Congress is finally back in session and, suprisingly, it didn’t take long to find a Republican actually being a Republican. Sen. Inhofe (R-OK):

The minority is so eager to blame others for high gas prices they seem to ignore the fact that they do not bother to consult the media when they have a deadline. I am more interested in reducing high gasoline prices for American families than to bluster the selfish political advantage, unlike the minority.

I took the time to consider the nonpartisan experts of the Energy Information Administration and what they had to say. According to the EIA, there are three reasons leading to high gasoline prices. First, the Nation has not fully recovered from hurricane damage. Twenty percent of the domestic oil production and three refineries, representing nearly 5 percent of refining capacity, remain offline. However, offshore production is resuming and refineries are restarting. The EIA points out that the industry delayed maintenance to maximize production following the hurricanes. Today they must switch over to summer blends.

Yet the focus is on the politics. The senior Senator from New York charged the refiners are purposely withholding capacity from traditionally operating at 90 percent to the current operation of 85 percent. In demanding an investigation, that Senator also implied that the refiners should not maintain their facilities to ensure a safe work environment for employees or they should not switch to special summer blends.

One thing was clear. The senior Senator from New York did not bother to consider the fact that nearly 5 percent of domestic refining capacity is still offline due to hurricanes. Mr. President, 90 percent minus 5 percent equals 85 percent, as the investigation found.

Second, companies are increasing inventories to hedge against potential disruption in the future. Most of the time, the minority would call such risk management responsible but not when they celebrate the misfortune of the American people.

The third reason has to do with MTBE, and I won’t get into that. I will only say this. I am the chairman of a committee that is called the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is our responsibility to handle most of the problems. We are in an energy crisis. There is no question about it. But for any Democrat to stand on the floor of this Senate and try to point the finger at Republicans for high gasoline prices is really absurd.

I have sat there and watched the votes take place. We are not able to vote on ANWR in northern Alaska. Right down party lines, Republicans are supporting it, the Alaskans are supporting it, the Democrats are opposing it. We are not able to go offshore and take advantage of the tremendous reserves that are there. It is right down party lines. Right down party lines they stopped us from being able to have tax incentives to go after marginal production.

I am from a State that has marginal production. There is a statistic that if we had all the marginal production flowing today that has been plugged in the last 10 years, it would be more than we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia.

Lastly, in the area of nuclear energy, it goes right down party lines.

Representative King (R-IO):

…I have a plan to balance this budget. I don’t want to balance it by raising taxes. I want to balance this budget by controlling our spending. That is the issue. That is what the American people want. That is what I want. That is what we would do if we were a family balancing our budget or a small business balancing our budget or a large business balancing our budget. We would take a look at our spending.

Of course, we would work on the revenue side. Our revenue side has been growing. It grew 14.5 percent more than anticipated last year because we kept the taxes down. So I would suggest my colleagues on the other side of the aisle join with me. I will be introducing a piece of legislation. It is called the CUT legislation, which means cut unnecessary tab. Cut the unnecessary tab of this Federal Government.

It is going to be a new process that has never been offered to this Congress before, Mr. Speaker. It is a process that will allow for a privileged motion to come to the floor under an open rule that would be a rescissions bill once every quarter. Once every quarter, leadership will have the first 10 days of each quarter to offer a recissions bill. If they do not do that, any Member can offer a rescissions bill under a privileged motion. And if the Speaker recognizes them, they can bring forward a shell bill or a bill that has a thousand cuts in it, for that matter, but it will allow every single line item that has been appropriated by this Congress to be brought back before this Congress and removed from the budget under rescissions.

When an appropriation bills leaves the House and goes to the Senate, and the Senate works their will on the appropriation bill and it comes back to conference and we agree and do final passage on an appropriation bill, it then goes to the President for his signature.

From the instant that that bill is enacted, and generally from the instant that the President’s signature and ink goes on that bill, it will be subject then to rescissions that will happen four times a year in this Congress.

Four times a year Congress will take up a rescissions bill, and it will allow any Member to bring an amendment that will be ruled in order, provided it is in the proper sequence in the structure of the rescissions bill, which will allow actually for rescissions of all appropriations that have gone out that haven’t been expended. So every Member then will have that opportunity to have their attempt at a line item veto. And when that budget is done and when the expenditures are spent, then a majority of this Congress will have had their say on every single line item.

If they object to a particular issue, like say, for example the Cowgirls Hall of Fame would be one that comes to mind, they would simply bring an amendment that would be added to the rescissions bill, put it up, debate the amendment, and we would vote that amendment up or down. If the amendment succeeds and it is to strike the funding for the Cowgirls Hall of Fame, then that would become part of the rescissions bill that would come off this floor, presumably pass and go over to the Senate for them to act on it. Now, whether they do or not is an open question as well, Mr. Speaker. But certainly the public would put some pressure on the Senate to do the right thing and do the responsible thing.

Representative Poe (R-TX):

…[S]tudents at Skyline High School in Colorado are banned from waving the American flag. The principal is reported as saying, “These flags were being used as a symbol of bigotry, a symbol of hostility. They were being used to inflame different groups, and we’re not going to tolerate that.”

This principal is more concerned about hurting the feelings of people illegally in the U.S. than he is about Americans’ freedom of expression. This principal is obviously unaware the flag was offensive to the British who were also illegally in the U.S. When the British reinvaded the United States in 1814 and were illegally on American soil, they marched on Washington waving the British flag, and they burned this very building. The British then sailed upriver to Fort McHenry and were offended by this defiant American flag that was flying. They tried to shoot it down, but Old Glory flew, and we have it down the street in the National Archives, bullet holes and all. We got our National Anthem from the glory of the Star Spangled Banner at Fort McHenry.

The American flag cannot be banned in America. How absurd. What flag do you fly there at that high school, the white flag of surrender so as not to offend anyone illegally in the United States? Good thing the commander at Fort McHenry didn’t care about what the British thought and was proud to be an American. And that’s just the way it is.

I return to the floor to speak about the pending amendment to the border security and immigration bill that was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve. I want to explain to my colleagues and anyone else who may be listening why I oppose this amendment. I believe that, while there are many good things in the bill, or amendment, one of the bad things it contains is that it provides amnesty to those who have violated our immigration laws. As I have said before and I will say again, I cannot accept amnesty as part of any comprehensive solution to our immigration crisis. But more important, it is not a question of whether I can accept this as part of the solution. I don’t believe the American people will accept amnesty as part of the solution either.

Unfortunately, at its core the committee product includes an amnesty. Let me explain in some detail because I think there are those who see amnesty in every solution that has been offered. Some say the guest worker program that the President speaks about is an amnesty. I don’t necessarily agree with that because it is a temporary worker program, as he has used that term, not an alternative path to citizenship such as the Judiciary Committee bill. But I do think that there are some things that can justifiably be called amnesty; that is, if words have any meaning.

The reason why I conclude that this Judiciary Committee bill provides an amnesty is because it creates a new path to citizenship for approximately 12 million people who have entered our country in violation of our immigration laws. I want to be quick to interject, we understand why it is that people come to America. It is the same reason that everyone wants to come to America, and that is because we are the beacon of hope and freedom and opportunity for the planet. We understand that and we harbor no ill will or grudge against people who simply want to provide for their family. We understand that. But as a sovereign nation, sovereignty implies control of our borders, and we do not have control of our borders today. It also implies that we will do first what is good for America and American interests, and then if we can, and certainly we do, we could go help our neighbor. But we simply can’t throw our hands up in the air and say we give up when it comes to controlling our borders and enforcing our laws.

First of all, that would violate the sacred oath that we have taken as Senators, as Members of Congress, to defend and uphold the laws of the United States, including the Constitution. So what we are talking about is not a matter of wanting to be unnecessarily harsh or punitive toward those who have come here for what are all understandable and human reasons. But I do not believe the American people will accept a proposal which includes amnesty because they understand that American citizenship is a very special privilege, and they reject the notion that we have no choice but to give it out because the Federal Government has simply failed to enforce the law.

I strongly believe that we need comprehensive immigration reform, including border security. I think we need to provide a path to the 10 million people who have come here in violation of our immigration laws, who already live in the United States. But I have a fundamental disagreement with the approach contained in this amendment.

I believe we must start with the rule that people who have come to this country in violation of our immigration laws should be required to go through the same process as all other legal immigrants.

Let me say that again. I believe we must start with an approach that people who have come to this country in violation of our immigration laws should be required to go through the same process as all other legal immigrants.

But this committee product does exactly the opposite. It is a solution of sorts based on weakness and the self-fulfilling prophesy that we cannot enforce our own laws. The message this amendment sends to the American people is that because we can’t enforce our immigration laws, the only way to address the 12 million people who have come here in violation of our immigration laws is to reward them with a special pass, a permanent resident status, and citizenship.