Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague for yielding. I just want to refer back to the statement the gentleman from Michigan just made in regard to the 22 million acres in Alaska that you could now drill on, yet our Democratic colleagues, our friends, are denying the opportunity to drill on 2,000 acres--not 22 million--2,000 acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and to obtain an equal amount, an equal amount of petroleum from that area without harming the environment. It makes no sense to destroy 22 million acres for the same amount of oil that you could get out of 2,000. But that's another subject, and I look forward as well to later in the hour, when the gentleman is going to talk about hedging and speculation and, in his opinion, what effect that has on the price of petroleum that we're paying. The gentleman from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, was talking earlier in his opening comments about the fact that drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, which we had been prohibited from doing--thank God the President lifted that Presidential moratorium, and now the only thing that is holding us back from going after those 20 billion barrels of petroleum and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas is inaction on the part of this Congress. Now, earlier the discussion was about this use it or lose it. The gentleman from West Virginia talked about that a lot and said, well, you know, you've got these 68 million acres leased from the Bureau of Land Management--by the way, that's out of 750 million acres under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. These oil companies, my colleagues, they pay for those leases, they're not free. And so they're kind of betting on the come, they're hoping that their geologists will then tell them that, yes, indeed, there is a certain amount of oil in that area of land that they have leased. And if it's true, then they're going to go after it. If there is no oil there or if there is an insufficient amount of oil there and it's not going to be productive to spend that kind of money for a little amount of oil, then maybe they will sit on those leases. And I would think that they would probably gladly yield it back to the Federal Government--especially if they got a refund on their money, they probably wouldn't. But these same people that realize that right off the Outer Continental Shelf, whether it's the eastern seaboard or the Atlantic or the Pacific or the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico where there are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of petroleum, that's the leases that they want, that's the leases that they need. And it just is beyond my comprehension to understand why the leader of this House, Speaker Pelosi, would say that is a nonstarter. Now, we could stand here on the Republican side of the aisle and say to the gentleman from Michigan and others who are concerned about noncommercial speculators and what effect that might have on the price of a barrel of petroleum, we could say, well, you know, for us that's a nonstarter; or you're interfering with the free market. Are you going to do the same thing with pork bellies and wheat and corn and all these other things that are traded on the commodities market and regulated by NYMEX? Are you going to force them offshore by overregulating and interfering with the natural flow of market? So, you know, we have concerns about that. But I don't think that our side of the aisle has said, my colleagues, that that's a nonstarter, that we won't even discuss that. And yet your leadership, Ms. Pelosi, the majority leader of the Senate, Mr. Reid, has said drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, where we know there are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil, is a nonstarter. I think that's just totally wrong, that the American people don't want that. They want bipartisanship like we're having here tonight in this discussion, this colloquy between the two sides. And I think we can and should get together.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, reclaiming my time from the chairman--and I don't disagree with his last statement, it will certainly require a comprehensive approach; there is no doubt about that. But the gentleman from West Virginia has said repeatedly tonight that opening up these reserves, whether it's the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, where we estimate that 1.5 million barrels a day increased production, increased domestic production--I mentioned the numbers for the Outer Continental Shelf in regard to natural gas and petroleum, and your response, your statement earlier was that, well, if you did that tomorrow, if you started that tomorrow, it would be 2030--I think you used that date--before any production of oil would be seen, and therefore, that's not going to solve the problem. Yet your colleague from Michigan is going to tell us in a little while how important it is to rein in these noncommercial speculators because just the anticipation causes the price of oil to go up or down. And what I want to say to my colleagues is that it might take 5 years, 10 years, possibly 15 years, depending on where you're going after the source. Certainly, mining shale out in the west, where we could get 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum, may take a while. But just the fact that we're doing these things in a comprehensive way and we're increasing the domestic supply, I will almost guarantee you that overnight the price of a barrel of crude would drop by 20 percent.

Mr. GINGREY. I would be glad to yield to the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I want to ask my colleagues if they would yield on another point the gentleman from Connecticut made, and that is, again, in regard to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Now it's my understanding that in that reserve we currently have about 750 million barrels. Is that what my colleagues agree on? And what would you suggest should be the release? How much of that 750 million barrels would you suggest? And as my colleague from Texas points out, we would have to change the law. That would be something that we could enact by legislation here in Congress. How much of that oil would you release?

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for literally months now, House Republicans have come to the floor in a concerted effort to convince Democratic leadership to bring legislation to the floor that would allow us to drill here and drill now so we can all pay less at the pump. But even as we offered practical energy solutions and a willingness to work with the majority, Speaker Pelosi has continually blocked such legislation from coming for a vote here in the House, and we are not the only ones who have noticed it. Mr. Speaker, here is a headline from today's Roll Call newspaper. Here is what it says: ``Pelosi maneuvers to block drilling votes. Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears intent on preventing votes on opening more areas to offshore drilling, despite the stirrings of a revolt by rank- and-file Democrats after months of concerted efforts by House Republicans.'' This was in Roll Call today, Monday, July 14, 2008. As this article notes, we are starting to hear some rumblings from Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who are ready to put partisan politics aside and work with Republicans on compromise legislation that will start to decrease our pain at the pump. Increasing numbers of rank-and-file Democrats seem to have grown tired of their leadership's failure to allow votes on legislation that will break our dependence on foreign oil. Mr. Speaker, I want to show a couple of posters here and some quotes. The first quote, ``Americans need Congress to look at real solutions in addressing our energy needs, especially when we have $4 a gallon gasoline. We need answers and not just slogans. We need to do it all. We have Senators going to Saudi Arabia begging them to increase their production, but we won't increase ours in some of the most, potential, productive areas?'' That was a quote from a floor remark made June 26, 2008, by Mr. Gene Green of Texas. Here is another one. Another quote, ``Then we better get started, because the longer we delay, the more we're jeopardizing the American economy.'' That quote came from Representative Neil Abercrombie, the gentleman from Hawaii, on Fox News on July 7 of this year, a member, Neil Abercrombie, of the Natural Resources Committee. Many Members on both sides of the aisle understand that there is not one single solution to our current energy crisis, and that we must work in a bipartisan way to develop a comprehensive plan to alleviate the pain that American families face every time they fill their gas pumps. I want to commend the leadership of Representative John Peterson of Pennsylvania, and, as I said, Representative Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii. They are now heading up a working group to form legislation that incorporates long-term energy solutions while also providing short-term relief for Americans who are now, today, paying $4.11 a gallon of gas. This bipartisan approach is what we need to find a solution. House Republicans stand ready to find a middle way that not only guarantees an increase in domestic production, but it also addresses concerns about excessive speculation. While House Republicans are prepared for a comprehensive approach that looks not only at supply but also market factors, Speaker Pelosi must be willing to, at the very least, allow an up or down vote on increasing domestic supply. She must recognize that the American people don't want any option left off the table. As further indication that we need to increase the domestic supply of oil, President Bush today lifted the 18 year-old executive order that prohibited responsible energy exploration along our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf. Let me show my colleagues that poster. Here is the quote, ``In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.'' This was from the Associated Press today. This decision leaves Congress as the last remaining hurdle to domestically producing billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas for the American people. Allowing our Nation to explore the energy resources available off of our coast would be a great first step toward declaring America's energy independence. We need to have a comprehensive approach, and I hope Members on both sides of the aisle recognize that, and we need action now. Unfortunately, sound energy policy is being held hostage by Speaker Nancy Pelosi because she believes that it is more important to pander to out-of-control environmentalists than to enact a ``common-sense plan'' to lower gas prices--as she promised to the American people over 2 years ago. Mr. Speaker, as American families and small businesses face record prices at the pump, they are counting on their leaders in Congress to work together on reforms to help reduce fuel costs. I call on Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership to listen to House Republicans, a growing coalition of House Democrats and most importantly the American people--allow a vote on legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this resolution, H. Res. 1315, honoring NASA on its 50th anniversary. As an original cosponsor of this resolution, I'd like to commend my colleagues from the Science Committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lampson, the ranking member, Mr. McCaul of Texas, for introducing the thoughtful resolution commemorating NASA on this important milestone for our country. Mr. Speaker, over the years, NASA has not only been the leader in human space exploration, but has successfully used technological capabilities like, as mentioned by my colleagues, the Hubble Telescope and GPS systems. I anticipate the men and women of NASA, they will continue being the true leaders and innovators in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, as we speak today, NASA is undergoing aggressive research to convert domestic energy sources, coal, natural gas, biomass, oil shale, into cleaner and more economical alternatives to traditional jet fuel. Now, why is that important? It's important, Mr. Speaker, because in the year 2003, the NASA agency spent $4.5 million on their jet fuel, 4.6 million gallons. In 2007, 4 years later, they spent $18.3 million. So they're doing this research in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the United States Air Force to try to find alternative sources of fuel to lower the costs to the government. And everybody in this chamber, everybody in this Nation, knows that we are suffering tremendously from a lack of supply and a tremendous demand, and that's why we're paying $4.11 a gallon for regular gasoline. We can solve this problem, but there's one little glitch, and that's the Democrat Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which absolutely prohibits NASA and the Department of Defense from utilizing any petroleum source other than conventional petroleum if it's not as clean. Well, in times like these, when the country's on the verge of bankruptcy, I think the first priority, Mr. Speaker, should be to lower the price of gasoline, and let NASA continue to research so that we can make the conversion of shale which has something like 1.3 trillion barrels of petroleum embedded in that rock and that we can convert coal to liquid, to petroleum. We have 1.5 trillion tons of coal in this country, and we only use about 1 billion tons a year. We have a tremendous excess amount of coal right here in River City, and yet, this energy bill the Democrats passed last year prohibits us from going after this source, increasing the supply so that the price of gasoline at the pump goes down. And I would implore my colleagues to bring these bills to the floor. They're over there. There's a discharge petition. Republicans have signed them, just a handful of Democrats. We need to bring these issues to the floor, have an up-or-down vote. At least give NASA and the Department of Defense a waiver of section 526 so that we can solve this problem and we're not so dependent on these foreign Nations that hate our guts, countries such as Venezuela and countries in the Middle East. It's time to act. I commend the committee for bringing this resolution. It's a great resolution honoring NASA on its 50th anniversary. I support it fully, but I also support a balanced approach to solving our energy needs. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1315 honoring NASA on its 50th anniversary. As an original cosponsor of this resolution, I would like to commend my colleague from the Science Committee, Mr. McCaul of Texas, for introducing this thoughtful resolution to commemorate NASA on this important milestone for our country. Mr. Speaker, there is no Federal agency that has risen to the challenge of innovation over the last 50 years like NASA. We, as a nation, are today the fortunate heirs of NASA's legacy: conviction, resolve, achievement. When the Soviets put a man into orbit, NASA was challenged by President Kennedy--in the truest form of the American competitive spirit--to put men on the moon. Many of our NASA pioneers paved the way for the crew of Apollo 11--Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins--to reach that once unattainable goal. Now, those famous words, ``One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind'' exemplify the legacy that NASA has established. Over the years, NASA has not only been the leader in human space exploration, but has successfully used technological capabilities like the Hubble Telescope to explore the far reaches of our galaxy. Given the precedent of achievement that NASA has set, I anticipate the men and women of NASA to continue being among the true leaders and innovators in the years to come. While this resolution represents a time for us to celebrate the achievements of NASA over the past 50 years, this is also a time to reflect and memorialize those who gave their lives in their service to NASA and the Nation--particularly the crews of Apollo 1 in 1967, the Challenger in 1986, and the Columbia in 2003. The sacrifices that these men and women made in the service of our country will always remind us of the fragile nature of human life, and the risks associated with successes that NASA has accomplished. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to take this time to think about the impact and legacy that NASA has left our great Nation over the last 50 years, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 1315.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my good friend and colleague from Georgia yielding, and I appreciate his taking the time and leading the time tonight to continue to talk about what I consider and what my constituents in the 11th district of Georgia, Northwest Georgia, feel is the most important, the single most important issue facing our Nation and, for that matter, political issue as well as we move toward these November elections. People in my district told me on Monday, just yesterday, at a town hall meeting in Bartow County, Cartersville, Georgia, a great part of my district--a town hall meeting, Mr. Speaker, as you know, they are not partisan. You don't just invite Democrats or Republicans. You invite your constituents. And we probably had 50 people there. And I don't know if it was an equal mix. I guess since I won my election last time with 71 percent of the vote, it probably wasn't an equal mix, but there were some very bright young Democratic folks there who probably in November won't vote for me. But we had a great discussion about this issue and just what Congressman Westmoreland is talking about in regard to the need to come up with a solution and not continue to play politics over this. I have a couple of posters, if my colleagues will bear with me. I want you to take a test, one of these tests that I always loved taking in high school and college and even medical school, a multiple choice question. Sometimes you can guess. But I'm going to hold up this slide for my colleagues and ask them this question. And I appreciate my good friend from Illinois for helping me do this. Question: How do we bring down the price of oil? A pretty simple, straightforward question. Well, it's multiple choice. A, open up oil exploration in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. ANWR, of course, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. That would be one of the choices. B, build new oil refineries. That might be a pretty good choice. We haven't made it in the last 25 years, unfortunately. All the oil refineries in the United States, unfortunately, are down along the gulf coast, and we know all too well how dangerous a situation that is, especially as we are coming into what could be a rather horrific hurricane season. Maybe choice C, commercially develop renewable energy. Now, we are talking about wind and solar, two perfect examples of renewable energy. In this country our electricity grid, we generate about 1 to 2 percent of our power from those renewable sources. We can do better. I absolutely think we can do better when countries like Germany probably are producing 30 percent of their energy from renewables. Well, maybe you would pick, let's see, D, if my colleagues could again refer to this slide, commission new nuclear power plants. I think since the mid 1970s, we have not commissioned a new nuclear power plant. I used to work in one as a co-op student in Barnwell, South Carolina, when I was attending Georgia Tech. Clean, efficient, safe, a great source of energy. Maybe when the price of gasoline was $1.50 a gallon, you might say, well, it's too expensive to start a nuclear power plant; but when it's $4.10 a gallon, I think it's time to consider strongly nuclear power. That could be a good choice as the perfect answer to this question, How do we bring down the price of oil? France, I believe, if I am not mistaken, and my colleagues can correct me if I'm wrong, I think, produces about 80 percent of their energy from nuclear power, as do some of the Scandinavian countries, and I have been there and I have visited. Let's see. How about choice number E, promote conservation? I think a lot of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the American people would agree we ought to conserve. We are 300 million people, and a world population of 6 billion. If my math is correct, and I took six quarters of calculus at Georgia Tech, that is not 25 percent of the world population, but we are using 25 percent of the world production of fossil fuel. That is too much. And we need to bring it down, and we can do that. I think maybe that would be a good choice. Finally, Mr. Speaker, choice number F. That says: All of the above. I won't keep you in suspense too much longer as we move to my second and last slide. The answer clearly is F, all of the above. We have got a few pictures here kind of pointing that out. Oil and natural gas off of the Outer Continental Shelf, including the Gulf of Mexico, the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico, where we are prohibited from drilling, where there are literally trillions of barrels, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil when you add that eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of our country. But the picture shows it all; nuclear power, wind and solar, drilling, of course, in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, which is a tiny portion, 2,000 acres out of 19 million, as depicted here in this corner of Alaska. So this is basically, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate very much Mr. Westmoreland letting me develop this point of argument that people in my district clearly yesterday let me know that this is what they want. They want a balanced approach, and all of the above is what we need to do. That is exactly what Mr. Westmoreland has been saying, and my colleagues, repeatedly. We are ready, Mr. Speaker, and I turn to my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, the majority, who has the ability, the power. They can control everything that comes to this floor. And it's time to worry less about monkey bites and more about the people of this country suffering. I think Mr. Westmoreland earlier used the expression: Let my oil and gas flow. It made me think a little bit biblical. I don't want to get too biblical because I will get out of my lane in a hurry, Mr. Speaker. But it's like Moses said to Pharaoh: Let my people go. Moses wouldn't do it, he wouldn't do it. He promised time after time. He kept reneging, even though his own people were suffering tremendously. I don't know what he was betting on back there many thousands of years ago, but he was wrong. He finally did let the people go. I don't know what game, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority is playing. I don't understand it. If they look at the polls, if that is the way they are making their decisions on legislation, people, Democrats, Republicans, independents by a wide majority want a solution. They want a comprehensive approach. We are ready. We are reaching out. We are literally begging. That is why we are here tonight, saying to our colleagues on both sides of the aisles, Let's get this done. Let's get it done ASAP, and that means as soon as possible, before we leave this town at the end of July and walk away from here for a month's break. Shame on us if we don't get this done. I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I think the gentleman was referring to the Exxon Valdez tanker.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, that situation I think needs to be answered. A lot of people say, well, we don't want to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf, the coast of California, because we may contaminate the San Francisco Bay. As the gentleman from Illinois pointed out, and I will yield back quickly, even during the hurricanes, when these oil rigs were blown over, not one drop of oil was spilled. But this tanker that was coming from the Middle East with hundreds of thousands of gallons of petroleum, it cracks up and that is where you get the spills. That is why I would say to the environmentalists, help us solve that problem, so we don't have to import all this raw petroleum from other countries.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding. I also, Mr. Speaker, want to thank my good friend from Illinois, Representative Davis, for the kind words that he just expressed toward Sergeant Paul Saylor and for allowing this bill to come forward today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6092, a bill that I introduced to honor the life of Paul Anthony Saylor by designating the post office in Bremen, Georgia, in Haralson County, as the Sergeant Paul Saylor Post Office. Mr. Speaker, thankfully we are at a point today where the Iraqi Government is proving to be more and more capable of securing its country and where al Qaeda terrorists are on the verge of being completely routed. But we can all agree that the road on which we have traveled has been anything but smooth. Indeed, we have lost 4,166 of our Nation's greatest treasures in Iraq, the lives of the patriotic, heroic men and women who have served there. They are not just statistics, Mr. Speaker. There is a story behind each and every one of the brave men and women who have died serving our country in this global war on terror. I have come to know Paul's story very well over the last 3 years. You have heard the stories of other fallen heroes today who are being honored in the same way. Paul Saylor's story is indeed one of courage, kindness, generosity, and devotion to his family and to his great country. Paul was a beloved son to his parents, Jamie and Patti; a beloved brother to Little Jamie, his big brother; and a beloved nephew to Linda Kirkland. He enjoyed playing high school football with his older brother, and was known for his smile and his caring heart. My colleagues, I want you to look at Paul Saylor in this poster. He is, indeed, a kind young man. Since Paul's death, many have spoken of his penchant for standing up for others who were being bullied, for picking people up when they were down. It is a testament to the affection that others had for Paul that of the 5,000 citizens of Bremen, Georgia, his hometown, over 1,500 attended his funeral. Mr. Speaker, it was Paul's sense of duty that led him to join the Georgia National Guard following his attendance at North Georgia College and State University. Upon joining, Paul probably had no idea he would be called upon to defend his country and our freedom in Iraq, but when he was, he bravely answered that call. He served our Nation in Iraq as a member of the Georgia National Guard's 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. Paul lost his life on August 15, 2005, almost 3 years ago, while on patrol in Al Mahmudiyah, Iraq, when the vehicle in which he was traveling rolled down an embankment into a canal. He and two of his fellow scout team members died that day. Paul was 21 years old. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, upon being returned to his family, Paul's remains were in a state of advanced decomposition and they were not able to see him that one last time for the final good-bye. His family has worked tirelessly since then to assure that the improved treatment of the remains of all fallen soldiers would ensure that no family, no family would ever have to experience a similar fate of not being able to view their son or daughter one last time. As I worked with Paul's family to address any potential shortfalls in our mortuary process, I have visited the mortuary facility at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, as well as Mortuary Affairs Collection Point in Iraq, exactly where Paul fell, to try to evaluate the current processes and the procedures and identify any areas where improvements could be made. And those efforts led eventually to the inclusion of a provision last year in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 requiring that all medical personnel be thoroughly trained not only in saving lives but also in remains preservation before they are deployed into the theater. This training is currently being carried out in the medical training facilities at Fort Sam Houston and the Brook Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. On a recent visit last month, I was able to determine that the Army is solemnly carrying out this duty, and I am proud to report that to my colleagues. While we could never do enough to support and honor Paul's sacrifice, it is the least we can do to ensure that we honor the remains of our fallen heroes with the dignity and respect that they deserve. Our Nation will be forever indebted to Sergeant Paul Saylor. I know he is here with us today, and I would like to say to him, Thank you, Paul. Thank you for your service. And I want to thank his family. Paul, your spirit lives on, and you will never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me today in honoring Sergeant Paul Saylor. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6092.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time. I wanted to, first off, say that I am a very proud cosponsor of the legislation introduced by Mr. Hensarling from Texas and by Mr. Conaway also from Texas, H.R. 5656, which he referred to at the outset of this hour. I want to talk specifically about that particular bill because it's so important, but before I get into the discussion about 5656, I want to make sure that we put it into perspective in regard to the discussion tonight. We first heard from our colleague from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, who was talking for 5 minutes about the issue of supply and demand. She was saying that that is a basic economic principle, and I think we all know that. As she pointed out, Mr. Speaker, our Democratic colleagues cannot legislate away the basic principle of supply and demand. So what we're talking about and will talk about during this hour is, I guess, the opportunity lost if we continue this folly of not going after petroleum products in our own country. We call it and we refer to it, of course, as domestic production. A lot of the focus is on ANWR-- that frozen tundra on the North Slope of Alaska, that very small area where we know, as the geologists have already told us, there are something like 10 billion barrels of petroleum. At full production, we would be producing 1.5 million barrels of additional domestic oil every day from that one source. That is a small amount compared to what is available if we were not handcuffing ourselves off of our coasts--off both our east coast and our west coast--and off the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico in what is known as OCS, or the Outer Continental Shelf. There are literally trillions of cubic feet of natural gas there which is part of our, the United States', territorial waters on the Outer Continental Shelf for which we could be drilling. There are tens of billions of gallons of petroleum. Yet the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, continues to prohibit, continues a moratorium which has existed since, I think, maybe, back to 1990. Today, what we're talking about, of course, is the price of a gallon of regular gasoline. In the year and a half since the Democrats assumed the majority of not only this House but also the majority of the United States Senate, the price of a gallon of gasoline has gone from $2.60 to $4.08. Mr. Hensarling, of course, pointed that out very well at the beginning of this hour. I want to ask my colleagues to just take a look at this one poster that I want to show you. I think it's very important. I think it's very instructive. This basically is the courtesy of Representative John Peterson from Pennsylvania, who is retiring this year. He is a great Republican Member of this body who has spoken so well on this issue of giving us the opportunity to go after that natural gas and oil in the Outer Continental Shelf off of our coastline. On this poster, it shows here that, off the Pacific coast, the amount of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf is 10 billion barrels. The amount of natural gas is estimated to be 18 trillion cubic feet. That's off the Pacific coast. Off of the Atlantic coast, the amount of oil is 2.3 billion barrels, and the amount of gas is 28 trillion cubic feet. The eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico is also off limits: Oil, 3.58 billions of gallons. Natural gas, 12 trillion cubic feet. Mr. Speaker, that's bad enough, but now lets get to 526. I want to just take a little time before I yield back to my colleagues, who are the real experts on this. Last year, the Democratic majority passed a bill. They called it the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It doesn't give us independence, and it darn sure doesn't give us security. What they did in that particular bill is they put in a section, section 526, that the Hensarling-Conaway legislation, H.R. 5656, would repeal that section 526. Why is that important? Well, section 526 literally prohibits our Government, any agency of our Federal Government, from contracting for any petroleum product that is not conventional fuel if that product, that nonconventional petroleum source, yields one scintilla--by the way, my colleagues, a ``scintilla'' is a very, very small amount--of an increased carbon dioxide footprint. Now, ladies and gentlemen of the House, that may have made sense when the price of gasoline was $2.60 a gallon and when we had this expectation and this hope that it would drop down to $1.50, but on June 24, 2008, when the price of gasoline has now gone up 75 percent--not down--and it's $4.08 a gallon, does it make any sense to prohibit our Federal Government from contracting for other sources of petroleum? They are in this country in abundance. The reason I have this poster is I want to point out to my colleagues--and it doesn't show the exact spot, but in the western States, in the Rocky Mountain States--and there are about five of them--there is this rock product called shale, S-H-A-L-E. It is estimated by the geologists, by the experts, that within that rock is 1.3 trillion barrels of petroleum. Yet our Federal Government is prohibited from mining that shale and from getting this petroleum source because it might, just might, result in a little bit more carbon dioxide. To put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government actually uses 380,000 barrels of refined product every day, and most of that is used by the Department of Defense, and 75 percent of their usage is by the Air Force in jet fuel. Just think about that and the cost. Well, I'm going to tell you exactly what it is. For the year 2008, this year, it's estimated that our Air Force will spend an additional $9 billion on jet fuel at the cost of $135 a barrel of petroleum. Yet all of this oil and natural gas and this petroleum that we could get from shale in the Midwest, in the Rocky Mountain States, sits there, and there it remains trapped in rock because of this senseless section 526 that the Democrats passed last year in their energy bill, in their so-called Energy Independence and Security Act. It is time, as Mr. Hensarling, as Mr. Conaway and as the many other cosponsors, including myself, have said, to say, look, that doesn't make any sense today. We're all concerned about global warming--of course we are--and about the environment and about clean air, but we're not going to die tomorrow from that. We are about to starve to death, and this country is about to go bankrupt when people can't get to work and when they can't get to the grocery store. When they get to the grocery store, they can't afford to buy food because of this senseless ethanol conversion from corn to ethanol. That's a whole different issue. I'm just here tonight to weigh in with my colleagues. I thank them for giving me the time. I sit on two committees--on the House Armed Services Committee and on the Science and Technology Committee. This year, of course, we reauthorized the National Defense Act of 2009, and we reauthorized the NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Act. Both of these agencies of the Federal Government utilize a lot of jet fuel. I tried to take the Hensarling-Conaway bill and make it as an amendment to strike that section or at least to grant a waiver from that restriction of 526. This Democratic leadership refused to even make those bills in order so that the men and women, the commonsense men and women on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, would have an opportunity to vote up or down in these trying economic times when we're losing jobs and when people can't even afford to go to work. So I thank the gentleman for letting me join with the Texas delegation, if you will--my three classmates--who know so much about this issue and about the many other issues of supply and demand as Ms. Foxx said earlier. So I look forward to the rest of the hour. I yield back to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeanette Irene Lalime-Sellner-Hutchison, who is celebrating her 80th birthday today. As an indispensable member of my staff, Jeanette has served as my Constituent Service Director for almost six years, assisting 11th District residents with problems ranging from Social Security and veterans' benefits to passports and immigration issues. But Madam Speaker, Jeanette has always had a passion for helping others. Born in Appleton, Wisconsin, Jeanette moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota as a young girl, where she grew up and eventually met her first husband, Mr. Thomas Sellner. Married for 28 years, Jeanette and Tom had six wonderful children. Along with raising her four sons and two daughters, Jeanette served as a foster mother for many years, taking in and caring for children in need of a loving family. After the passing of her first husband, Jeanette eventually met and wed Mr. Marion Hutchison, and together they moved to Iowa, where she began her Congressional career as a staff member for Congressman Cooper Evans, and then for Senator Charles Grassley. Now a resident of Marietta, Georgia, Jeanette has served various Congressional offices for 25 years, acting as the constituent service director for the legendary Georgia Senator Paul Coverdell and Congressman Bob Barr before joining my staff in 2003. Madam Speaker, Jeanette Hutchison has led a very inspiring and rewarding life. Over the years she has made and kept many friends, and I ask that you join with them, with me, and with her family in honoring Mrs. Jeanette Irene Hutchison, as she celebrates her 80th birthday. I thank her for a quarter century of service to our country.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for yielding to me and for my having the opportunity tonight to join my colleagues to discuss what clearly is the most important issue facing our Nation at this particular time. Mr. Speaker, you know my background is that of an OB/GYN physician, and health care has always been a passion of mine. Ever since I got here in the Congress, I've been working on health care legislation in a bipartisan way. Clearly, with 45 million, 47 million uninsured in this country, health care continues to be a very important issue, but when I talk now to my constituents in northwest Georgia, in the 11th District of Georgia, the most important thing to them as we come upon these Presidential and congressional elections in November of this year, without question, is the price of gasoline, and my colleagues have pointed this out so clearly, Mr. Speaker, with the statistics that they have given. Mrs. Bachmann just talked about the fact that the price of a gallon of gasoline, regular gasoline, is about $4.08 a gallon. Disease fuel is even higher than that. People are going to enjoy a 4th of July weekend at home this year, I can assure you, not just in my district in Georgia but across this country. A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Iowa was talking about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With his words, he was trying to put a picture, a description, in our colleagues' minds of what it looks like. I just happen to have a couple of posters that I want to show my colleagues. If we look at this first poster, I think that a lot of people across this country have received this in their mailbox, this picture as it may have appeared from MoveOn.org or from whoever happened to send this across the Nation, suggesting to people that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge looks like this--some pristine, beautiful area with lots of swans and caribou and moose--and that this is a year-round picture of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Really, in fact, if my colleagues will take a look at this second poster, 11 months out of the year, this is what ANWR looks like. It's a frozen tundra. There is nothing there, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, in the area, in the footprint, where we would drill and where there is plenty, plenty of oil. In fact, we estimate there could be 1.5 million barrels a day that we could add to our domestic production by drilling in this very small area, which is, I think, something like 2 square miles. In any regard, it is a very small area. So what we have tried to present to our colleagues in this hour is the fact that we are suffering. Yet there is plenty of oil and natural gas within this country and on our Outer Continental Shelf. There are literally trillions of cubic feet of natural gas off of our east and west coasts. There are probably tens of billions of barrels of petroleum off of our Outer Continental Shelf in addition to that, that I mentioned, in ANWR, up in Alaska. Yet we are just simply doing nothing. I have another poster, my colleagues, I want you to take a look at. This pretty well depicts what this ``do nothing'' Congress has been up to for the last year and a half under this new majority. If you would look at this cartoon, starting over here, I'll read it to you. Now, this is from Congress. It says: We demand you energy companies do something about these high energy prices. Their first answer is: Well, we can drill in ANWR. Congress' response: Forget it. The next cartoon: Well, how about offshore? the Outer Continental Shelf? Congress' response: Are you kidding? The next response from these oil companies: Well, how about clean coal, converting coal to liquid in a clean way? We can come up with millions of gallons of petroleum by doing that. Congress' response: Out of the question. Well, the oil companies say in this next cartoon: Well, how about nuclear power? We haven't licensed a new nuclear power facility for over 30 years in this country, back in the 1970s. You know, nuclear power since then has gotten more sophisticated. It's clean. It's safe. Congress' response: You must be joking. Finally, the energy companies just throw up their hands and say: What? Congress' response: Well, don't just sit there. Do something. Well, it's a cartoon, but it's also very serious. The bottom line is we are spending and have spent for the last 2 years all of our attention worrying about global warming and climate change. Yet here we have seen, in the 17 months that Speaker Pelosi has enjoyed her speakership, this Pelosi premium, and the price of gasoline has gone up about $1.75 a gallon. It is clearly time to get some of these domestic sources on-line, these resources which are right here that we have, rather than continuing to depend on foreign countries, like the OPEC nations, like Venezuela, that are not very friendly to us. And that's, pure and simple, Mr. Speaker, the reason why we're here tonight to say to our colleagues, in a bipartisan way, we ought to do this. And in addition to drilling for oil and natural gas and doing it now, certainly, there are other things, nuclear power, as I mentioned, alternative fuels, solar, wind farms, all of these things are part of the mix. But it is time, and it is time to act now. And that's what real leadership is. And that's what the Republican Party is trying to bring to this Congress and say to our colleagues, look, we have got six bills sitting right over there with discharge petitions which will allow us to do some of these things which will make us energy independent and absolutely will bring down that price of gasoline, almost overnight, because a lot of this is sort of speculation. And people, as soon as they realize that we are going to do something, the price will definitely come down. So I appreciate the opportunity to be with my colleagues tonight. I know there are others here who want to weigh in on this issue, so I want to thank the gentlelady from Minnesota, especially thank her for giving me this time, and I yield back to her.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, there is no Federal agency that has risen to the challenge of innovation over the last 50 years like NASA. When the Soviets put a man into orbit, NASA put men on the moon. We, as a Nation, are today the fortunate heirs of NASA's legacy: conviction, resolve, and achievement. As a Congress, we owe it to NASA to create an environment that promotes creativity rather than one that prevents innovation. Unfortunately, I deeply regret this House has not fully empowered the men and women of NASA to meet the challenges of our Nation in the 21st century. Instead of providing it the tools needed to thrive in energy innovation, the Democratic majority chose to handcuff NASA when it enacted section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 526 placed an artificial limitation on the ability of Federal agencies, including NASA, to utilize alternative fuel sources for their energy needs; even if they could be safely developed within the United States. These domestic energy sources would reduce the cost of fuel and save the American taxpayers billions of dollars. While families across the Nation pay higher and higher prices for their own fuel needs at the pump, section 526 ensures that they will also bear the full cost of the Federal Government's fuel needs, no matter how high they may go. That, Mr. Speaker, is an inconvenient truth that even politicians turned documentary filmmakers can understand. This motion to recommit will provide a waiver for NASA from this misguided provision. It will also foster the American innovative and competitive spirit by putting in place prizes for the private sector to work with domestic sources of energy that are readily available--coal, oil shale, tar sands, and biomass--to develop liquid fuels that will reduce costs. Mr. Speaker, today nearly a year and a half after Speaker Pelosi promised the American people a ``common-sense plan'' to bring down gas prices, the price of a gallon of gasoline is $4.08. This marks an increase of $1.75 since the beginning of the 110th Congress, a nearly 75 percent increase since the Democrats took control. Indeed, a Pelosi premium that is wrecking this economy. Since we are the people's House, one might presume that the Democrats would listen to the American people. However, the 20 percent of Americans who favor suing our way to lower gas prices have trumped the nearly 60 percent of Americans who favor domestic drilling. Perhaps this is motivated out of a deference to the trial lawyers and environmental extremist groups who are, shall we say, ``closely tied to the Democratic Caucus.'' Mr. Speaker, this same establishment is preventing us today from extracting oil shale in the western United States in which an estimated 1.2 trillion barrels of petroleum is trapped in porous shale rock, of which 70 percent is on public Federal land. That is exactly where it is going to stay, trapped as long as section 526 remains intact. Whatever action this Congress does take, a repeal of section 526 is in order--or at the very least a waiver, grant a waiver as this motion to recommit proposes--so we do not hinder progress at the very agency that has been on the cutting edge of technology for these last 50 years. But time after time, in the committee rooms of the House, in the Rules Committee and on the floor of this body, my Democratic colleagues have refused to address section 526 in any meaningful way. And let me point out, Mr. Speaker, the Lampson amendment does virtually nothing. It only allows us to continue importing oil from Canada, our largest source of imported oil because it might contain just a little trace of petroleum that was obtained from tar sands. That's all that does. If this Congress insists on sacrificing American competitiveness and innovation on the altar of environmental extremism, then it will be one small step for NASA, but one giant leap for Greenpeace. Mr. Speaker, this is about more than the pain at the pump. It is also about the spirit of discovery and innovation that is the backbone of our great Nation. The decisions we make today will not only impact this generation, but generations to come. We can either provide American engineers and innovators the tools they need to realize limitless opportunities for the American people, or this majority can continue to put up arbitrary roadblocks that stymie their potential. Now, while I believe that many on the other side have good intentions, I cannot sit idly by while the Democratic Leadership seems to care more about a carbon footprint than an American footprint on Mars. I cannot sit idly by while this Majority continues to say ``no'' to American entrepreneurship in energy exploration. I cannot sit idly by while this Majority seems content to blame the President or the previous Republican Congress. Blaming the past while ignoring the future is not leadership; that's not why the American people award Majority status to one party or another. The American people awarded you the leadership reins to solve the problems our country faces on a daily basis, and nothing is more important than our energy independence. I therefore challenge the Democrats and all of my colleagues to start solving the biggest problem facing our country today, energy independence, by supporting this Motion to Recommit with its instructions to relieve NASA of the shackles of section 526.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

Mr. GINGREY. I am in its current form.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, I have a number of concerns with the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, my colleague on the Science Committee. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this amendment does anything to alleviate the Draconian problems presented to us by section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Even if this amendment passes, Americans will still not be able to increase the supply of fuels from alternative sources derived from resources available in the United States. Oil shale, with its estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum in rock, would remain trapped there in our southwestern States, I think five States have a lot of this oil shale that's there for the taking. We, furthermore, will not be able to use clean carbon captured coal-to-liquid fuel. So the amendment intends to create an exception under section 526 for generally available fuel not predominantly produced from a nonconventional petroleum source, and NASA, under the amendment, will still be able to purchase Canadian fuels that do have traces of oil sands, as the gentleman says, that may create more of a carbon footprint than completely conventional fuel. And this is what basically section 526 is. As the gentleman explained, he is trying to allow an exception so that this fuel that we purchase from Canada, a lot of people think most of our foreign sources of fuel are from OPEC or Venezuela, but actually, Madam Chairman, they are from Canada. Some of this fuel does have the tar sands footprint in it. The gentleman, and I have no objection to that, is saying let us continue to purchase this fuel and not be restricted by 526. Yet my opposition is this, the agency won't be able to utilize any of the sources of fuel that may be totally derived from resources we have readily available in the good-old USA, clean domestic alternatives, coal, natural gas, biomass and, as I mentioned, oil shale that is estimated to have 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum that can be extracted from that in our own country. At committee markup, Science Committee and at the Rules Committee, I offered amendments that would have removed the handcuffs placed on the NASA administrator by section 526. I would have been happy to work with my good friend from Texas to protect his amendment so that implementation of it would have, indeed, a positive effect for NASA. Unfortunately, I just don't think the amendment does much of anything. I fear that the amendment does nothing to rectify, as I said, the underlying problem with 526 that prevents the Federal Government, any agency of the Federal Government, not just NASA, but also the Department of Defense, which utilizes something like 380,000 barrels of refined petroleum products every day, every day, and the increased cost to the Department of Defense is $9 billion. Just the increase in the year 2008, the increased fuel cost to NASA over the last 5 years has been 400 percent. It has gone from $4.5 million a year to $18.3 million a year. Our efforts should be focused on easing the pain felt by American taxpayers, not codifying this misguided policy, 526, that prevents us from future innovation. Again, the gentleman's amendment, in my opinion, does no harm, but it does very little good. I felt compelled to stand and express my opposition--not strong opposition to the amendment--but rather to make this point that we need to allow the administrator of NASA to have a waiver, at least have a waiver if, in his knowledge of innovation and what they are doing in trying to develop alternative fuels that are available in this country, he would not be bound by the crazy restrictions put on him and other agencies by section 526 of this so-called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed 17 months ago. Since that time the price of a gallon of regular gasoline has gone up by $1.70, up to over $4.05 a gallon. I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I very graciously at this time will yield to the subcommittee ranking member of the NASA Subcommittee of Science and Technology, my good friend from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. My amendments, by either repealing section 526 or by providing a full waiver to NASA, just to that one agency as my amendments would have done, we could allow the agency to continue its ongoing work to develop emerging technologies and not be held hostage to baseless policies driven by out-of-control environmental extremists. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Democratic majority again chooses to deny an open debate on important energy issues. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and this rule so we can help the Democratic majority live up to its promise to conduct the most open and honest Congress in history.

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and the previous gentleman that spoke, the gentleman from Illinois, talking about those airline prices. There is no question what's causing that is the cost of jet fuel. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule where the Democratic majority has once again denied the American people a full debate on the ramifications of our Federal policies on American energy independence. Unfortunately the rule for H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, made only one Republican amendment in order and has effectively shut down debate once again, breaking the promise, as my distinguished colleague from Florida said, that Speaker Pelosi made that this would be the most open and honest Congress in history. I, along with several of my Republican colleagues, offered two of the amendments that were not made in order. Our amendments would have worked to correct a misguided provision of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 526, that prevents the Federal Government from developing and implementing alternative fuels from domestic sources that could help NASA reduce fuel costs. Over the past 5 years NASA has seen an increase of almost 400 percent in spending for jet fuel from $4.5 million in fiscal year 2003 to $18.3 million in fiscal year 2007. Put simply, this growth is out of control. NASA has been actively researching alternative fuel sources to help reduce fuel costs, not only for itself, but for other Federal agencies as well. Indeed, listen to this, the Department of Defense uses 380,000 barrels of refined products per day, 380,000 barrels. They estimate that its increased cost of fuel in 2008 will be approximately $10 billion. Now this is just the delta. This is just the increase because of ballooning oil prices. NASA, as my colleagues have pointed out, has historically been on the cutting edge of innovation with contributions that have been mentioned here, technologies this Nation uses on a daily basis. What a lot of people don't know, currently NASA is partnering with the Air Force on aggressive research to convert domestic energy sources--domestic, that means right here in River City--on aggressive research to convert things like coal, natural gas, biomass, oil shale into cleaner, yes, cleaner, and more economic alternatives to traditional jet fuel. Gas prices continue to rise, and yet the Democratic majority, and I don't blame my colleague from Florida in the majority who I enjoyed thoroughly serving with on the Rules Committee, I blame the Democratic leadership. They have effectively stymied innovation at NASA that could potentially help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have this great opportunity, and yet the leadership of the Democratic Party has turned their back on the American people.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2268, the Mother's Day Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. First, I would like to thank Representative Capito for authoring this legislation before us today. H.R. 2268 would instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue $1 coins in recognition of the 100th anniversary of President Wilson's proclamation designating the second Sunday in May as Mother's Day. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank mothers across this nation for what they have done, do, and will do to keep our families and our country, strong. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take the personal privilege of recognizing my mother, Mrs. Helen Gingrey. Ninety years young, my mother instilled in me the very values and work ethic that prepared me to serve in these hallowed halls. Her example testifies to the fact that we owe so very much to our mothers, to our fathers, to all those who cleared the way and smoothed the paths for us to succeed and realize our potential. We should honor their work not just in word but in deed--by ensuring a smoother, clearer path for the next generation--for our children and our grandchildren. And so, I call upon my colleagues to demonstrate their appreciation for mothers everywhere by supporting this legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. And I appreciate my colleague from Michigan--both of my colleagues from Michigan--and my colleague from Georgia. We've got a number of other Members here as well tonight. But this issue that Mr. Upton is talking about is Section 526, Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Now, this is the bill, Mr. Speaker, that the Democratic majority passed back in February of 2007 that had in it this Section 526. It basically said this, my colleagues--and I hope that you all will listen very carefully to this because it's so crucial. Section 526 will not allow, it prohibits any agency of the Federal Government, our Federal Government, including our Department of Defense and including NASA, from utilizing any fuel source other than conventional fuel if it results in one nanogram increase in carbon footprint. I am not talking about tonnage of CO2. I am talking about any increase. So what my good friend from Michigan was talking about in regard to shale, s-h-a-l-e, shale is a solid product. It is a granular product. And we have, as Fred Upton pointed out, Mr. Speaker, an abundance of that product out in the West. There are about five States. And I think Mr. Upton said that it is estimated that you can get something like one and a half trillion, with a T, one and a half trillion barrels of petroleum from that source. But this section 526 that the Democratic majority put in their ``no energy bill'' back in February of 2007 means that we can't utilize that. We can't get that source increase of supply so that the prices will go down. And the reason I am so outraged about that, Mr. Speaker, is that tomorrow, on the floor, we will be doing the rule on the NASA reauthorization bill of 2008, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Well their price of fuel in the last 5 years, my colleagues, has gone up 400 percent from something like $4.5 million to $18.3 million. That is what NASA is having to pay on an annual basis for jet fuel. And yet they are the very agency of the Federal Government that is doing research. A lot of the research that NASA has done, we all know, we have utilized in the private sector. There are many things. I can name several. But they are doing research on shale. They are doing research on tar sands. They are doing research on coal to liquid and carbon sequestration and sharing that information with the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force, which could save us a tremendous amount of money. So I yield back to my colleague for a colloquy on this issue because it is so important and so timely.