Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I do have lots of thoughts on the subject. I'll share just a few of them with my colleagues. And of course we've gotten into discussion now of a philosophical and practical discussion of why tax reform, cutting taxes, first and foremost, and if not doing that, going to a different system. My colleague from Iowa talked about a consumption tax. No more tax on productivity. No more tax on earnings and savings, but on consumption. And I think you've shown very well, the gentleman from Missouri, with his charts, that that grows the revenue. And certainly, the tax cuts of 2001, 2003, under the Bush administration, even though there was a price tag put on that of $1.3 trillion, these cuts in tax rates would result, theoretically, the way we score, in $1.3 trillion less tax, but in dynamic scoring, as you presented in these excellent slides, we've proven that we grow the revenue. But I'm going to tell you, my colleague, let me make this point if I can, and then I'll yield back to you because it is your time. But Mr. Speaker, the thing that strikes me over and over again is, even when we're cutting taxes, even if we are able to pass the RSC bill, the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2009, I truly believe we will grow revenue, once again. But we cannot continue to spend wildly. We desperately, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I think you would agree with me, until we get to the point where we have a balanced budget amendment and we do what the States do--my own State of Georgia right now has a $2 billion shortfall, and our governor is struggling, just like the other 49 States. But the legislature will deal with that and they will tighten their belt, just as we have to do on an individual basis, on a family basis. You know, instead of getting that $40 hair cut every 2 weeks, you get a $20 hair cut every 4 weeks. You tighten that belt. And that's the one thing we have not been able to do up here. We just start writing checks, printing money. And that's, my colleagues were talking about, the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Iowa, a $1 trillion deficit in 1 year? Yeah, that does lead to $13 trillion worth of debt and red ink. And so I think it's important for us to make sure we stay on that issue of, we cannot, no matter what we do with our Tax Code, we cannot continue to spend money. And I don't want to be pejorative to our great sailors, but you know the old expression. We can't keep doing that. We've got to balance our budget.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Of course I will yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Like I said, it's a bizarro world.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. No, indeed, it is an odd concept. And I think that Representative Jordan and Representative Scott Garrett from New Jersey, and, of course, our Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, our conservative Republicans of 75 to 80 strong on this side of the aisle, we have the right idea. I was proud to be a part of their press conference today on talking about this bill, our stimulus bill, talking points. We had a lot of members talking about this, but basically we are talking about the economic recovery and the Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009. Representative Akin, you are familiar with it. We are talking about people getting a tax break at every level, a 5 percent across-the-board at every marginal tax rate, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25, keeping the capital gains at 15 percent.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, I thank my colleagues from Colorado, Missouri, and Ohio, and in a few minutes my colleague from Louisiana, all here on the floor tonight, all here talking about this issue. I agree with Congressman Akin, this is really like almost a bizarro world. I was at the Rules Committee last night listening to Chairman Barney Frank of the Financial Services Committee and Ranking Member Spencer Bachus.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, you mentioned that, I think you had a direct quote back from a couple of years ago, I think that would be the very same person. You know, of course, what Chairman Frank was talking about last night in the Rules Committee in regard to this second tranche of this $800 billion, now, we are not talking about----

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Yes, a tranche, I am learning all kinds of things as we get into this. I guess a tranche is a slice, it's a portion, if you divide something up. Of course, we divided this pie in equal slices of $350 billion. We have already spent $350 billion, and it was targeted toward certain, well, we know, of course, General Motors and Chrysler and GMAC. Indeed, we even made a bank out of them so that they could qualify for the money. It is a bizarro world, and Ranking Member Spencer Bachus, the gentleman from Alabama, said last night at the Rules Committee hearing on this bill, he said, you know, it used to be, in this country, that banks lent money to people. Now, all of a sudden, the people are being asked to lend money to the banks to bail the banks out.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the future of the F-22 will be decided in the coming weeks by the Obama administration. Congress has spoken. The National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2009 passed by Congress and signed by the President contained the funds necessary to continue with F-22 production. However, only a small portion of those funds have been obligated, and thus far, a go/no-go decision on the rest of the funds must be made immediately or the production line will begin shutting down. For the sake of our Nation's air superiority, we must not let this happen. The Air Force is still nearly 200 F-22s short of its stated requirement, a fact that we must not overlook as Russia and China develop Raptor-like technology. Moreover, over 100,000 jobs in our Nation are directly or indirectly tied to this program. For these reasons, nearly 100 of our colleagues have joined Representatives Kay Granger, Norman Dicks, David Scott, and myself in a bipartisan letter to President-elect Obama encouraging continued F-22 production. I encourage all Members to show their support for the continued United States air dominance and keeping the F-22 production line open.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the closed rule, as well as the present form of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009. It goes without saying that I am a strong advocate of the original SCHIP. In my nearly 30 years of being an OB/GYN doctor, I delivered over 5,000 children, and I know how important it is that the Federal Government play a role in providing health care to low-income kids. At the same time, we must pass legislation that first reaches those who are the most in need of assistance, those whose family incomes are between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, the original intent of the bill. But, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, despite the spirit of bipartisanship that both President-elect Obama and Speaker Pelosi have espoused, this bill merely represents business as usual for the Democratic majority. Due to this highly restrictive closed rule, my Republican colleagues and I will not have the opportunity to improve the bill that will affect millions of children across the country and in our districts. I had such an amendment that was not made in order by the Rules Committee. My amendment would have addressed a very important problem with current law that H.R. 2 overlooks, the practice of States, 13 of them, using loopholes to allow people to disregard significant portions of their income to make them eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid as well. At the same time, some of these very States have been ignoring the children who demonstrate the most need for these programs, those between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Madam Speaker, my commonsense amendment would do this, it would institute a gross-income cap of 250 percent of the Federal poverty level for SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility, and it would limit any income disregards to a maximum of $250 a month or $3,000 a year. This amendment would grandfather in those individuals already receiving SCHIP and Medicaid funds so that we do not deprive current beneficiaries of health care. However, we are not going to get the chance, unfortunately, or any other thoughtful amendments that were offered by my Republican and Democratic colleagues, because the Democratic majority leaders wish to contradict the bipartisan spirit that they touted only a week ago. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation. We could have made it better with amendments from both Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, not because of the 4 million children expansion, as my colleague from Georgia on the other side of the aisle, the distinguished Representative John Lewis just said. It's not that; it's that we are expanding beyond the original intent of the bill. And the chairman, Mr. Waxman, said in his remarks, right above the poverty line. Indeed, 200 percent of the Federal poverty level is the intent of the bill, and yet there are States, 13 of them, who are using a gimmick called ``income disregard'' to lower the income of a family so that they become eligible, not only for this program but for Medicaid. That's wrong. That's gaming the system. If you had allowed a modified open rule so that we could have brought amendments to correct that and other things, then I would certainly be very comfortable and enthusiastic in supporting this bill and supporting the expansion. But, no, you wouldn't allow that, so I am going to have to regretfully oppose the bill.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. We had two Members, Madam Speaker, speak this morning on the issue in the Gaza Strip. I tend to agree with my colleague on this side of the aisle, Mr. Poe, and tend to disagree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the Democratic Member, Mr. Kucinich. But I did want to point out something, the analogy between what he said and what happened on the floor of this House yesterday in regard to changing the rules package. Mr. Kucinich said, in regard to the proportionality and Israel's response to Hamas and the Gaza Strip, we ought to abide by the rule of law, rather than the rule of force. Well, I would say the same thing to the Democratic majority in regards to the rules change yesterday. You have a 40-vote margin, and you come in and you change the rules, and all of a sudden you weaken your PAYGO initiative so that you can declare spending an emergency to avoid PAYGO. You said when you took control in the 110th that this business of holding a vote open for 3\1/2\ hours, breaking arms to change a vote, should never occur. You wanted to eliminate that, and now you say that's okay; we can do that. I would say to my Democratic majority, despite those rules changes, for the sake of the American people, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to recognize the need to include all voices in the legislative process.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my former chairman of the Rules Committee, the ranking member from California, and also I want to thank the current chairwoman of the Rules Committee for her courtesy in granting our side an additional 5 minutes. I rise, Madam Speaker, in opposition to the same-day rule, but primarily in opposition to the underlying legislation, H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. This bill gives a bailout. I don't know any other way to put it. You can euphemistically say it is a ``rescue package'' or whatever, but it's a bailout. It is a bailout for one particular industry, albeit a very important industry, lots of jobs. But in my district, the 11th of Georgia, we have a lot of textile manufacturing, and they desperately need help. There was language in the Colombian Free Trade Agreement that helped the textile industry in northwest Georgia. But the Democratic majority, this majority, will not allow that bill, that trade agreement, bilateral trade agreement to pass. And you know why, Madam Speaker? Because Big Labor opposes it. In this situation that we are dealing with now, Big Labor is the entity that gains the most from this, and yet they are the ones that, in my opinion, Madam Speaker, are wrecking the automobile industry in the United States. When their average cost per hour is $77 when the foreign manufacturers that employ the United States productive workers can do it for $45 an hour, there is something wrong with that. The solution to this problem is a structured bankruptcy just like Delta went through in my State of Georgia. It was painful, yes, but they are flying and are regaining profitability. I would trust a bankruptcy judge, a Federal bankruptcy judge under chapter 11, more than I would trust a czarina or czar doing it by the Federal Government. I think clearly that is what they ought to do, restructure under Federal bankruptcy chapter 11, lower those costs, renegotiate those contracts and deal with the creditors to take less than 100 percent of the debt. Then, if it doesn't work, the automobile manufacturers can come back to Congress and ask for some additional help. That would make sense. But right now, the thing for them to do is to restructure under chapter 11. By the way, Madam Speaker, when they do that, management as well as labor needs to take a haircut, a significant haircut, in fact maybe even a flattop or a buzz.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a fellow Georgian, LTC Michael Paulk. Lieutenant Colonel Paulk is retiring after more than 25 years of service in the United States Marine Corps. He was raised in Stone Mountain, Georgia, where he graduated from Tucker High School in 1982 before attending the University of West Georgia. Lieutenant Colonel Paulk has served in a variety of assignments throughout his distinguished career beginning at Parris Island, South Carolina, where he attended basic training in 1983. He then went to his military occupation school, MOS, at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, where he was one of the top candidates at the school, earning the field radio operator MOS. Private First Class Paulk was then assigned to the 4th Forward Area Air Defense Battery, Detachment Alpha, Marietta, Georgia as a field radio operator with 2nd Squad, 1St Platoon, Alpha Company. In 1986, Corporal Paulk was selected to participate in the Platoon Leaders Class and attended Officer Candidate School in Quantico, Virginia. He graduated from the University of West Georgia in Carrollton, Georgia in April 1987, with a bachelor of arts degree in history, and then received a commission as a Marine Corps second lieutenant. From April through November 1987, Lieutenant Colonel Paulk attended the Basic School, graduating in the top third of his class. Upon completion of The Basic School he attended Aviation Maintenance Officer's School in Pensacola, Florida. From May 1988 through June 1999, Lieutenant Colonel Paulk served with Marine All Weather Attack Squadron 533, in Cherry Point, North Carolina, deploying to Norway, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, Guam, and Wake Island. He also served in Marine Aircraft Group 42, in Marietta, Georgia, deploying with Marine Observation Squadron 4 and Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 773 to a multitude of counter- narcotic missions throughout the United States and the Caribbean. Lastly, during this time he also served in the 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, serving as the rotary wing class desk officer and as the executive officer for Headquarters Battalion, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Reserve in New Orleans, Louisiana. In June 2000, Lieutenant Colonel Paulk graduated from the U.S. Naval War College with a master of arts, National Security and Strategic Studies, degree and transferred to U.S. Marine Corps Forces Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia. He served in the Operations and Plans Division overseeing the deployment of marines to Central and South America, as well as to the Caribbean. From April 2002 until May 2008, Lieutenant Colonel Paulk served on recruiting duty in Marietta, Georgia and Quantico, Virginia. During this tour he deployed to Fallujah, Iraq, participating in Operation Al Fajr and supporting Iraq's first free elections. He earned the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement in connection with combat operations while serving as the plans officer and operations officer for the 4th Civil Affairs Group. Lieutenant Colonel Paulk served as a congressional liaison officer with the Office of Legislative Affairs, Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, DC, during his last 8 months of service. In his position, Lieutenant Colonel Paulk carried the Corps' message to these hallowed halls, providing Members of this body the infonnation necessary to determine how best to equip, maintain, and support the United States Marine Corps. Lieutenant Colonel Paulk has made a lasting contribution to the capability of today's Marine Corps' and the future shape of tomorrow's Corps. His superior performance of duties highlights the culmination of more than 25 years of honorable and dedicated Marine Corps service. My home State of Georgia and our country are proud of Lieutenant Colonel Paulk's exemplary professional competence, sound judgment, and total dedication to duty. He has reflected great credit upon himself and has always upheld the highest traditions of the United States Marine Corps. I wish Michael, his wife, April, and their daughters, Mallory and Maggie, all the best in their future endeavors as they return to life together in Georgia.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Rome Area Heritage Foundation, which in 2003 commissioned Georgia artist Suzanne Royal to paint two reproductions of a portrait of First Lady, Ellen Axson Wilson. Mrs. Wilson spent her youth in Rome, Georgia where she met, courted and later married President Woodrow Wilson. Today, she is buried in the town she always considered her home--at historic Myrtle Hill Cemetery in Rome, Georgia, in the heart of the 11th District. The original portrait of the First Lady was a gift from Miss Martha Berry to the citizens of Rome and Floyd County to be permanently displayed in the Carnegie Library, forerunner of today's Rome Floyd County Library. One of the reproductions was donated in 2005 to the State of Georgia to hang in Georgia's Capitol. The second reproduction was donated this week by the Rome Area Heritage Foundation to the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library at the University of Georgia, to become a centerpiece of their permanent collection. As a Georgian who holds such a prominent place in history, it is only right that Mrs. Wilson's portrait hang in the library of our state's flagship public university and I am proud of the efforts of the Rome Area Heritage Foundation to ensure this portrait is preserved and accessible to generations of Georgians to come. This project was researched for the Foundation under the direction of Reverend Warren Jones of Rome, Georgia, and I commend the Foundation, Reverend Jones and the community of Rome for preserving the memory of one of Northwest Georgia's most distinguished citizens--and the only First Lady from Georgia's 11th District.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I rise today at a crucial time in our Nation's history, to address one of the most critical decisions Congress has ever made. Without question, these are challenging times for our country. Citizens everywhere recognize that our economy is in peril. Yet Americans are divided over the solution, and rightfully so. What we do here will have a lasting impact on our Nation now and for future generations, so we have an obligation, not just to get this done quickly, but to get it done right. Honestly, Madam Speaker, I have struggled with and reflected upon this decision more than any other I have made as a Member of Congress. But today, I will be casting a ``no'' vote on this bill. I do so after long, thoughtful, prayerful consideration, and after hearing from constituents on both sides of the issue, those who vehemently oppose this bill, and those who resolutely fear the consequences of inaction. I do believe this legislation will pass today because fortunately, Congress has resolved to do something in a bipartisan way to address this looming financial crisis that has hit Wall Street and will soon, if not already, hit Main Street. While this bill aims to be an answer to the problem, I'm not convinced that it is the best answer. To those who support passage of this bill, I agree with you that something must be done. Inaction is not an option. But I also fear that this bill treats the symptoms without curing the disease that plagues our economy. Conservative Republicans, led by Senator McCain, have fought every step of the way for a meaningful solution that addresses the root of the problem and preserves our free-market principles. Because of their efforts, the economic rescue portion of this bill has been markedly improved since Secretary Paulson first made his request. But it does virtually nothing to assure that this will never occur again on our watch. Madam Speaker, I hope and pray that what may be accomplished here today will ultimately work. But let's not lose sight of the fact that, no matter the outcome today, our work is not finished. Republicans and Democrats must come together and address the underlying causes of this economic turmoil. Wall Street and Washington, as well as individuals, must take responsibility for their actions. The American people demand accountability, and they deserve nothing less from us.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 654 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1503, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 655 on H. Res. 1503, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 656 on H.R. 4120, the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 657 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1507, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 658 on H. Res. 1507, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 659 on S. 1046, the Senior Professional Performance Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is such a strong voice on energy policy that we think this country ought to be pursuing. I didn't hear the first few minutes of the hour, Mr. Speaker, but clearly we on this side of the aisle were most disappointed last week. We, as you know, spent a lot of time during the August recess, I think 134 of us, some several days, some one or two days, but came back from our break, if you will, to try to address the people who were here during August visiting the Nation's Capitol, the people's House. It was a most enjoyable time. We talked to the American people. They came down and sat in these chairs that we occupy. They got to see where we voted. They weren't just up in the gallery. Because we were Members and we were not in session, we were permitted to bring, to escort people into the Chamber. And on many days the Chamber was almost full. It was almost like a day of voting on an important issue for us. I think they enjoyed it. Many of these people were Republicans, many were Democrats, some probably Independents. We weren't overly political. We just tried to make the point that to solve this problem, we really do need a comprehensive approach. Some may, and I have heard some on the Democrat side of the aisle say that we are Johnny one note. All we can talk about is drill, drill, drill. Drill, baby, drill. Drill here, drill now, and low prices. While that has been the cornerstone of the American Energy Act, the All-of- the-Above Act, it certainly isn't the only thing in that act. There are so many provisions, not the least of which is conservation, and to foster and pay for research and development for fuels, alternative energy sources such as the sun and the wind, to continue research and development on taking this abundant supply of coal that we have in this country, and everybody knows what coal looks like. When you mine it, it is in a solid form. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I read recently that in the United States of America there are 1.4 trillion tons of known coal resources and maybe twice that much. But if it is limited to 1.4 trillion tons, I think we burn, generating electricity mainly in this country, about 20 billion tons a year. So we may well have 150 years worth of coal to produce electricity. So this research and development to take that coal, that rock that we all know, to convert it into gas, gasification, just methane gas, natural gas, or to liquefy it and basically turn it into petroleum and diesel fuel. So we have the capability of doing that. We have something like 1.5 trillion barrels or at least 900 billion, but I think the closer estimate is 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum that is embedded in a rock, not coal, but in a way you can think of it as coal, in the Rocky Mountain States. There are three or four States, Colorado being one of them, and this rock can be mined just like coal or anything else, copper ore, anything that we mine, and we can extract that petroleum from this rock. You can almost think of a sponge that was fully soaked, saturated with water, and you just kind of squeeze out the water. It is a little more complicated than that and it is going to take some more research and development, but the Democratic majority in their Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 put a provision in the bill that said you couldn't use that. That no agency of the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force which uses all of that jet fuel, they couldn't enter into a contract because the mining or production, burning of that alternative fuel would result in one little scintilla increase in carbon dioxide emission. We hear, and I will yield back to my colleague in just a second, but I want to make this point. When this 110th Congress convened in January of 2007, the first witness we had in the Science Committee, and this was kind of unprecedented, was none other than the Speaker of the House. We were thrilled. That was an honor. The Speaker of the House was going to be the one witness at the Science Committee talking about global warming. And several weeks later our second witness was former Vice President Al Gore who had just gotten an Oscar for the documentary film ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' I think was the name of it, again in regard to global warming. Well, the price of gasoline at the pump at that time was maybe $2.50 a gallon or a little less than that, $2.33 a gallon. And it was clear that Madam Speaker's passion, and she said it later, and she said it recently, her passion was to save the Earth in regard to global warming and carbon capture and all of that. And of course Vice President Gore, the same thing. And I could understand their passion. I didn't necessarily agree with all of the scientists, the U.N. committee that had those five different reports on global warming and what we should do about it, capping trade and whether or not these were just sort of natural cycles and phases of the sun. And you have little ice ages and warm ages and that sort of thing. But even giving them the benefit of the doubt, and we are talking about some very bright scientists, that that is a priority maybe when gasoline is $2, $2.25 a gallon. But when it's $4 a gallon, and crude oil, light sweet crude is $140 a barrel, that cannot be the number one priority of this country, when we're on the verge of going bankrupt. We literally, I really say, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my colleagues would agree with me, but I truly believe that what we're facing now in the financial markets, it all started with this dependency on foreign sources and being at the--they almost have a gun at our head in regard to this. So the number one priority, at least from this side of the aisle, is to have a comprehensive energy plan, lower these prices and become totally independent. It doesn't mean that we will not continue to buy fossil fuel from foreign sources, but at least we wouldn't have to. And so that's why we're here tonight, to talk about that. I want to thank my colleagues for letting me speak maybe a little longer than they had anticipated I would. But the gentlewoman from Minnesota is here tonight, Mrs. Bachmann, and she's been here so much over the last 2 months talking about this issue, as has Congressman Latta from Ohio. So at this point I yield back to my colleagues, and I thank you for letting me participate.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I risk in strong support of S. 2606, the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008. This legislation reauthorizes the United States Fire Administration (USFA) for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 for the agency's activities in training, fire education and awareness, data collection, research, and standards development and promotion. S. 2606 provides $291 million in federal funds over this 5-year period, which is consistent with previously authorized levels and allows only for a modest growth in funding, capped at 3 percent in any of the fiscal years covered by this bill. The mission of USFA is to limit economic and life loss ``due to fire and related emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, coordination and support.'' This organization provides vital assistance in the areas of training, fire education and awareness, and awards grants to a number of local fire departments across the country. Since its inception in 1974, USFA has trained over 1 million firefighters through local delivery courses as well as through the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. USFA has provided support critical to reducing deaths and injuries in the U.S. from fire by 25 percent between 1996 and 2006. S. 2606 is the Senate companion bill to H.R. 4847, which the House passed on April 3rd of this year by a vote of 412-0. The Senate bill includes the same authorization amounts and makes minor modifications to the House-passed version that only further improve the legislation. I am proud to say that this legislation has been crafted in both a bipartisan and bicameral way--with community stakeholders--to ensure that it meets the needs of our firefighting community. I commend my colleagues on the Science Committee in particular Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall and Mr. Mitchell of Arizona, who is the lead sponsor of the House-passed bill--for their diligence in bringing this important legislation to the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, S. 2606 authorizes USFA to continue its current operations and expand training and research in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill will provide firefighter training to over 80,000 firefighters per year and facilitate the delivery of education and training programs to firefighters through local training efforts. S. 2606 also aids research into techniques, systems, and equipment to improve fire prevention and control in sparsely developed communities that have been particularly hard hit by fire in the past few years. This legislation also specifically addresses the issue of fighting fires in an urban-wildland interface--like the wildfires we saw last year in Southern California--by implementing methods to better respond and prepare for fires that move from wildlands to suburban and urban areas. As a physician, I am particularly pleased that S. 2606 includes language I offered in the Science Committee to improve emergency medical care by facilitating USFA's coordination with other groups as well as its ability to disseminate information on best-practices for EMS operations and management. Firefighters are called upon to extract victims from car crashes, building fires or collapses, and all other emergencies. It is critical that patients receive consistent care under medical direction. While I do not expect USFA to pursue studies into the medical care EMS patients should receive, I believe that this language in S. 2606 will give the Administrator the authority and flexibility to conduct studies into training, system design, and on-scene patient management. This will allow the Administrator to work with appropriate federal agencies and existing medical services in these local communities. Mr. Speaker, it has been a great honor to work with the men and women of our Nation's fire services--including the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council--on this important legislation. The United States Fire Administration is a vital link to these first responders and this agency has made substantial contributions to improving fire services throughout the country. S. 2606 will ensure that USFA remains vibrant and productive in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support and thoughtful contributions to this bill. I urge passage of S. 2606 that will enable the USFA to continue its record of achievement as well as prepare firefighters for the challenges they will face in the future.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. And it indeed is scary. And with that, Mr. Speaker, we'll yield back. We don't have any time to yield back. We'll just shut up. Thank you very much, and we'll say good night from this side.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I think, and I want to thank you for your contribution tonight because I think you said the key word when you said transition. And we are going to transition. And I think that, you know, 50, 75, 100 years from now we may not be burning much fossil fuel. But you can't do that overnight. You can't, all of a sudden say we're going to, by 2020 we're not going to burn any fossil fuel. Coal is fossil fuel. Petroleum products, diesel fuel, gasoline. We would have no transportation and we have no electricity. We'd be back using kerosene lanterns and bicycles and skateboards, I guess, to get around in this country. Well, Dr. Boustany, thank you so much. I had a few more remarks to make as we concluded. I think we have, Mr. Speaker, do we have about 10 minutes left?

Mr. GINGREY. Six minutes. Well, I would rather yield to my friend from Texas than to use any concluding remarks, because I'll tell you, this gentleman from east Texas, again, knows of what he talks about. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is located in Congressman Boustany's State of Louisiana and Congressman Gohmert's State of Texas. So he's been working very hard on this issue. And I want to yield at least 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I just want to thank my colleague. And of course, we're both physicians, Dr. Boustany, a cardiothoracic surgeon, myself, an OB/GYN doctor for many years before we had the distinct honor of getting elected to the Congress and working in the people's House and representing the folks we represent. And I, again, Charles, I think about this a lot of times, when I started the hour talking about how our leadership, Ms. Pelosi, Speaker Pelosi, Representative, I mean Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader Harry Reid, former Vice President Al Gore and others were so focused on saving the planet and global warming and climate change. And I understand there's some concerns there, and I'm not oblivious, although all scientists don't agree with that. But, you know, it does really become a matter of priority. And you and I, as physicians understand that people literally without a job, without a home, without a warm set of clothing, they can starve to death. They can die a lot quicker from that than they can over maybe a 75- to 100-year period time from inhaling a little bit of an environment that's not healthy for their lungs. So we care about it. We care about childhood asthma. We care about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema and lung cancer and all those things. But it becomes, really, a matter for leadership of the Congress to make these decisions and place priorities on things. We don't want the planet to increase 1\1/2\ degrees Fahrenheit over the next 75 years because there may be a scintilla rise in the level of the water and some remote island may get flooded and 50 people lose their lives. Now, I understand all that science. But right now what I really understand, and I think you do too, is the job loss, the unemployment rate, the economy, these wild gyrations that are occurring in the stock market, the food prices, the oil prices. This is the crisis of the day, the crisis du jour, and I think real leadership should recognize that, don't you, Dr. Boustany?

Mr. GINGREY. That is exactly right. I think you used the key word, and that is ``transition.'' We are talking about transition. It is just that some people want to transition just a little too quickly. I wish you would speak a little bit and reference this slide that I am showing right now in regard to the revenue-sharing issue. This goes back to the Energy Security Act of 2006 regarding the gulf coast States and the energy sharing. And I know that you have talked with me and other Members of the conference about what Louisiana does with that revenue sharing and how important it is to the State. As I close out, I will talk about this ``NOTA'' energy bill. I like to call it a ``nota,'' none-of-the-above act that we passed this week, and one of the key problems was the lack of any revenue sharing for the States on the east and west coast. If you don't mind addressing that, I appreciate it.

Mr. GINGREY. I'll reclaim my time, Representative Gohmert, just for a second and yield right back to you, because what the gentleman from Texas is talking about, of course, is this, the bill that was passed by the Democratic majority. And I have a little poster up here comparing the Republican bill, the American Energy Act, to the bill that was actually passed. And I just want to quickly run through this before I yield back to my two colleagues. In the American Energy Act, real offshore exploration, yes. Democratic energy plan, no. Renewables, without tax hikes, our bill, yes. Their bill, no. Real oil shale exploration. I won't get into details of that, but our bill, yes. Their bill, no. Arctic coastal plain, the ANWR. Our bill, go after that petroleum. Their bill, nada. Emission-free nuclear, our bill, yes, their bill, no, no, no, can't have nuclear. Clean coal technology, coal-to-liquid or coal-to-gas. Yes in our bill. No in their bill. New refinery capacity, Dr. Boustany and I talked about that. Our bill, yes. Their bill, no. No energy tax hikes, yes for Republicans, no for Democrats. No electricity price spikes. Yes for Republicans, no for Democrats. Lawsuit reform, yes in the Republican bill. No in the Democratic bill. So what Representative Gohmert and Representative Boustany are probably going to talk about now is when we had one, we had no amendments. We had a motion to recommit with instructions with a bill. And they've just referred to it, the Abercrombie, Democrat from Hawaii, Peterson, Republican from Pennsylvania that had 39 Democrats cosponsoring the bill. And when we offered that as a substitute, which we felt that each one of them, they had already signed on to the bill, surely they were going to vote for it. And I'd like for my colleagues to tell the rest of us what happened.

Mr. GINGREY. So the refined products?