 percent on middle class families and small business owners. What more can we expect from the tax and spend party, Mr. Speaker? Instead of transforming the program, by modernizing retirement security, the Democrats want to use an old method, by raising taxes. But there is a new, better solution, Mr. Speaker: personal savings accounts, personal retirement accounts. By allowing younger workers to put a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, we lessen the liability on the program and we fix Social Security in a lasting and sincere way. When folks have personal retirement accounts, there is no Social Security surplus for politicians to raid, and we do not have to worry about Democrats raising taxes to do it. Personal retirement accounts, Mr. Speaker, a new solution to update and strengthen an old program.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I would like to add one further thing. I enjoyed the piece the gentleman put together on Social Security reform and actually outlining what we in the conservative side of the House want to do in order to achieve lasting reform, to have generational fairness, while at the same time maintaining our commitment to have a strong, vibrant Social Security system. And I certainly appreciate what he wrote in the newspaper today. It was a wonderful article, and I recommend those who are watching or hear us here today to take a look at that, to understand what we are going for here by reforming this vital system. And I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman from Kentucky taking on this challenge and leading our public affairs team in the House on the Republican side in such a good, strong direction by getting the message out on the need for reform and the positive aspects of it as well. So with that, I thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) for hosting this hour.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. McHENRY. Absolutely.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman from Kentucky hosting this hour. It is a wonderful opportunity for us to discuss the most important issue that this Congress is bringing forward. The most lasting reform is the best reform, and that is what we need to look forward to with this challenge of reforming Social Security. The Member that preceded me speaking was the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) who has taken on this issue with gusto and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) who is one of the first Members of Congress that actually said, let's get all the people at the table, let's get Democrats and Republicans and let's sit down with the AARP and let's try to discuss solutions for this challenge of Social Security. It was a wonderful thing to try to get all these players at a table together to talk about this most important issue. Social Security is a program that is in trouble. It is in trouble because of the changing demographics of our Nation. It was built upon the idea that workers working today would pay for retirees that are retired currently. It was a system where workers would be taxed to help pay the benefits of retirees. That works when you have a large number of workers and a small number of retirees, but the changing demographics of our Nation require us to act in order to sustain this program. When Social Security was formed, there were 41 or 42 workers per one retiree. Today, there are only 3.3 workers per one retiree. Therefore, that system of taxing current workers in order to give a benefit to current retirees does not work with those numbers. It is not sustainable. What we need to look for is permanent solvency, lasting solvency, for this program of Social Security. It has been a vital institution for our Nation over the last 70 years. It has helped many seniors be lifted up out of poverty. It has given a strong benefit to those that maybe are not able to work anymore. And it is a commitment that we have made as a great Nation to those that have put in their fair share into the system, those that have worked their whole life, played fair, paid into the system, and done what was right. We need to maintain that obligation that we have made, that previous generations in this country have made to seniors. This Republican Congress, this Republican House, this Republican President, have taken this issue on so that we can do good things for our seniors. We do not want to break Social Security. We want to make it stronger. The key way to make it stronger, the key way to create permanent, lasting solvency is through personal retirement accounts. That is the vital component for any reform. There are a couple of options that we can look at. First some say, well, let's just raise taxes, and we can keep those benefits going. Or let's subject new income and new forms of taxation on the American people and small businesses, and we can keep the income stream going. That may work. That may work. But in order to make that obligation, in order to meet our current obligation, taxes would have to double on Social Security. Taxes would have to keep going up in order to keep that commitment going. Others have said, Well, let's just cut some benefits. Again, that may be an opportunity for some to consider. It is something I reject. I do not think we need to cut benefits or raise taxes. I do not think they are the right way of achieving solvency.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman from Kentucky will continue to yield, I spoke with a group of seniors in Hickory, North Carolina just 2 weeks ago and discussed Social Security reform, and I said all the proposals that have been put forward in front of Congress, all the proposals, if we consider every one of them, no single proposal, none of them, will change their current benefits if they are 55 and older. So those that are retired today, they should not allow AARP to lie to them in order to say that their benefits are going to be cut because no change to this program will allow for benefit cuts of current retirees. That is a pledge that we have all made in this Congress and our President has made as well. So I think we have to, first of all, be honest about it and tell our seniors today, this is not going to change their check. Their check is going to be there. We have made that commitment to them. They have played by the rules. They have paid into the system. They have played fair. So we are going to honor our commitment to them. However, it is important for them, if they are retired today, in order to make sure that their children and grandchildren have the same benefit that they are currently receiving. They want to leave them in a better system. And I spoke to these retirees. I was at the seniors' games, in fact, 300 members of our seniors community, and I discussed this. And they said, Wonderful. They are actually happy that we are trying to take on this challenge for younger workers while at the same time keeping our commitment to those that are at or near retirement age. So it is wonderful that the gentleman brings up generational fairness because, as the youngest Member of Congress and someone who is eligible to retire in 2041, that is the date that even some of the left wing Senators on the other side of the building here even admit that, in 2041, the system goes insolvent. So I think it is important that we discuss this issue of generational fairness. I want to maintain the commitment to my grandmother, but at the same time, I want to make sure that my generation has the same benefit of a strong, vibrant Social Security system, so that when I retire, it is there, and it is affordable and reasonable. And with that, I certainly appreciate the Secretary of our Republican Conference allowing me to have this colloquy here on the floor.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this goes to the heart of the problem. As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) have said, the heart of the problem is solvency. We have a system that is going progressively more insolvent each day. As the baby boomers begin to retire in 2008, 2009, we have a problem. We do. So the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) mentioned solvency. The way in the past that we have achieved solvency was by raising taxes, cutting benefits. I prefer to say cutting taxes. That is just in my heart. But in terms of what we are trying to achieve, they have said we can cut some benefits, we can raise some taxes, and we can achieve solvency. The demographics of our Nation have changed so much that we have to look for the third way in order to get a better return on our Social Security investment, and the only way we can do that, the only way we can do that, is through personal retirement accounts. Much like 401(K) plans or IRAs or even the Thrift Savings Plan that current government employees, including us, have the benefit of. So it is wonderful, but that also goes to the heart. The heart of this issue is generational fairness, and I think that is an interesting point.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk by groups in Washington, D.C. about ethics, making sure that Members of Congress hold to the highest standards of ethical conduct. It is good stuff. But one of these groups concerned about ethics, the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is not the nonpartisan entity we may have thought. The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, CREW, Mr. Speaker, is a partisan group with a partisan political agenda. According to The Wall Street Journal, board members of the group, including a former Clinton White House pollster, have contributed over $340,000 to left-wing causes in the past 4 years. The group's director has said, ``Since I started, the main thing I want to do was to go after Tom DeLay. DeLay is my top target.'' This group is concerned about ethics, Mr. Speaker? No, I do not think so. It is about partisan politics. And they only have one agenda, and that is to file complaints against Republicans. Mr. Speaker, as someone new to Washington, I am not used to this Washington, D.C. parlor game of dirty tricks. This is about politics, Mr. Speaker, not about ethics.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the time here on the House floor to discuss a pressing matter not only to this House of Representatives but to the future of our country, really, and the type of debates we are going to engage in as a body. It has been interesting to read press reports, press reports that some on the other side of the aisle have been pushing forward regarding this House and the behavior of our Republican Members on this side. It turns out that senior Democrats, the senior Members of the other party, have focused on the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our Republican majority leader. They focused on the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) because he has been an effective conservative here in the United States House of Representatives, an effective leader for this House for all Republicans, and actually for all Americans, to pass tax relief, to pass limitations on lawsuits, to pass good conservative social policies that actually help our country move forward. The Democrats are attacking him because he is an effective leader, and they are rising to this challenge. Instead of debating the issues, they are debating process. Instead of debating substance, they are debating process. Because they cannot beat us on the issues that we are fighting for every day on this side of the aisle, and because many of their rank- and-file join with us on these votes, some in the leadership on the Democrat side of the aisle have resorted to ethical complaints against the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). What has been found in recent days, many reports indicate that those leaders are casting stones; yet they are living in a glass house, and their leadership, many leaders on the other side realize that there are ethical violations on their own side, so perhaps they should not engage in this battle. Over the last couple of weeks, we have found that the leadership on the other side, many leaders, at the very least, realize that perhaps they should not take this line of attack against our Republican majority leader, because they have violated the very same rules that they point to him for violating. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask many of the leadership on the other side to listen to their rank-and-file and realize that we need to be debating the great issues of the day, not debating ethics. We need to have a functional Ethics Committee here in the House. We need to have a House that can actually move policies forward and not sit here every day and listen to the other side of the aisle complain about process. So I ask those senior Democrats to listen to their rank-and-file, the rank-and-file that voted with us on the energy bill, the rank-and-file that voted with us on the Republican side for an energy policy, for tax relief, for a good budget; those that are actually looking at reasonable reforms to move our Nation forward, instead of resorting to what the New Republic says is their strategy, and I quote from this article, ``Democrats should consider fighting by extra-parliamentary means, going beyond the standard parameters of legislative debate and attacking Republicans not on issues but on ethics, character. In other words, it may be time for Democrats to burn down the House in order to save it.'' Burn down the House, Mr. Speaker. That is their strategy. Many on the left think that that is the way to take back this House, and we on this side of the aisle are going to continue working on the issues that the American people care about and continue moving this Nation forward.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and I certainly appreciate my good friend from Texas yielding me a moment to speak about this. It has been significant, the achievements this Republican Congress, in fact this Republican President, have had in the first 100 days of this new Congress. It is rather significant that with narrow margins, very small margins here in the House, small margins in the Senate and with a Republican President, we have been able to pass wonderful proposals into law, and just by having a narrow margin here in the U.S. House of Representatives, with Republican control, we have reached out to the Democrats. Those reasonable Democrats on the other side have said we will join you, we think there is too much lawsuit abuse and we should rein in these class action lawsuits. They have said, We need to have a comprehensive energy policy for the United States, and it is a wonderful thing that so many good Democrats on the other side have joined us. What we are beginning to see is they have complaints in the Democrat leadership. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) certainly are leading the Democrats with their policy proposals. I say policy proposals, but it is really process proposals. They cannot beat us when it comes to policy, and so they have to sit on the sidelines and complain about the procedures, complain about the process. The reason why they are complaining about these things is, quite frankly, they do not have any real substantive proposals. All they can do is sit on the sidelines and complain and complain and complain. What the Democrat leaders are seeing is that their rank-and-file Democrats see that the Republicans actually have ideas. We have proposals in order to move America forward, and it is substantial that we have had so many Democrats join with us on these bills that we have passed here in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is a wonderful thing to see Democrats leaving their leadership behind and saying, you know what, we see you do not have any ideas, so we are going to join the party that has ideas, that is moving America forward, and we are going to vote with them. So I encourage those on the other side of the aisle to come join us, join with the wonderful proposals that we are offering America. It is wonderful that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) has had this hour to discuss our first 100 days, the enormous impact that this Congress has had on America in a short amount of time. It is a wonderful thing, as a fellow freshman lawmaker, to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) in talking about our successes because, as a freshman lawmaker, we have tried very hard these first 100 days to have a significant impact not only on America but for our constituents back at home and, in my case, the people of the 10th District of North Carolina, Western North Carolina; for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the people of West Texas. We have worked very hard on policies that help our constituents and lift votes at home, lift all votes at home, while at the same time doing what is right for the people of America and, in fact, proposals that make the world a more secure place. So I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) for hosting this hour. I certainly appreciate him yielding me time to be here. In fact, I just spent a few moments with one of my former colleagues in the North Carolina State House, Tim Moore, a good friend of mine when I was in the State House, and we were talking about the things that Congress has actually done to move things forward, to move a conservative agenda forward and do what is right for America. It is wonderful that I was able to come here and participate in this wonderful opportunity that we have had. I say it is wonderful for me to be able to participate. It is wonderful that the gentleman hosted this hour, and I am thankful that he opened this time for me.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, tonight our President addressed the Nation on the issue of Social Security reform, a vital issue not just for current retirees, but for generations to come. I want to praise what the President had to say tonight. This is one of the most major issues that we can take on as a Congress, the largest single issue we can take on here in the United States House of Representatives, so I think it is important that we say thank you to the President for taking on this important and vital issue that generations of Americans have relied upon. Social Security is important. We do not want to break it, we want to improve it and make sure it is a lasting institution, not just for those retirees today and those that are close to retirement, but for those of my generation, the Generation X-ers, who believe that Social Security will not be around for them. Also, we need to have personal private personal retirement accounts as part of Social Security. Thank you, Mr. President, for addressing this vital issue.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot about ethics these days, ethical problems, ethical controversies. Why is ethics coming up as a topic of discussion here in Washington, DC? It is because the Democrat leadership has led their party on a campaign against our Republican majority through what I believe is a conspiracy of character assassination and misleading attacks. Let me quote this week's U.S. News and World Report. Democrat strategists, confident that voters are increasingly fed up with the Republican establishment, are planning an all-out attack on what they call the ``abuse of power'' by Republicans. Democrat strategists, Mr. Speaker. Those folks who live and crawl around the basement of the Democrat National Committee and the DCCC, they see ethics as a way that might be able to gain them a few congressional seats. I can tell my colleagues why they are doing this. It is because in the last 2 election cycles, Democrats, their agenda, their leaders, their ideas, or lack thereof, are going nowhere. They lost six U.S. Senate seats. They have posted double digit losses in the U.S. House of Representatives races. They are sitting back and trying to obstruct as Republicans pass tax relief. In fact, in just this Congress, we eliminated the death tax, the double taxation of inheritance. They watched as the Republicans passed an energy policy to keep and lower gas prices. They tried to obstruct class action lawsuit reform which Republicans passed to protect small businesses and individuals from the frivolous lawsuits of ambulance-chasing trial lawyers. They sat back as we passed comprehensive bankruptcy reform. And they are losing their own Members on these votes. Mr. Speaker, over 70 Democrats have abandoned their leadership, their Democrat leadership to support a Republican bill on bankruptcy reform. Forty-two Democrats bolted their leadership, their left-wing leadership to support the permanent repeal of the death tax. Forty-one Democrats abandoned their leadership on energy policy, because they see that our ideas are better than their party's. A whopping 50 members of the Democratic Caucus abandoned their leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), on class action lawsuit reform. The Democrat Party is hemorrhaging. They are hemorrhaging. So how does the leadership fight back, when they cannot even win their own rank-and-file members? How do they fight back? It is by baseless, senseless attacks and character assassinations, that is how. Let me quote an article that ran in a January issue of the New Republic, a liberal left wing magazine. The article is called ``How the Democrats Can Overthrow the House.'' And I quote: ``Democrats should consider fighting back by extraparliamentary means, going beyond the standard perimeters of legislative debate and attacking Republicans not on issues but on ethics. Character. In other words, it may be time for Democrats to burn down the House in order to save it.'' Not my words, Mr. Speaker. This is the liberal strategy for taking control of this House of Representatives. Burn down the House. Burn down this institution. That is the Democrats' plan. They are willing to tear down this very institution so they can gain raw political power. We have seen this before, and that is why you are hearing all of this about House rules and ethics. But here is the deal. Democrats want to apply the rules, Mr. Speaker. They do. They just do not want to apply the rules to themselves. Consider the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). She called for an investigation of the House majority leader, our Republican majority leader, for alleged irregularities for his travel records. But ABC News reported last night that members of her very own Democrat leadership staff have not properly disclosed their own travel forms. Not just once. Not just twice. But a dozen times. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who is a member of the ethics committee, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is a member of the ethics committee, she went on a trip to Puerto Rico. I do not blame her for wanting to go on a nice trip. The gentlewoman from Ohio went on this with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) herself, as well as a number of other Democrats. According to ABC News last night, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) said the incident was paid for by a registered lobbyist, while the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said it was paid for by a different organization. Then, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) went back and amended her forms to say that the lobbyist did not pay for it. But you know what? Two other Democrats that went on that trip did not even disclose their travel. Did not even disclose it. When asked, one Member told the Washington Times, this happened 4 years ago; I am not sure why this is even relevant. Wow. Do you hear hypocrisy? This is the pot calling the kettle black.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, America as a Nation must defend life from the moment of conception to natural death. Later today, the House will take up H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, introduced by my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen). This bill will protect minors and their parents from inconsistent State abortion laws. Currently, 23 States require a parent to be involved in a child's abortion decision, while 27 do not. This bill would prosecute anyone who transports a minor to a State without parental consent laws with the purpose of undermining parental rights. It requires that any time a minor goes for an abortion, the physician must at least try to notify the parents. Madam Speaker, we need to make sure that we have serious parental involvement in these difficult and potentially dangerous decisions. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this reasonable measure and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 748 later today.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, it is in reference to a reported incident that is covered by ABC News.

Mr. McHENRY. This is reported in the press.

Mr. McHENRY. I am reporting what ABC News reported.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, if I may address this, these are not false allegations

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives rejected compromise to organize the House Ethics Committee. They rejected reasonable compromise because they want to use the ethics process for partisan political purposes. It is time to say enough is enough. The Democrat leadership must work with the Republican leadership so we can move this House forward. Reasonable Democrats on the other side of the aisle need to call off the dogs, need to say enough is enough with their Democrat whip and their Democrat leader and say, Come to the table. Let's organize. Let's move forward. Let's quit these baseless, partisan attacks on our Republican leader, Tom DeLay. Let's move forward. Let's move forward together as a House. But, no, they reject that because they want to use the ethics process for partisan political gain. It is not about ethics to them. It is about partisanship. It is not about doing what is right. It is about using it for electoral gain, and it is not going to work. Enough is enough. Reasonable Democrats, come to the table. Let us work through this process and move this House forward.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership has led their party on a campaign against the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), through baseless character assassinations and misleading attacks. It is time to start hearing the truth, though. The media reported yet that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a Democrat, disclosed in 2001 that a registered lobbyist paid for her trip to Puerto Rico, a trip the minority leader was also on, in clear violation of House rules. On February 28, the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), publicly called for an investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the majority leader. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) stated: ``These are substantive allegations,'' that must be ``fully investigated by the Ethics Committee.'' But so far there have been no calls for an investigation of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) or the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) by the rest of the Democrat leadership. Is this hypocrisy? Democrats want to apply the House rules, but they do not want to apply the rules to themselves. Let us see if the Democrats really care about ethics or if they are more interested in personal attacks. I believe these developments are further evidence that the Democrats are not interested in taking a thorough, honest look into the allegations against the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); all they want to do is obstruct the work of the House of Representatives. Yesterday Republican leaders of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct agreed to impanel a formal investigation into the recent allegations regarding the majority leader, but Democrats flatly refused to allow the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to begin the work this year. Instead of allowing the case to be heard in an appropriate venue, an investigation by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Democrats are trying to use the media to launch a partisan, politically motivated attack against the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, rather than giving the gentleman from Texas an appropriate opportunity to respond. Majority Leader DeLay has said over and over that he has done nothing wrong, and has expressed his desire to publicly present and state his case. Indeed, he wants an ethics hearing to clear his good name and to keep ethics from being used for partisan, political purposes. Appearing before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the most appropriate venue for this to happen. The refusal to even allow the case to be heard before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is clear evidence that the Democrat leadership is not concerned about seeing this matter reviewed. They only want to use this situation to obstruct the legislative process. It is a move carefully designed by partisan political hacks, carefully designed to achieve nothing more than purely partisan political gain. These actions obstruct legislation that the American people want. So far under the majority leader's leadership, Republicans have passed a comprehensive energy policy, killed the death tax for small businesses and family-owned businesses, improved America's highways by passing a transportation bill, passed tort reform, passed bankruptcy reform, and is poised to modernize and strengthen our Social Security system. Rather than effect change through elections, they have chosen, the Democrat leadership has chosen, to use partisan attacks and a conspiracy of character assassination to destroy the reputation of one of the most successful legislative leaders in this century and in the last century and, in fact, in congressional history. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more unethical than falsely accusing another human being in order to destroy that person's reputation. There is nothing more unethical, there is nothing more disgraceful than falsely accusing another human being. That is what the Democrat leadership has done, that is what the minority leader and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) are doing. They are stonewalling the ethics process for partisan gain, and we will not stand for it. We ask the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the Democratic leadership to stop these attacks. Call off the dogs. Mr. Speaker, we need a reasonable ethics process in this House. We need to say enough is enough when it comes to partisan political attacks. Let us move forward with the American people's agenda.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, in recent months Americans have been struggling to cope with rising gas prices. And today the Republican majority and the U.S. House of Representatives bring forward a comprehensive, a comprehensive, energy program. And let me tell the Members this: we need to have a comprehensive energy program so that we can avoid losing jobs due to high energy costs. This week it is a comprehensive energy bill that will drastically reduce the costs of energy. It will lower energy prices for consumers, revitalize our economy, and create jobs. That is because the money that was diverted to high energy costs can now go to goods and services; and most importantly, this bill will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Mr. Speaker, our opponents on the other side of the aisle have only given blather. They have only given bluster. They have not offered a comprehensive policy. We today are going to offer a comprehensive energy policy to help all Americans and reduce the cost of gasoline.