Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

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

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3218, the Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2008, which extends the Child Safety Pilot Program for volunteer organizations for an additional 6 months. Originally created in 2003 under the PROTECT Act, the Child Safety Pilot Program has proven to be an effective resource for groups such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Council of Youth Sports. Through the pilot program, any nonprofit organization that provides youth-focused care, as defined in the National Child Protection Act of 1993, may request criminal history background checks from the FBI on applicants for volunteer or employee positions that entail working with children. Currently, over 10,000 background checks have been administered through the Child Safety Pilot Program. Of those checks, 7.5 percent of all workers screened had an arrest or conviction on their record. Crimes uncovered included rape, child sexual abuse, murder, and domestic battery. Over 25 percent of applicants with a criminal record committed crimes in States other than where they were applying to work. If it weren't for the Child Safety Pilot Program, employers may not have known that the applicants had criminal records. Volunteer organizations across the country are working hard to provide safe learning and growing environments for our children. That means hiring professional and responsible employees. S. 3218 extends a program that has successfully helped these groups do just that. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 381, a resolution recognizing the dedication and achievements of Thurgood Marshall on the 100th anniversary of his birth. Justice Marshall's life was full of distinction and firsts, including successfully arguing to overturn the separate but equal doctrine before the U.S. Supreme Court and the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education, serving as the Nation's first African American solicitor general and later serving as the first African American U.S. Supreme Court justice, a position that he held for 24 years. Still, at an early age with the premise that all men are created equal, Justice Marshall dedicated his life to bringing meaning to the protections enshrined in our Constitution. His work transformed this Nation. First, at the NAACP and later in the public sector, Justice Thurgood Marshall put civil rights at the forefront of this Nation's conscience, ensuring that the Constitution and rule of law applied fairly to all citizens. I commend the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Payne, for ensuring that Thurgood Marshall's legacy lives on. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief. Let me just start by saying that I appreciate both the chairman's and the ranking member's work on this critical issue. Drugs and cartels and the violence and terror that they bring not only undermine public safety but threaten our security as a Nation. We need to work cooperatively with those nations that are on the front lines of this drug war that we've been involved in for such a long time. However, I want to mention one fact that I think is very important. Last summer, news reports highlighted the unwillingness of the Mexican Government to work with the U.S. to resolve a mile and a half boundary dispute near Columbus, New Mexico. Because of a mapping error, the fence that we're building was constructed on Mexican land. Although the U.S. government promptly notified the Mexican Government of the error, the Mexican Government demands that the mistake be corrected at a cost of $3 million to the United States; this, despite the fact that the previously existing boundary had never been in dispute prior to notification by the U.S., and the fact that the U.S. has provided more than $270 million in aid to Mexico between 2004 and 2007, including more than $140 million for counter-narcotics and law enforcement. Today, we are authorizing funding for an additional $1.6 billion over 3 years. Last July, I introduced House Resolution 545, which states that it is the sense of this Congress that if Mexico doesn't work together to resolve this boundary dispute, U.S. assistance to Mexico should be reduced in a corresponding amount; in other words, $3 million. If it is costing the taxpayers of this country $3 million to do this, which was previously an undisputed border area, it seems like it ought to come out of their money and not ours, since we were the ones that brought it to their attention to begin with. Now, some people up here in Washington may think that $3 million isn't a lot of money. Well I can tell you it is a lot of money to the folks back in my district and districts all over this country, particularly when you figure that we are spending approximately $4 a gallon for gas nowadays. So it is a lot of money and ought to be taken seriously. If the U.S. and Mexico are truly partners, and we claim to be, and they claim to be, we should be working together in all areas, including the construction of this fence. We ought to be working cooperatively in this matter. And it plays a key role in our international interdiction efforts, not to mention the border security. So this $3 million, if we are going to have to go back and rebuild this because of this good faith error, I believe that ought to be taken out of the U.S. aid which is going in their direction, and not from the U.S. taxpayer.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I think it is wonderful that we are talking about the Soap Box Derby. It is a good thing that it doesn't require any energy or any gasoline, because the gas prices in this country are higher than I think anybody would have expected in our lifetimes. It is about $4 a gallon now, and people are asking me in my district, what are we going to do about this? What can we do about it? Well, we should have done something about this a long time ago. The principal reason we are seeing these high gas prices is because we are far too dependent on foreign sources of energy. Why is that? Well, I know that as this one Member from Ohio can tell you, I voted 11 times in the last 14 years to open ANWR in Alaska for exploration and drilling. We think we have somewhere between 10 and 16 billion barrels of oil there. Unfortunately, we have handcuffed ourselves and put that off limits. We also have the Outer Continental Shelf, where we have upwards of 86 billion barrels of oil and huge amounts of natural gas. If we had access to that natural gas, we wouldn't see the high heating prices for heating one's home in the wintertime. But this is essentially the policy that this new majority here in Congress has put into effect. In reality, over the last decade, decade- and-a-half, even though they were in the minority in the time, they were able to block it over in the other body, in the Senate. So we had the votes here in the House to do it, but they didn't have the votes over there. When you put huge amounts of energy like that off limits, it means we have to get that oil somewhere, so that means, unfortunately, we have to import it from OPEC nations, for example, who literally just keep the spigot turned down so that there isn't enough supply out there. Then when you have economies in India and China expanding and growing, it is a supply and demand issue. So the price goes up and continues to go up, because we are far too dependent on buying that oil from somewhere else. About two-thirds of our oil we buy elsewhere. I know when the new Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, took over here, a few months before the election she made the statement that the gas prices were outrageous. They made a big campaign issue about that. At that time they were $2.30 a gallon. She said that was outrageous, and they had a plan to do something about that. Well, the plan that we have seen from this new majority here in the House of Representatives has resulted in it going from $2.30 a gallon to about $4.00 a gallon in less than 2 years. So the problem is this new majority that talks about an energy policy, and they actually passed an energy bill recently, it was a no- energy bill, because it didn't open up ANWR, it didn't open up the Outer Continental Shelf. It did nothing about making it possible for us to build oil refineries in this county. We haven't built an oil refinery since 1976, over 30 years, making it virtually impossible to build an oil refinery. Therefore, even if we had enough crude in this country, we couldn't refine it quickly enough to be able to put it in our cars. They have also been instrumental in pushing for these boutique fuels, where different States have different blends so the supply is very difficult to get around. That has driven the price up. Also the liberals here in the House of Representatives over the years, and in this country, for that matter, their policy has been no new nuclear power plants. Now, France has 80 percent of their electricity produced by nuclear power plants. About 20 years ago, the liberals in this country were able to effectively shut down new nuclear power plants being built in this country. We have over 100 of them right now, but that means we haven't built any newer ones. China and India and other countries around the world are building them and relying more and more upon nuclear, but not the United States. Many of us said what we are seeing now was where we were heading if we didn't change these policies. Unfortunately, this new majority here in the House of Representatives has gone just in the opposite direction from where they need to go. They have restricted us. They continue to restrict us from getting access to new energy which we have under our control in this country. They keep saying, let's just buy it from someplace else. Let's buy it from the OPEC countries. They will be nice to us. Well, they are not being nice to us. It is in their economic interests to continue to have this price continue to go up. It is an absolute shame. It is a disgrace. It is unconscionable that this Congress consistently votes to make it harder and harder to be energy self-sufficient. That is where we need to go, not being more and more dependent upon foreign sources of energy. If we don't change it, the prices that we see right now, which are extremely high and are hurting an awful lot of people, will continue to go up. Diesel is another problem. If you talk to any truckers right now, the price now is driving a lot of these people out of business. I was visiting with a fellow who is a farmer in my district last Friday who also has a side business. He had a truck. He pointed out it was behind one of his barns. He said, ``I just park it now.'' It costs $1,500 to fill up his tanks in that truck now. He just can't afford to do it. And that is affecting every American, because everything that we buy, whether it is furniture, whether it is food goods, almost anything that we purchase in this country is transported at some point or another over truck. That means those prices are going to continue to go up again. So I challenge this majority to change their policies, to take a good look at what they have been doing and the direction that we are heading and reverse that and allow us to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Let's bring these gas prices down before it cripples this country and cripples our economy.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Chabot. Bill Number: H.R. 5658, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Account: Aircraft Procurement, Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The National Guard Association of the United States. Address of Requesting Entity: One Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20001, (202) 789-0031. Description of Request: The National Guard and the active Army have developed a two-pronged program to support the continued modernization of the National Guard Black Hawk fleet, however, it is not fully funded. The National Guard wants to accelerate the fielding of ``M'' series Black Hawks by 10 aircraft per year. In addition, the Army is recapitalizing Army National Guard UH-60A helicopters with a UH-60A recapitalization program funded in the Operations and Maintenance accounts. This program includes an airframe life extension, fleet-wide product improvements and the replacements of components with the latest configurations, however the portion of the program to upgrade the recapitalized UH-60A to the UH-60L configuration is not funded. Upgrading to the UH-60L provides a Black Hawk that is cheaper to operate and one that has 1,000 pounds greater lift than the UH-60A model. A rate of 38 upgrades per year is required to enable Army National Guard units to upgrade or replace all the UH-60As at pace with the active Army.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this particular legislation, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill is very simple, Madam Speaker. It extends the authorization of all programs authorized by the Small Business Act, the Small Business Investment Act, and any program operated by the Small Business Administration for which Congress has already appropriated funds. This extension will last until March 20, 2009. The extension is necessary because authorization for various programs operated by the Small Business Administration ceases on May 23, 2008, so in just a couple of days. Working in a bipartisan effort with Chairwoman Velazquez, as she always does, she's reached out many occasions to work in a bipartisan fashion in the committee. The committee has ordered 15 bills to be reported out of the committee, all of which have passed this body, the House of Representatives. The most recent action taken by the House was the recent passage of legislation to extend the Small Business Innovation Research Program. With the passage of this bill, the House has finished all the necessary work to reauthorize all of the programs overseen by the Small Business Administration. Even though the House finished its deliberations, we operate in a bicameral legislative system, of course, and time is needed for the legislative process to run its course and enable the two bodies to resolve any disagreements on the best way to move the Small Business Administration forward and helping America's entrepreneurs. That work simply cannot be completed by this Friday, and given the upcoming legislative work on appropriations matters, it remains unclear when the two bodies will be able to commence deliberations to iron out their differences. As a result of the need for following regular order and ensuring due deliberation of important issues to the American economy, I would urge my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass S. 3029. However, there are additional items that I believe this House should address when it comes to small business. We're looking at access to capital in the Small Business Administration, and that is one of the areas that small businesses all around the country struggle it, with, access to capital. Taxes is another big issue, and that's why I believe that the tax cuts that we pass should be made permanent because many of the people who would benefit from those, that tax relief are small business owners, and they hire about 70 percent of the new workers in this country. So I believe we should make those tax cuts permanent. Regulatory reform needs to happen. Small businesses continue to be overregulated, as many parts of our economy are. Health care is important. That's why we believe that Association Health Plans should pass. We ought to make sure that businesses are able to provide health care for their employees. But there's one area that this Congress, I believe, has been woefully remiss in not addressing, and that's the area of energy, the fact that whether it's natural gas to heat our homes in the wintertime, or whether it's filling up one's gas tank at all-time record highs of almost $4 a gallon, it's absolutely unconscionable that Congress has not acted in a responsible manner and a bipartisan manner to actually do something to bring those gas prices down. Why are we seeing these gas prices at all time highs? Well, we are far too reliant upon foreign sources of energy. Is there anything we can do about this? Absolutely. I've been in Congress for 14 years, and I've voted 11 times to allow us to explore and drill and go after energy up in Alaska, in ANWR, where we believe we have up to 16 billion barrels of oil which is being kept off-limits. So we're essentially handcuffing ourselves and saying, you can't go up there at all, even though most Alaskans are all for it. They believe that we should be able to go up there, as do most of their representatives, as do an awful lot of Members of this House. And we had the votes in previous Congresses to pass that here in the House. As I say, I voted for it 11 times. But we didn't have the votes over in the Senate. But I just think it's absolutely outrageous that we've kept 16 billion barrels of oil off-limits. And that's only the start. We've also kept the entire Outer Continental Shelf off-limits. We think we have 86 billion barrels of oil there, and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to heat our homes in the wintertime, which we've kept off- limits. Now, we're not going to go after it, but Cuba has entered into an agreement with China to go after this oil out there that we ought to be getting. And so they're going to take advantage of it and we're not. And that's one of the main reasons that we see these high gas prices out there, because we have to buy the oil from somewhere, so we continue to buy it from some of the most unstable parts of the world, like the OPEC countries especially in the Middle East. We're also buying oil from Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is down there, really a bitter enemy of the United States, yet we're forced to buy his oil. We buy oil from Mexico and Canada, Nigeria and other countries around the world as well. But we ought not to allow ourselves to be so dependent on foreign sources of energy. We ought to go after those areas that we have control over, that we don't have to ask anybody's permission. But this Congress has kept that oil off-limits, and that's one of the main reasons we see prices as high as they are right now. In addition, if we had the crude oil here, which we don't, but if we had it, we can't refine it quickly enough to be able to put it into our cars. Why? Because we don't have enough oil refineries in this country. Back 30 years ago, which is the last time, more than 30 years, 32 years ago is the last time we built an oil refinery in this country. The regulations now make it virtually impossible to build an oil refinery. So we ought to change those regulations. We ought to make sure that we do it, you still build these refineries in an environmentally safe manner, just as we go after the oil in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf in an environmentally safe and friendly manner. But those are the types of things that we need to do. But because we take no action in those areas, we haven't built an oil refinery in this country in over 30 years. We've put nuclear off-limits, no more nuclear power plants about 20 years ago. France can produce 75 percent of their electricity, completely, safely. But we can't do that in the United States? I don't think so. I think that's just a very bad policy that we enacted about 20 years ago, making it impossible to build nuclear power plants. We need to change that. Finally, we need as well to make sure that we have sufficient dollars going into research so that we can go after the cutting edge types of energies that are going to power us in the future, solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen fuel cells that we may be able to power our cars by in the future. But most of these things, for the most part, are in the future. Yes, we do have wind now. But we're talking about less than 1 percent of the power in this country. So we have to have energy going in; we have to have sufficient dollars going into those technologies of the future. But the bottom line is that at this time oil is one of the principal ways that we power our automobiles and other important things in this country. And when we put that stuff off-limits and we continue to buy it from foreign sources, we're going to continue to see these high prices. And that's just wrong. The American people are suffering right now. We should have taken this action a long time ago. But since we didn't, we need to do it immediately. And that's what really bugs me when I hear people talk about, well, even if we opened up ANWR now, we're not going to have that oil for years. Well, that's why we should have opened up ANWR a long time ago. But we can't go back and undo what was, we can't go back and do what we didn't do back then, but if we passed it now, a lot of the price at the gas pump is reflected in speculators, what they think oil is going to be like in the future. If we opened up ANWR, I think you'd see an immediate effect on the prices at the pump that we would pay. People are sick and tired of the high prices we're paying. It's time that Congress act, and we ought to act sooner rather than later. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1142, a resolution recognizing May 25, 2008, as National Missing Children's Day. As a parent, I know first hand the fears that we all experience as they relate to the safety of our children. These fears are compounded with the growing use of the Internet by our kids. Now, predators aren't limited by physical barriers, but can enter our homes, schools, and communities without us ever knowing. With more than 800,000 children reported missing each year and 2,000 each day, we can't afford to let any tool go unused. We must recommit ourselves to ensuring that families, schools, neighborhoods, and law enforcement have the resources necessary to ensure the safety and well- being of our Nation's children. Recognizing May 25, 2008, as National Missing Children's Day provides the Nation with this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support our kids and families by passing this resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as we take time to recognize the contributions of more than 900,000 Federal, State and local law enforcement officials who serve this Nation and the more than 18,000 who have lost their lives over the years, I want to express my deep appreciation to the law enforcement officials who keep the residents of the First District of Ohio safe and secure. Each day, police officers put their lives on the line to ensure that our laws are enforced and our communities are safe. Too often their critical work goes overlooked and underappreciated. I would like to thank those who dedicate themselves each day, as well as honor those who have fallen in the line of duty, for their sacrifices and dedication to our families, our communities, and our Nation. I urge my colleagues to recognize the efforts of law enforcement officials in their communities and nationwide by supporting National Police Week and National Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, last month the President signed into law the Second Chance Act authorizing hundreds of millions of dollars to assist offenders transitioning back into our societies. My concern is that this Congress has done little or nothing to prevent future crimes from occurring. With more than 700,000 offenders expected to be released back into our communities next year and the number of people who are entering their so-called high-crime years being at an all time high, conditions are ripe for a perfect storm of crime to hit our communities. In my view, this Congress should act to, among other things, strengthen victims' rights; make restitution something that's real, not just words on paper; crack down on drug dealers who sell death on our streets, and truly protect witnesses so more people will be willing to come forward to testify against gang members who all too frequently virtually control many neighborhoods, especially urban areas and cities across this country. The time to act is now before it's too late.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this motion is really quite simple. It continues the will of Congress, a will dating as far back as 1968 to allow the Delta Queen to operate within the inland waters of the United States. It's an exemption that's been granted by Congress on a number of occasions, eight times to be exact, most recently in 1996. However, unless it is renewed this year, this national treasure will be forced ashore unnecessarily. And unfortunately, an important chapter in our Nation's history will close. For those who may be unfamiliar with the Delta Queen, and this is her right here, and its significance to this Nation, let me give you a brief history of what the Delta Queen is and is not. The Delta Queen is a symbol of our Nation's past serving as the last overnight operational steam paddle wheeler. She represents where we started as a Nation and our trials and tribulations and our progress over the years. The Delta Queen is a registered national historic landmark and is a member of the National Maritime Hall of Fame. She is part of the greatest generation, honorably serving our country during World War II, first as a Navy barracks and later transporting servicemen to and from the Navy shipyards docked in the San Francisco harbor. The Delta Queen provides jobs to American families and is a critical source of revenue for local communities, opening up towns and communities located along the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers such as Ashland, Kentucky; Gallipolis, Ohio; and Clarksville, Indiana, to tourists and allowing mom-and-pop businesses to flourish. Contrary to what some opponents to this motion would have you believe, the Delta Queen is not a safety risk. In fact, the Delta Queen is inspected by the United States Coast Guard more than six times a year and has operated since 1968 without significant incident. Indeed, when Congress first created the inland water exemption from fire retardant regulation, it recognized that vessels such as the Delta Queen would never be more than a short distance from shore, circumstances much different than ocean liners and other vessels that traverse the oceans. House Report 93-289 indicates that an inclusion of this was inadvertent. That's why Congress has granted this exception eight times since 1968. Eight times. Moreover, despite its exemption, the Delta Queen has, and continues to operate, in accordance with the safety notification requirements set forth in section 3503(b) of the United States Code and the Coast Guard. In addition, the Delta Queen has gone above and beyond these requirements, installing state-of-the-art fire and smoke detection and sprinkler systems, as well as mandating fire training for its crew, all of which have been approved by the Coast Guard. Every single stateroom on there has sprinklers within it. In fact, just last month, the owners of the Delta Queen replaced the vessel's boiler at the request of the Coast Guard. And just last month, the Delta Queen was most recently inspected by the Coast Guard and was given a clean bill of health. Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why continuing the Delta Queen's current exemption for an additional 10 years has generated such opposition. In fact, last session, this body unanimously supported this exemption, passing it by a voice vote. Just last year we did this exact thing that I am asking to be done today. Unfortunately, it was stalled over in the Senate. I can only conclude that the opposition that we're seeing is not really about the Delta Queen. It's really about a labor dispute. If this is true, why should the American people be victims, losing access to this national landmark? Why should American jobs be lost? Why should local businesses be literally ruined all because of a labor dispute? I hope that unions do not have that type of influence here in Washington or here in this Congress. Let's put all of the politics aside and do the right thing here, and I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Delta Queen right here. 1926, no major incidence since that entire time. And there is no reason why we shouldn't save this historic ship here. Keep part of our history alive here by supporting this motion. This really ought to be bipartisan, and I urge you to support this motion to recommit.

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, in its current form.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Obviously we are still waiting for Mr. Young to speak. If he gets here, he gets here; if he doesn't, he doesn't. I would like to, first of all, again commend the gentlewoman from New York for her cooperation and once again putting together a bipartisan effort here. And we both agree that both of these programs should be continued and have great value; so I would encourage my colleagues to support it. Without Mr. Young's being here and not having spoken to him ahead of time and knowing exactly what he wanted to talk about, I would guess what he wanted to talk about had to do with the fact that energy is a huge problem in this country and some of it is because we have handcuffed ourselves and we are far too reliant upon foreign sources of energy from the Middle East, from some of the most unstable parts of the world, from Nigeria, from Venezuela. And for that reason, we're seeing gas prices at all-time highs, approximately $3.50 per gallon, and it's hurting an awful lot of our constituents, my constituents in Cincinnati and other members of the driving public all over this country. And one of the principal reasons is we are too reliant upon foreign sources of energy. We also haven't built an oil refinery.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, we have been told we have Don Young, who is on his way here; so we're not prepared to close. But if time runs out, then it runs out.

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for interposing his points of view. But as I was saying, Madam Chairman, I think one of the principal reasons we are seeing these high energy prices is because we are far too reliant upon foreign sources of energy. We have put off-limits an area which is in Mr. Young's State, in Alaska, ANWR. It's an area that not many people go to, although the photographs that you see of it make it look like it's nothing but flowers and animals and that it's a very lovely area, and I'm sure it is lovely in certain parts of the year. But the bottom line is by putting that 16 to 18 billion barrels of oil off-limits, we have to buy more oil from other countries, and that's one of the things that drives up the cost. Another part of considerable oil reserves that we have put off-limits is in the Outer Continental Shelf. Now compared to 16 to 18 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, we have, we think, 83 to 86 billion barrels of oil and huge amounts of natural gas. And as long as we put those areas off-limits, it means we have to buy oil from somewhere else. It puts OPEC in a position where they can turn the spigot down somewhat or not increase it to take care of not only our needs but the needs of a growing environment in India and in China and those areas; so the price goes up as a result of that. The other problem is we haven't built an oil refinery in this country since 1976. We make it virtually impossible for that to happen. We had over 300 oil refineries 30 years ago. We're down to 148, so fewer than half the number of oil refineries. That's another big problem. And I think those are the types of problems that Mr. Young would have in all likelihood spoken about. Madam Chairman, I see that Mr. Young has entered, so I will at this point yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. We have no opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I support the gentlelady's amendment, and I would commend her for looking out for the interest of service-disabled veterans in this country, a group of people who have clearly earned the respect and the gratitude that they are entitled to. Thank you for offering the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentlelady for offering her amendment, and we support it.