[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7039-7042]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         ISSUES FACING CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I think it is important that we 
reflect on what is happening here in Washington, D.C. Here in this 
House we have enormous issues that are facing us as a legislative body.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe as American people and their representatives, 
we are still wrestling with those issues that every American is 
wrestling with. There are a lot of challenges. We want to keep our 
economy moving, and I think there is agreement here in Washington, D.C. 
as the people's representatives that we want to make sure that we have 
governmental policies that aid in that, not hinder that.
  Mr. Speaker, we also have an enormous debate about energy and the 
rising cost of energy facing every American. I drive my automobile just 
like everyone else drives their automobile, and I still pay at the 
pumps. I guess some Americans would laugh and think I guess these 
highfalutin Members of Congress do not even pump their own gasoline, 
but we do. I do.
  I face the same burden that all Americans are facing with the high 
price of

[[Page 7040]]

gasoline, the high price of electrical energy, the high price of 
natural gas. And it has a ripple effect on the economy in terms of jobs 
and job creation. It has a ripple effect on what the American people 
think about the direction of our country based on what we pay at the 
pumps, what we pay for energy. And we here in this Congress are 
wrestling with that issue, as well as how to get energy prices down for 
the American people.
  There are a lot of other issues we are wrestling with, but there is a 
clear difference between the philosophies of those on my side of the 
aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, the majority in the House, and 
the philosophy that governs those on the other side of the aisle, the 
liberals, the Democrats, those in the minority.
  We have a clear difference of opinion on how to tackle these tough 
issues, and so let us first begin with economic policy.
  President Bush came to office and during the late stages of 2000, the 
economy turned down. We had a recession. We had a recession in late 
2000 through early 2001. As President Bush came to office, the economy 
was in recession and the President made a bold statement, a commitment 
to the American people, that he would cut taxes to reinvigorate the 
economy. He did just that.
  President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and again in 2003 after the 
devastating attacks of 9/11, these two tax cuts were the biggest since 
Ronald Reagan's first term. As a result, 109 million American taxpayers 
have seen their taxes decline by an average of $1,544 per individual, 
per worker. That is, 109 million Americans are paying less in taxes to 
the tune of $1,544 a person. That is a positive effect; and as a 
result, the economy began to move.
  A family of four making $40,000 received tax relief of $1,933; nearly 
$2,000 of tax reduction on a family of four making $40,000.

                              {time}  1545

  Now that is not a tax cut for the rich. That is a wonderful impact on 
working men and women that are trying to provide for themselves and for 
their children. It enables them to actually pay for school uniforms, 
enables them to pay for their children's education. Forty-two million 
families with children received a tax cut of $2,067. That is positive. 
One hundred and twenty-three million elderly individuals received a tax 
cut of $1,795. Lots of numbers to talk about. But what does this do for 
the economy?
  Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, here we have a chart showing that tax 
relief has spurred business investment. You can see the negative 
investment of late 2000 through 2003, and that is because of the 
recession. Businesses were not able to reinvest.
  What happened with the tax cuts of 2001 and again in 2003, you see a 
very strong stimulus on business investment. When businesses invest, 
more people are employed. When businesses invest, there are more taxes 
paid into the government. And when people are employed, they don't take 
from government. They don't require government assistance. They 
actually pay income taxes.
  So let's see what the tax cuts have done to job growth.
  Here again, you see unemployment go down with this red line, and job 
growth go up because of President Bush's stimulus package we put in 
place. Twenty-five million small business owners saved, on average, 
$2,800; 4.7 million new jobs created in the last 29 months; 17 straight 
quarters of economic growth; and an unemployment rate under 5 percent. 
Now that is a stronger unemployment rate than all the '90s, all of the 
'80s, all of the '70s, all of the '60s. That is a very positive thing.
  Over 60 percent of Americans that received dividends and capital 
gains, they are under $100,000-a-year earners. That is not a sop to the 
rich. It is middle-class individuals that received this stimulus 
package and this benefit that we Republicans, and our President, put in 
place.
  In my State of North Carolina, in the next 6 years, we are projected 
to grow 22,000 new jobs; and in my home district, unemployment has been 
reduced significantly in the last 5 years.
  Now we still have our challenges in the 10th District of North 
Carolina, Mr. Speaker, but we are seeing savings grow. We are seeing 
people going back to get the training they need to compete in a new 
job. We are seeing a real turnaround in the economy, and it is because 
people get to keep more of what they earn instead of paying it into the 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a very basic concept that we, as conservatives, 
believe and that is that individuals can make better choices. 
Individuals can stimulate the economy. Government does not. Therefore, 
the more money we allow people to keep, the more of their own hard-
earned dollars that they are able to keep, the more they can do in 
their communities, the more they are able to do to benefit their 
schools, Mr. Speaker.
  But, you know, there are those on the other side of the aisle, the 
Democrats in this institution, that don't want to continue President 
Bush's tax cuts. They say, roll back the Bush tax cuts. That is what 
they scream. The government needs more money.
  Well, I will tell you, the receipts to government have gone up in the 
last 5 years because more people are working, businesses are growing, 
businesses are investing in individuals, and you are seeing a 
turnaround in our economy. And the turnaround in our economy leads to 
more government income.
  And you know what? If we do not continue the Bush tax cuts and make 
them permanent, you will see job losses. You will see a hundred billion 
less in economic output next year, and you will see slower wage growth 
and salary growth. And you will also see low-income workers have to pay 
more in taxes.
  President Bush cut the tax rate of the lowest earners from 15 percent 
to 10 percent. And if we roll back the Bush tax cuts, what we will do 
is increase their taxes by nearly 50 percent, because they will have to 
go back up to the 15 percent rate. By 50 percent, I should say.
  Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of the child tax credit 
under their plan, and you will see the Federal death tax being 
reinstated after 2011.
  That is their economic policy. It is a big no to our optimistic 
version of reality. We view America as being better and brighter the 
less Americans have to pay in taxes. We see Americans being able to do 
better things with their money than a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., 
can do.
  But what is the Democrats' plan when it comes to energy? I will show 
you the Democrat plan when it comes to energy. The Democrats' agenda on 
energy is right here outlined on this white sheet of paper. That is the 
Democrat plan when it comes to energy policy in the United States. 
Nothing. They have nothing to offer. They have offered nothing except 
demagoguery. That is all they have offered.
  As Republicans put forth serious energy policies, the Democrats have 
voted no. As Republicans have tried to come up with a compromise so 
that we can increase production here at home so we are not more 
dependent on foreign oil, the Democrats have said no. This is the 
Democrat plan when it comes to gas prices. This is the Democrat plan 
when it comes to energy policy. Nothing.
  But let's look at their votes. Let's look at their votes, Mr. 
Speaker. Here we see the Energy Policy Act of 2004, to enhance energy 
conversation and research and development and provide for security and 
diversity in our natural resource and natural energy supply. The roll 
call vote, 152 Democrats voted no. We still passed the legislation.
  One hundred and twenty-four Democrats voted against the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 conference report, the final product, to provide $14.5 
billion in tax incentives to improve energy production so that we could 
actually have more, larger energy supply as consumers, to improve the 
transportation of energy to the marketplace so we could actually 
consume it, and the efficiency of energy production so we could have 
more of it again. They voted no; 124 voted no. Well, that is a pickup 
of a few, at least. But still not a responsible vote.

[[Page 7041]]

  One hundred and fifty-four Democrats voted against the Energy 
Conservation, Research and Development Bill in 2003. We have a series 
here of votes in 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the Democrats said no. That 
is their energy policy, a big no.
  Let's also continue with this stream of consciousness here.
  Democrats voted against the Energy Conservation Research and 
Development Act of 2003, 157 votes. A different vote. But they again 
said no.
  One hundred and seventy-two Democrats voted against Securing 
America's Future Energy Act in 2001 to foster conservation, improve 
energy efficiency, increase domestic energy production and expand the 
use of renewable energy sources.
  Do we see a theme here? We can go back 5, 6 years, just in this 
decade. The Democrats have repeatedly said no to an energy policy for 
the United States.
  One hundred and sixty-six Democrats voted against ANWR exploration.
  Now, look. 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, I can show you these in the 
charts. They have repeatedly said no to an energy policy here in the 
United States; and, as a result, we were not able to enact an energy 
law, an energy act for this country until just last year. Over their 
objections, over that party's objections, the liberals' objections, we 
passed an energy policy that was far, far, far and away a reasonable 
approach to get more energy production on-line, to increase the supply 
and, therefore, lessen the burden of expense on every American. You see 
that they said no repeatedly to an energy policy.
  What do we have today? We have oil that costs $73 per barrel and 
going up. We have refineries that can't meet the demands the American 
people need to fuel their automobiles. We have high natural gas prices. 
We have a Senator in the other Chamber from Massachusetts who says that 
we cannot have wind energy production in his State because he doesn't 
like the way it looks.
  Then we have those that say, do not explore for new natural 
resources. They are all part of the left wing agenda of the opposition 
party in this Chamber. They want to say no to energy production. They 
want to say no to refining. They want to say no to exploration.
  And then what do we have as a result? High energy prices.
  I go back to originally what I said. The Democrat agenda, nothing.
  Maybe I am wrong, though. Maybe they do have an energy policy. Maybe 
they do have a tax policy. The tax policy is pretty simple. We want you 
to pay more, Americans. We want more money for the Federal Government. 
Maybe their energy policy is we want you to pay more. That is how their 
votes have lined up.
  When Republicans come forward and say we have alternative energy that 
we are trying to push through tax incentives, they said, no, it is a 
sop to the energy companies. No, it is an incentive for research and 
development of alternative energies so we are not more dependent on 
foreign oil.
  When we come forward and say let's explore for natural resources, for 
oil here at home, what do they say? No.
  Do you see where I am going, Mr. Speaker, with this?
  Their policy is no. If not no, then more. We want you to pay more.
  It was about a decade ago that Senator Kerry said that he looked 
forward to the day when gas cost $3 a gallon. I thought it was 
surprising then. Perhaps his votes line up with his philosophy. Perhaps 
his votes line up with his goal. Because we are there. We have gas at 
$3 a gallon.
  I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is very disheartening when you see 
the Democrats consistently vote against reasonable approaches to 
increase the supply of energy for Americans. Because all Americans know 
that the law of supply and demand is a very strong force. It is the 
basis of our economy. And when the supply is constricted and the demand 
keeps rising, the prices rise with the demand.
  The Democrats' policies have constricted oil production and refining, 
energy production and marketing; and, therefore, as the demand goes up, 
the cost naturally follows the demand. So when you talk about the oil 
companies raising the price of gasoline, the refineries raising the 
price of refining, the only reason why they are able to do that is 
because of a market economy that we have here in the United States.

                              {time}  1600

  And that market economy relies on supply and demand to dictate price. 
And when we put in place government policies that say that we cannot 
take oil out of the ground that we know is there or natural gas that is 
in the ground and we know is there, that we cannot actually produce 
refineries to refine that fuel, when we cannot put on more nuclear 
reactors and nuclear energy production on line, naturally by 
constricting that supply, the prices will go up.
  And as a conservative, my alternative is pretty simple: we get more 
production online, we get more competition in the energy marketplace 
through alternative fuels, through alternative energy, through 
incentives to move to alternative energy, you will see the oil 
companies begin to compete for our dollars. Right now because the 
supply is so constricted, they can charge us whatever they possibly 
can, whatever they think they can get away with. So my answer is pretty 
simple. As a public policymaker, if we put another tax on the oil 
companies, the oil companies will pass it right on to us as consumers 
because that is what corporations do with taxation and regulatory 
burdens. They pass that expense to the consumers.
  So my philosophy is pretty simple: you get more competition in the 
marketplace, you open up the supply, and that cost will come down. And 
that is what we are trying to do with a coherent energy policy here in 
the United States, and that is what Republicans are trying to do here 
in Congress.
  So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us 
to increase that supply of energy into the marketplace, to increase 
research, to increase development of alternative energy sources as 
well, but to also listen to the American people and their demands. And 
their demands are very clear: we want relief and we want it now.
  Well, I have got news, Mr. Speaker, for the American people. We 
Republicans in Congress are taking on this challenge, and we will get 
more production online. We will relieve the regulatory burden for 
getting new energy sources into the marketplace, but we also will 
continue economic growth here in the United States. And the way we do 
that is by getting the government off the backs of the American people, 
the working Americans, that are trying to help their families, trying 
to grow their communities, and trying to do what is right on the local 
level.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, there is a lot of rhetoric going on 
here in Washington, DC that the other side of the aisle refers to as 
``a culture'' here in Washington, DC. And there is a culture. It is a 
culture of more spending, higher taxes, left-wing environmentalist 
groups writing policy for our United States Government. And we are 
trying to break that as conservatives, as Republicans. We are trying to 
break that cycle, that culture, here in Washington.
  The Democrats want to take us back. They do not want to look at new 
ways of doing things. They want to take us back to how they ran this 
institution for 40 years, how they kept increasing the size and scope 
of government over decades. Well, the American people want an 
optimistic alternative, a positive agenda. They actually want an energy 
policy. They actually want a pro-growth economic policy as well that 
allows people to keep more of what they earn. They also want a 
government that is responsive and not intrusive. And that is what we 
are trying to provide as conservatives. I think that is what the 
American people want.
  And I am very proud to be part of the majority party, very proud to 
be a Republican, working hard for the American people to do what is 
right, to do what is necessary to make sure that we are safe, secure, 
energy independent, economically independent, and a dominant factor in 
this world that we live in that is dangerous, highly competitive, but 
ever changing. And we are

[[Page 7042]]

trying to embrace those changes and compete in this tough world that we 
live in.
  Mr. Speaker, we Republicans have an agenda, an optimistic agenda, 
about how to change America, how to reduce the size and scope of 
government, how to enable people to keep more of what they earn and 
make us independent in terms of our energy policy.
  The Democrats, they have a simple alternative, and it is their agenda 
here: nothing. They have yet to put out an agenda. They have yet to 
talk in proactive ways. They have yet to lead.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we Republicans are leading to make 
America safe, secure, and economically strong.

                          ____________________