Phil Gingrey

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.

Mr. GINGREY. This is just the kind of research, and the colleague is absolutely right, we all remember the movie, most of us have seen the movie.

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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3229, and would like to commend my good friend from Georgia, Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, for offering it. The bill before us today will allow coins to be issued in support of the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center during the year 2012. The coins will be emblematic of the courage, pride, sacrifice, sense of duty, and history of the infantry, and the proceeds received from issuance of the coin will be used to establish an endowment to support the maintenance of the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee who previously had Ft. Benning--the Home of the Infantry--in my district, I have long supported the efforts of the National Infantry Foundation to establish the new National Infantry Museum and wholeheartedly support the issuance of this coin in support of the museum. The National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center at Patriot Park will honor the 233-year heritage of the Army's largest branch, the infantry. This museum will be instrumental in helping to educate future generations about the vital role of the infantry in the history of our Nation. Furthermore, this building will honor the men and women who serve in and support the infantry, and preserve the infantry's legacy of service. This legacy of service is indeed quite remarkable, Mr. Speaker. The first successful and systematic training of the U.S. infantry can be tracked back to Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in 1778. It was not until 1826 that a formal post for infantry training was established, and over the course of history, the Infantry School has existed at the Jefferson Barracks in Missouri, Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas, in Monterrey, California, at Ft. Sill in Oklahoma, and at Fort Benning--the ``Home of the Infantry''--since 1918. Through the years the Infantry School at Ft. Benning has gradually emerged as the most influential infantry center in the modern world. The school has either trained in its officer courses or honed in its command structure some of the Nation's most prominent military figures, including five-star generals Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower, and George Marshall, as well as George Patton and Colin Powell. And, Mr. Speaker, over the course of American history, nearly 80 percent of all servicemen and women who have died serving our Nation were part of the infantry. This museum has one mission, Mr. Speaker: to honor the infantryman and his more than two centuries of proud service to our great Nation. This coin will support this mission. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to both this restrictive rule and the underlying bill brought forward today by the Democratic majority. As a former chairman of the Marietta City School Board in my district, I strongly believe that there needs to be more of an emphasis on public school construction but at the State and local level. However, H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, sends the wrong message of how the Federal Government should be involved in local education decisions. With limited exception in the 1930s and 1940s, the Federal Government has rightly left the responsibility of public school construction up to the State and local governments. State and local governments know the construction needs in schools much better than bureaucrats in Washington. And the Federal Government has promoted the autonomy and flexibility of local control over education in this matter. However, this bill would negate much of this work and would only expand the size and scope of the Federal Government, as my good friend from Delaware, Mr. Castle, just pointed out. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3021 would cost $20 billion over 5 years for a brand new Federal program to compete for the already precious Federal assistance dollars for education. Currently these funds are focused on the curriculum needs of States through our title I grants to provide assistance to low-income and disadvantaged students, as well as funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, for special education. Mr. Speaker, I can remember when I was on the Education and Workforce Committee in the 108th Congress when we were in the majority. There was this outcry constantly from the Democrats about not funding fully to the 40 percent level of IDEA, and of course the trajectory of spending in the Bush administration under Republican majority was a geometric progression. We spent much more money than the Democrats have spent in the previous 10 or 12 years when they were in control. But now we're going to take this money that should be spent on these programs like title I and IDEA and create a whole new program. It makes no sense. If enacted, it will create abundant squeeze, make it less likely the Federal Government will be able to fulfill financial commitments that have already been made for student achievement. Mr. Speaker, we need to continue promoting local control over education decisions while providing Federal assistance for student achievements. The best and most immediate way that we can do that is by defeating the previous question and the rule for H.R. 3021. For these reasons, I ask that all of my colleagues oppose the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5940, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. Nanotechnology represents the future of science and information technology. These scientific methods have already been responsible for a number of products that are used every day in our country, like car parts, cosmetics, and first aid dressings. The future of nanotechnology holds a world of possibilities for a number of fields including health care, which, Mr. Speaker, is incredibly important to me as a physician member of this House. The National Nanotechnology Initiative is a multi-agency Federal program aimed at accelerating the discovery, the development, and deployment of nanometer scale science, engineering, and technology. Since its implementation in 2003, NNI represents the Federal Government's commitment to harnessing and developing the world's most cutting edge technology to help keep our country competitive in a technologically based global economy. H.R. 5940 is a bill that builds on the successful aspects of the NNI by making some improvements and modifications while keeping much of the initiative intact. This legislation acknowledges and addresses the need for enhanced research and education in the field of nanotechnology, and it is in line with President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this legislation moved through the Science and Technology Committee in a bipartisan manner so typical of our members. Unfortunately, that bipartisan spirit does not apply to the most important issue facing the American people today, and that is the price they are paying at the pump for gasoline. Mr. Speaker, here we are 16 months after the vaunted promise of a commonsense plan to reduce energy prices by Speaker Pelosi, yet gas prices are now surpassing $4 a gallon with no end in sight. At this point, I am not holding my breath for this commonsense plan Speaker Pelosi promised over 2 years ago. I only know the result of the plan, an increase of $1.60 per gallon for regular gasoline. However, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that Democrats will begin working with Republicans much like they did on this bill, H.R. 5940, on our common sense plan for energy. The Republican proposal, H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act sponsored by my good friend Mr. Thornberry of Texas, will allow us to explore domestic sources of energy and will reduce the amount that we all pay at the pump. It is time for the Democrats to get serious about reducing gas prices. I call on them to join the efforts of House Republicans. Let's enact real solutions that will provide relief for our taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I am very supportive of H.R. 5940 and the possibility that nanotechnology has for the future of science. I urge all my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for calling that to my attention. We will make that change.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, former chairman of the committee, for yielding time to me. My other colleague from Texas, our conference secretary, part of our leadership, my good friend, Judge Carter, just said that he is not an expert on energy. But he certainly is an expert on common sense. He got some of that expertise by talking to his constituents at that impromptu town hall meeting at the gas pump in Texas. That is where we get some of our knowledge from the people that we represent, and they are mad as heck and they are not going to take it any more. I am absolutely surprised, Mr. Speaker, shocked that this new Democratic majority is apparently not listening to what the American people are saying. Back in April of 2006, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi released a statement saying, and I quote, ``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are tonight, June 3, 2008, over 2 years after Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Pelosi now, announced that Democrats had this commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. The average retail price of gasoline is $3.99 for a gallon of regular. That is what I paid last night to fill up my car, a 25-gallon tank. It cost me almost $100. Mr. Speaker, this is something that the American people can no longer afford. I don't know what this comprehensive plan the Speaker had in mind when she spoke to us in January of 2007 for the very first time, I don't know what that comprehensive plan was, but I darn sure know what the results of the plan was. The result is gasoline prices at the pump for regular have gone up more than $1.65 a gallon. Some plan. The proof of the pudding indeed is in the eating. There are some things that I want to point out in regard to some of the plans that the Democrats have had in regard to lowering these gas prices and a nationwide average of $3.98 a gallon; in my district, $3.99. Here's some of the things that maybe they proposed to bring down the price of a gallon of regular gasoline. Sue OPEC? You save nothing. Launch the seventh investigation into price gougers? You save nothing. Launch the fourth investigation into speculators? You save nothing. Twenty billion dollars in new taxes on oil producers? Increasing the debt. Halt oil shipments to the strategic petroleum reserve? Maybe save a nickel a gallon. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the Republican plan to lower gas prices: Bring United States offshore oil drilling, ANWR, saving anywhere from 70 cents to $1.60 a gallon. Drilling in ANWR. My colleagues talked about that. Probably an additional 1\1/2\ million barrels of petroleum a day from that source. Bring United States deepwater oil on line. Out of the Outer Continental Shelf is what we are referring to. That could save anywhere from 90 cents to $2.50 a gallon. Bring new oil refineries on line. Our good friend from Ohio, Representative Latta, pointed out that we haven't had a new oil refinery or a nuclear power plant license in this country in over 30 years. That could save 15 cents to 45 cents a gallon. Cut earmarks to fund a gas tax holiday. That could save 18 cents a gallon. Again, we agree with the Democrats on this one. Halt the oil shipment to the strategic petroleum reserve, saving a nickel a gallon. Our plan, the Republican plan, my colleagues, in a very conservative way, would save at least $1.98 a gallon; $1.98 a gallon. The Democrat plan, at most, a nickel a gallon. Well, let me just tell you one thing that they did, the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, in their energy bill of 2007. There is a section in that bill, a section called 526. Basically, what it says is no agency of the Federal Government, no agency of the Federal Government can utilize a source of energy production that creates a bigger carbon footprint than conventional fuel, conventional gasoline and diesel fuel. They are absolutely not permitted to do that. Now I want, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues, I want you to think about the consequence of that. The Federal Government on an annual basis utilizes something like 480,000 barrels of refined petroleum products; 480,000 barrels. I am sorry, that is a day. I said annually. That is a day, 480,000 barrels. And which branch of the Federal Government uses the most of that? Obviously, the Department of Defense. And which branch of the Department of Defense, which service branch, uses the most of that? The United States Air Force, flying the platforms that we have to maintain the security of this country. Almost 480,000 barrels. It is estimated, Mr. Speaker, that the Air Force will spend an additional $9 billion for that fuel in the year 2008, fiscal year 2008, because of these rapidly increasing prices of oil. Now, that bill though says they can't go out and utilize anything other than that liquid petroleum we all think about bubbling up out of the ground. Yet in this country, my friend from Texas referred to it, Representative Carter, is something called shale oil that his grandfather told him about. Shale oil, Mr. Speaker, is mainly in the West, in several Western States, and the total amount of additional petroleum that could be gotten from that shale oil is something like 3 trillion barrels of refined products. Yet we are not allowing the agencies of our Federal Government to utilize these sources. Tomorrow in the Science Committee, of which I am a member, the NASA Subcommittee will be marking up the reauthorization of NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They do research on shale oil, on oil sands, another product that is very plentiful in Canada. A lot of oil could be gotten from that. They are doing that research. They are sharing that research with the Department of Defense, and yet they are not able to utilize any of that additional oil. The amount that we could get from shale oil is equivalent to the amount that we have probably utilized in the world over the last 100 years. That is how much capacity we are talking about. Those are the sort of things we can do to bring down the price. I could go on and on, but the gentleman has been very generous with his time and I want to yield back to him. But we need a comprehensive plan that includes nuclear, that includes the use of these alternative sources of petroleum products, like oil sands and shale oil. And until we get together and do this on a bipartisan basis, the American public is going to continue to suffer. I yield back to the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, they will take advantage of this policy to create the appearance of impropriety at the institute, and Venezuela and China will be the beneficiaries. Those concerned about human rights will then have to deal with these potentially hostile nations setting the human rights standard in Latin America. As for transparency, Madam Chairman, you simply do not learn everything about any institution solely by looking at the names of those who have attended. If you followed that logic, one could contend that Harvard is an institution that trains brutal killers and human rights violators simply because the Unabomber once took a class there. On the other hand, WHINSEC is open to visitors every working day. It invites people to sit in class, talk with the students, the faculty, review instructional material. This is perhaps the most open, transparent and welcoming organization in the Department of Defense. And it has certainly been the subject of more oversight than any other element of the Department. Madam Chairman, unfortunately, I believe that the release of personal information has less to do with transparency and more to do with yet another effort to shut down WHINSEC. On May 7, 2008, the Department of Defense provided to the Congress the names, country of origin, rank, courses, dates of attendance of students and instructors at WHINSEC for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 in accordance with the report language in the fiscal year 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. This information was provided in a classified format. The Department of Defense deemed that sensitive personal information must be safeguarded to protect the privacy, security and dignity of individual students, instructors and families. The fiscal year 2008 information will be provided in a similar format no later than 60 days after the beginning of the next fiscal year, as directed. There's a working system to provide information regarding WHINSEC students, instructors and courses. This information my friend is asking for with his amendment----

Mr. GINGREY. This information that my friend is asking for in this amendment has therefore already been made available to Congress. He can walk over right now to the Rayburn Building and study the names to his heart's content. So I am led to wonder, Madam Chairman, what is the McGovern amendment trying to accomplish? I fear it will only give ammunition to radical groups who hope to ultimately shut down WHINSEC, which the Armed Services Committee and this Congress are opposed to doing.

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And I appreciate the gentleman's intentions with his amendment. But I do have some serious concerns, and I briefly want to outline them, Madam Chairman. The protection of the names of WHINSEC students and staff is both a privacy and security issue, with broader implications for our international security cooperation. Publicizing the names of WHINSEC students in their home countries, where in some cases there are active guerilla or narcotrafficking insurgencies could expose these students to threats to their personal safety and, indeed, to that of their families. This could include hostile attention from nations, organizations and individuals that may wish to do harm to the United States, its friends and its allies. Such publication, Madam Chairman, could serve as a disincentive to foreign students who would otherwise want to attend WHINSEC, and it could discourage nations from sending their students to the institute. This would undercut the effectiveness of WHINSEC as a tool for building hemispheric security cooperation and communicating the democratic values and the respect for human rights that we champion. A further concern I have is that cooperative training at WHINSEC does not just involve military personnel. We're also training police forces, of which more are from Colombia than any other nation. Many of these personnel are involved in counterdrug operations when they return to their country. It is incomprehensible that we would put their names out there, likely to be published on the Web sites of radical protest groups and put at risk not only their ability to participate in counternarcotic operations, but also their lives. Indeed, Madam Chairman, we would be putting a bull's-eye on their backs. Madam Chairman, the gentleman noted that these names have been available upon request prior to 2005. That is true. Well, Madam Chairman, the world has changed. You used to be able to drive freely around this Capitol prior to 9/11. You used to be able to get on an airplane without going through metal detectors. Obviously, you can't do that now. The security environment in the western hemisphere has also changed. In his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Admiral Stavridis, the Commander of SOUTHCOM, testified, and I quote, ``Some trends in a few countries in SOUTHCOM's area of responsibility impede security cooperation, as their governments espouse vocal, anti-U.S. messages, and they undertake policies that portend a less stable and secure hemisphere.'' For most of the period of time when names were released, as Mr. McGovern was mentioning, Venezuela's foreign policy toward the United States was much different than it is now. We now also know that China is engaging militarily on a daily basis with the nations in our own backyard. Madam Chairman, those who seek to close WHINSEC will attempt to take advantage of this policy to create the appearance----

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, you have heard some serious, serious concerns with this amendment. But whatever the outcome today, we must remember what is at stake when it comes to WHINSEC. If we were not to engage with the participating nations, Madam Chairman, we would be abandoning our most effective means of developing relationships with the security forces of these countries. The void created would be filled by countries with poor records on democracy and human rights, such as Venezuela and China. Madam Chairman, the friendships fostered at WHINSEC have enabled El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Honduras to provide well-trained forces to our endeavors in Iraq. Further, thanks to the counterdrugs civil military and medical assistance courses at WHINSEC, hemispheric military police and civilian organizations have also been capably providing counterdrugs and disaster-relief capabilities. Madam Chairman, the success of current and foreseeable future conflicts will be highly influenced by the degree of international cooperation of allied and friendly countries. This requires engagement and building partnerships and relationships. And I certainly look forward to working with Chairman Skelton, Admiral Sestak, Mr. Bishop, my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, to ensure that we continue utilizing WHINSEC for this purpose. Needless to say, Madam Chairman, since we already have a system in place where we're reviewing the names of students attending WHINSEC and because the institute is very transparent, I believe the amendment is unnecessary and could potentially do much more harm than good. As for the brochures that the gentleman presented, I can assure him, and I'm sure he knows, that those pictures are only published with the permission of those students. So I don't think that is in any way indicative of what we're talking about here. With that, Madam Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It's a dangerous amendment.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We just heard from the gentleman from Utah in regard to section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Democratic Energy Act. Section 526, as the gentleman described, puts handcuffs on our Federal Government, particularly the Department of Defense, in regard to the ability to get other sources of fuel. 380,000 barrels of refined products per year are used by the Department of Defense, mainly by the United States Air Force, Mr. Speaker. And the cost of that fuel from 2003 to 2007 has gone from $5 billion to $12 billion a year. It is anticipated that in this current year it will go up another $9 billion. This amendment that the gentleman was speaking of that I submitted to the Rules Committee last night offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), making this a bipartisan amendment, and of course myself, to just simply strike that section 526 so we can allow the Federal Government, in particular the Department of Defense, to utilize things like coal liquefaction or shale products, tar sand, that can convert to energy and let us utilize that fuel and cut down this cost to our Department of Defense. I mean, we needed an opportunity, clearly, Mr. Speaker, to be able to debate that amendment on this floor. I think that overwhelmingly the majority on a bipartisan basis would support striking that amendment. We are in a crisis, and everybody knows it, in what we are paying for. It is not just individuals, but of course the whole Department of Defense. And this goes to being able to purchase jet fuel. That is why I am opposed to this rule. That amendment should indeed, Mr. Speaker, have been made in order.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. All of these Members have been a source of wisdom and guidance to me, my colleagues on the committee and to the Nation, and they will be sorely missed.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. I want to thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member Hunter, and my subcommittee chairman, Neil Abercrombie, and Ranking Member Jim Saxton, for their tireless efforts on behalf of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who continue to bravely defend us at both home and abroad. While it is not a perfect bill, this legislation covers a wide scope of issues that are of vital importance to the armed services, both the active and reserve component, and it clearly addresses the most pressing needs of our troops in the most trying times that we face in America. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Armed Services Committee voted unanimously and on a bipartisan basis to support another program critical to our national security. Section 943 of this bill states that the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, WHINSEC, is one of the most effective mechanisms that the United States has to build relationships with future leaders throughout our hemisphere and influence the human rights and democracy trajectory of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean and mitigate the growing influence of non-hemispheric powers. It is especially important to remember that WHINSEC may be the only medium we ever have to engage the future military and political leaders of Latin American countries, who are, by the way, America's closest neighbors and can serve as our closest allies. If we were not to engage with these nations, the void would be filled by countries with starkly different values than our own regarding democracy, and, yes, human rights, and I am talking about countries like Venezuela and China, whose influence in the region, as we know, is growing. The WHINSEC school in Columbus, Georgia, at Fort Benning, the home of the infantry, was formerly part of my congressional district. I am very proud to continue to serve on the Board of Visitors of the school. Mr. Chairman, I also want to further mention how pleased I am of the work of the committee this year to authorize funding for 20 F-22 Raptors in line with the current multiyear contract, and also to authorize the advanced procurement funds needed for a follow-on lot in 2010. The F-22 is the world's most capable fighter, and these funds go a long way towards providing stability for our forces and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable future. There is so much to be proud of in this bill, and I again commend Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their efforts to keep this bill focused on the needs of the warfighter. I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to recognize Ranking Member Hunter, Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Ranking Member Saxton, and the ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Terry Everett of Alabama, for all their contributions, both to the Armed Services Committee and to the Congress over the years.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying bill which the Democratic majority refers to as the Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. I don't know how anyone can call this an energy creation act when it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to lower the price of gasoline. With a week-long recess ahead, I am sure the majority wants to pass something with the word ``energy'' in it so they can pay lip service, while the American people are paying more at the pump. Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding real change and real solutions. They want Congress to end this energy crisis which is eating into the budgets of American families and harming their quality of life. This bill will not solve their problems. While this bill does extend temporarily some important tax provisions, it does absolutely nothing to address the looming alternative minimum tax which will hit millions of Americans, in fact, 22 million of them, if this Congress fails to act. And there's nothing in this bill concerning the alternative minimum tax. Shortly we will begin debate on another rule for the budget conference report. I have often heard my colleagues on the other side refer to the Federal budget as a moral document. Mr. Speaker, I agree with them. I agree with them. However, when I look at the details of this budget, I can't help but ask, how is it moral to impose the largest tax increase in the history of this country on working Americans, almost $683 billion over the next 5 years? Mr. Speaker, how is it moral to raise the marginal tax rate on lower income workers and impose tax burdens on marriage, children, and family businesses? Mr. Speaker, how is it moral to provide more than $1 trillion in discretionary spending, while doing absolutely nothing to reform entitlement spending and to ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare for our future generations, indeed, our children and our grandchildren? The majority can refer to its budget as a moral document all they want to, but the devil is in the detail, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the majority believes it's moral to rack up debt and raise taxes to pay for it. Mr. Speaker, we need to cut government spending, and we need to reform uncontrolled entitlement growth by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, so that we can provide tax relief to hardworking Americans and to prevent the tax increases of the Democratic budget, $683 billion. I urge my colleagues, vote against this rule, the underlying bill and the Democratic budget.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong, strong opposition to this budget. Mr. Speaker, this budget conference report calls for record tax increases and it increases discretionary spending by $241 billion above the President's budget over the next 5 years. It does nothing to reform entitlement or earmarks. Even worse, the Democrats have already signaled their intent to put off the appropriations until next January, at the earliest, making this budget an exercise in futility. Mr. Speaker, I wanted also to say something about the energy crisis that we are in today. On April 24, 2006, Mr. Speaker, that is almost 2 years ago, then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi stated in a press conference that, and I quote, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Not only have House Democrats failed to offer any meaningful solutions to address gas prices, they have actually put forward policies that will have exactly the opposite effect. She made this statement April 24, 2006, 6 months before the November elections, when the Democrats did gain the majority. Since taking control of Congress, Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices have skyrocketed by more than $1.60 a gallon in my home State of Georgia. In fact, in Georgia's 11th District, my congressional district, northwest Georgia, working families are now paying as much as $3.78 for a gallon of regular gasoline. Every dollar counts, Mr. Speaker, and families should not have to spend them on this ``Pelosi premium.'' They need to buy school equipment, they need to put shoes on their children's feet, they need to buy clothes this fall. Every dollar indeed counts, Mr. Speaker. Working families and their budgets need relief. They do not need more broken promises. Energy prices are rising, cost of living expenses are up, and the Democrats do-nothing leadership has proven that it's content to just sit on the sidelines and do little, other than raise taxes and increase spending. With gasoline prices skyrocketing, our dependence on foreign oil increasing, and the American peoples' anxiety growing, it is long past time to increase the supply of American-made energy to help lower these prices here at home. Mr. Speaker, I am not holding my breath for a commonsense plan. Maybe there was a plan, but it sure wasn't common sense, and it definitely didn't lower gas prices. That is what Speaker Pelosi promised the American people 2 years ago. I hope the Democrats will begin working with the Republicans and let's do lower energy prices. Let's have a meaningful energy bill that makes sense. With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose this rule on the budget resolution, and I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's do something meaningful about gas prices.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, in accordance with House Republican Conference standards and Clause 9 of Rule XXI, I submit the following member requests for the record. Funding for these requests was authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army RDT&E, PE62786A, Line 27, Warfighter Technology. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Printpack Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 2800 Overlook Parkway, NE Atlanta GA 30339. Description of Request: The budget request includes $21.9M in PE62786A for Applied Research of new warfighter technologies of which $5.3M is allocated for Joint Service Combat Feeding Technology. The $2,100,000 added to this account will be used to develop new and innovative packaging and processing technologies for the Warfighter's combat rations. These funds will result in the ability to provide greater variety and more nutritional rations with longer shelf-life and reduced production costs. The objective of this effort is to develop advanced thermal processing techniques based on the utilization of non-foil materials for military ration packaging. The importance of developing non-foil packaging materials will serve as a precursor to the next stage of the R&D effort which will investigate new and enhanced thermal processing techniques; specifically, Enhanced High Pressure Processing, EHPP, and Microwave Sterilization, MW, technologies. The EHPP and MW processing technologies have numerous advantages over conventional thermal processing; however, these processes cannot be used on current foil packaging because they cause blistering and flex cracking of the foil packaging material. Therefore, to achieve the advantages of advanced EHPP and MW processing, it is essential to use state-of-the-art, non-foil packaging materials. The development of advanced, non-foil packaging materials and utilization of innovative EHPP and MW processing techniques will result in the provision of rations with the following beneficial and enhanced qualities: greater variety, better taste, more nutrition, longer shelf- life, lower overall production costs, environmentally friendly, less volume and waste. The FY09 effort will consist of three stages and is budgeted as follows: Stage 1: Blistering, $0.14M, Stage 2: Flex Crack Resistance, $0.26M, Stage 3: EHPP & MW Trials, $1.7M. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Defense-wide RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Scientific Research Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: 2300 Windy Ridge Parkway, Suite 400 South, Atlanta, GA 30339. Description of request: This program will utilize recently developed Wavelet Packet Modulation, WPM. The $4,000,000 authorized will be used to implement design modifications for limited rate initial production, including form factor packaging changes for ruggedization and for integration with signal intelligence systems. Additionally, production readiness for integration with existing communications systems will occur. Finally, module testing will be subjected to continued assessment and utility testing on multiple platforms. The enhanced modules will then undergo a final government Production Readiness Review, paving the way for subsequent deployment. Covert WPM Communications Modules as communications links for multiple platforms, including unmanned aerial systems, provide a critical solution to special operations warfighters that require the ability to communicate covertly without detection. Funding is required for hardware and software engineering, integration, and test, 64 percent; specialized equipment 21 percent; specialized software 13 percent; and travel to U.S. Special Operations Command and to military test sites 2 percent. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the U.S. Special Operations Command Special Operations Tactical Systems Development program. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Other Procurement, Army (Training Devices, Non-system). Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Meggitt Training Systems. Address of Requesting Entity: 296 Brogdon Road, Suwanee, Georgia 30024 Description of Request: The $3 million authorized will continue the multi-year upgrade and modernization of existing firearms simulation systems in the Army National Guard necessary to meet the validated system standard. The modernization includes the conversion to digital systems and acquiring tetherless simulated weapons that allow better freedom of movement and enhanced realism than the tethered version. The Army National Guard views modernization as critical to resolving an immediate mandatory small-arms training need in support of the Guard's role in the global war on terrorism and homeland security. Of the 266 systems in the Guard inventory, 169 have not been upgraded. These funds will allow for the upgrade of approximately 45 of those systems. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Defense-wide, RDTE. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Georgia Institute of Technology. Address of Requesting Entity: GTRI Cobb County Research Facility, 7220 Richardson Road Smyrna, GA 30080. Description of Request: The $6,000,000 authorized for Advanced Surface-to-Air-Missile (SAM) Hardware Simulator Development will reinvigorate the simulator development process and provide a simulator that can be used for electronic warfare, EW, development and testing while the simulator community revives its ability to develop and field SAM simulators. The funding will be used for research and charged to the Department of Defense at pre-negotiated rates. One of the by-products of the collapse of the Soviet Union is that Russian SAM systems became available for purchase through FME/FMA programs. This has been a boon for the EW and test communities, DTE & OTE, in that they have been able to use actual SAM systems, as opposed to SAM simulators, to develop and test EW equipment and tactics against Russian SAM systems. While providing the aforementioned benefit, the availability of actual Russian SAM systems has had the negative effect of curtailing development of SAM simulators. At the same time, the Russians have continued to develop advanced SAM systems. Further, the Chinese have continued their development of advanced SAM systems, and other, third-world countries have been purchasing and modifying Russian SAM systems. Intelligence estimates are that these advanced and modified SAM systems will not be available for purchase by the U.S. in the foreseeable future. The result of the above is that the U.S. EW and test communities are hampered in their development of EW equipment and tactics against advanced Russian and Chinese SAM systems, or against modified, third- world, SAM systems. This is particularly troubling because these threats are critical requirements drivers for many U.S. acquisition and upgrade programs including the JSF, AWACS, EF-18G, AARGM, J-UCAS, F-22, and JASSM. While it is believed that the simulator development community will recover its ability to field simulators of advanced SAM systems, such recovery will take a long time. Also, unless action is taken soon, the recovery will be hampered by the fact that the corporate knowledge needed to develop threat-representative simulator designs is being lost through retirement and personnel shifts. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: RDTE N, PE#0603513N, Line 35, Shipboard System Component Development. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Global Technology Connection, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 2839 Paces Ferry Road, #1160, Atlanta, GA 30339. Description of Request: The $2,000,000 authorized will be used to begin development of a Two-Screw Magnetic Drive pump system, 2-SMDPS, with diagnostic/prognostic capabilities in response to a Navy requirement. Approximately $1,000,000, 50 percent, is for the engineering and design of the controls/microprocessor; the development of test protocols and collaboration on the algorithms/softwear; and $1,000,000, 50 percent, on engineering addressing the pump design. The system will provide a diagnosis of pump components and provide a prognosis of the time-to-failure while identifying the affected components giving their current state and estimating remaining useful lifetime. This advanced pump system for naval ships that will not only increase safety for the ships' crews but also ensures there are no catastrophic failures during critical missions. In addition, it will provide savings on inventory and reduce the need for redundant systems, thereby reducing weight and freeing up space on naval ships. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army, RDTE. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Georgia Institute of Technology. Address of Requesting Entity: Institute of Bioengineering and Bioscience, 315 Ferst Drive, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0363. Description of Request: The $3,000,000 authorized for the Center for Advanced Bioengineering and Solider Survivability, CABSS, will be used for critical needs in trauma treatment and post-trauma wound care and reconstruction. The funding will be used for research and paid out at pre-negotiated rates in accordance with Department of Defense policy. Specifically, funds will be used to: establish a seed grant program to identify novel technologies for treatment of musculoskeletal defects following trauma, develop oriented nano-fiber meshes for treatment of neurologic defects following injury to the extremities, develop biodegradable shape memory polymers for treatment of large bone defects, develop biodegradable shape memory polymers for craniofacial reconstruction, and test the effects of sustained delivery of osteoinductive proteins in tubular nanofiber mesh scaffolds on functional repair of large segmental bone defects. Past Congressional funding has been leveraged by CABSS to obtain additional funds from the Department of Defense. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: O&M, ARMY, Off-Duty and Voluntary Education. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: North Georgia College & State University. Address of Requesting Entity: College Circle, Dahlonega, Georgia 30597. Description of Request: These funds will expedite the creation of an Arabic Language and Culture Program at one of the nation's six senior military colleges. With its Corps of Cadets numbering nearly 650 and with an annual commissioning of 45-50 2nd Lieutenants in the U.S. Army, North Georgia is centrally situated to make an immediate impact on training future military leaders for the threats that the Nation currently faces and will very likely face for the foreseeable future. These funds will create the infrastructure to provide Arabic language and culture training beginning with the fall 2009 semester. The University will pick up the costs for the program once the Federal funds have been exhausted. Of the $350,000 authorized, $227,000 will be used for personnel expenses for 3 faculty members to teach Arabic, $23,000 will be used on equipment and software, $37,300 will be used for students to study abroad and faculty development, $30,000 will be used to provide students with a summer stipend. The remainder of the funds will be used for indirect costs. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army Line 30, PE# 0603002A. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Smisson-Cartledge Biomedical, LLC. Address of Requesting Entity: 502 Mulberry Street, Second Floor Macon, Georgia 31201. Description of Request: The $2,000,000 will be used for Research and Development on extracorporeal lung support therapy as an extension the ThermaCor 1200 technology. As research shows, there is an unmet medical need for something better than conventional mechanical ventilation for acute lung injury, including exacerbations of chronic lung disease. Smisson-Cartledge Biomedical intends to pioneer an integrated system to provide an extracorporeal alternative for use outside of the surgical ICU. Their system would be designed for use by people who are not trained perfusionists or surgeons. The plan is to integrate the ``smart'' pump/circuit driver with an efficient compact gas exchange device for C02 removal and reoxygenation of the blood that will be infused at normothermic, body, temperature. The base technology will be further developed to provide this critical life-saving portable lung support for soldiers/patients that are inflicted with an acute lung injury. The authorized funds will complete this effort. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Aircraft Procurement, Army; 020 Utility Helicopter Mods. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army National Guard Readiness Center. Address of Requesting Entity: 111 S. George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA, 22204. Description of Request: The $5,000,000 authorized will be used for UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopter upgrades. The UH-60L Upgrades are $1.5 million each and include: UH-60L Improved Durability Gearbox; UH-60L Flight control upgrades; UH-60L, IVHMS, Integrated Vehicle Health Maintenance System; UH-60L Overhead rescue hoist provisions; UH-60L Overhead Rescue Hoist; UH-60L Rescue Hoist Cable Guard; UH-60L Digital engine control unit; UH-60L Hydro mechanical unit; UH-60L Signal data converter; UH-60L Cargo hook upgrade to 9000 lbs. The UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter is an essential capability of the National Guard. It provides units in every state with a multi-mission aircraft for search and rescue, utility lift, disaster relief and medical evacuation. The Army National Guard, ARNG, is authorized 782 Black Hawk aircraft, but is short of this authorization by almost 100 aircraft. This shortage requires ARNG units to loan or transfer Black Hawks in support deployments, training or state missions, resulting in a higher usage rate of available airframes. Additionally, more than 500 of the 782 National Guard aircraft are older UH-60A models, with an average age of approximately 25 years. The Army is procuring over 1200 UH-60M Black Hawks for utility, special operations and MEDEVAC missions to replace the aging UH-60A from operational units by 2016. The Army acquired 33 UH-60M Black Hawks by the end of FY07, and from FY09 to FY13, the Army plans to procure an additional 300 UH-60M Black Hawks (70 of those aircraft are programmed for ARNG units). However, without an accelerated procurement of the UH-60M, the Army National Guard will be operating more than 400 UH-60A helicopters beyond 2020. The ARNG and the Active Army developed a program to support the continued modernization of the ARNG Black Hawk fleet. Unfortunately, this program is not fully funded. The ARNG plan is to accelerate the fielding of UH- 60M Black Hawks by 10 aircraft per year. Although the Active Army has programmed UH-60A recapitalization for the ARNG with Operations and Maintenance, O&M, funds, which includes an airframe life extension, fleet-wide product improvements and the replacement of components, the UH-60A to L upgrade is not funded. The UH-60L Black Hawk is more economical to operate and has 1000 lbs of additional lift than the UH- 60A. The desired rate of UH-60 A to L upgrades is 38 per year. Funding the UH-60A to L upgrade will significantly improve the Black Hawk fleet, and assure that ARNG units are ready, deployable, and available to protect our national interests both abroad and at home. This ARNG aviation initiative has been identified by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, CNGB, as FY09 ``Essential 10--Top 25'' unfunded priorities. Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: USAF (2009 Unfunded Requirements List); Lockheed Martin Corp/Boeing Co/United Technologies Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: The Pentagon, Washington, DC; Marietta, GA/Seattle, WA/East Hartford, CT. Description of Request: $523,000,000 is authorized to advance procure F-22 long-lead items in FY2009 that are necessary for F-22 procurement in FY2010. The funds provide for production of supplier items in FY2009 that are required to produce 20-24 additional, Lot 10, F-22 aircraft in FY2010, such as specialty metal alloy and titanium structural parts, as well as engine, AMAD, RADAR, CIP, CNI, and Landing Gear parts. The USAF submitted this request as the number two priority on its FY2009 Unfunded Requirements List. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense testified that he would like to extend production of F-22 into 2010, in order to allow the next administration to determine future production of the F-22. Yet, to date, the Secretary has provided no defense budget funding request or supplemental budget funding request to do so. Without funds for Advance Procurement of another full lot, F-22 production line suppliers will be forced to begin shutdown activities by November of 2008, making it unlikely that the next administration would have the necessary time or personnel in place to make such an important decision.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1026, recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Club. Founded by an act of Congress in 1908 and signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, the Congressional Club has been a home away from home for spouses of Members of Congress, fostering friendships across party and geographical lines. The Congressional clubhouse was constructed in 1914, and since that time the club has been a vital and influential member of the U-Street corridor community, encouraging revitalization of the area by hosting programs with inner-city children, planning appreciation days at local nursing homes with senior citizens, and honoring the District's fire and police departments. Mr. Speaker, the generosity of the Congressional Club members extends well beyond the District of Columbia. Club members have raised funds for the purchase of two evacuation planes for wounded soldiers, and donate tens of thousands of dollars to charity on an annual basis. As a member of the Congressional Club now for several years, my wife Billie Gingrey has seen first-hand how the club has been a good friend and neighbor to the Washington, DC, community. I encourage all Members to join me today in recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Congressional Club, and to thank its members for their work and contributions to the community.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1086, recognizing National Nurses Week, which is May 6 through May 12 of this year. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson)--Nurse Johnson--for advancing this legislation to help educate the American people about the critical role that nurses play in health care delivery. With May 12 being the birthday of Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing, there is not a more appropriate time to celebrate the work done by nurses. As an OB-GYN physician for almost 30 years, I was fortunate to work with intelligent, hardworking, compassionate nurses, and they were indeed a cornerstone of the high quality health care we provided. Madam Speaker, nurses are on the front lines of health care delivery not only here at home but also in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, because we are relying on our nurses so heavily and because we currently are experiencing a shortage of nurses, it is critical to support nurse training programs. That is why I recently joined with a number of my colleagues in supporting title VIII funding to provide loans and grants to our Nation's nursing students. I urge all my colleagues to support the goals of National Nurses Week.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, both the Small Business Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer programs have proven to be extremely successful since the their implementation in 1982. These are both grant programs that have been effective in providing government assistance to small businesses to help more people in our country achieve the American Dream. Although I do have some concerns about the underlying bill, H.R. 5819, small business is still the cornerstone of the economy and job growth in this country, and I am happy that we're addressing these important programs on the House floor. Madam Chairman, small business drives United States economic growth and innovation. These companies make up 99.7 percent of all United States employers and employ nearly half of all Americans who are not working for the government. In addition, small businesses employ 39 percent of high-tech workers, such as scientists and engineers, and they produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than do the larger firms. The SBIR and STTR programs were created to provide critical funding to these companies so they could conduct R&D that they otherwise would not be able to afford. These programs also provide further funding to commercialized promising technology resulting from that R&D. Since their inception in 1982, these programs provide over $2 billion in grants and contracts each year, and they have provided the start-up funding for hundreds of small businesses in the United States. In my own State of Georgia, Georgia Tech, my alma mater, provides assistance to small business initiatives across the State, and as a result, companies have received $15 million in SBIR and STTR grants. Specifically in my district in northwest Georgia, the 11th, eight companies have received $8.3 million in SBIR awards since 2005. So, Madam Chairman, it is vital that these programs are reauthorized so we can continue to foster small business development in the emerging technology-based global economy. While I am generally supportive of H.R. 5819, I do, as I said, have some concerns with sections relating to venture capital and phase one and two grant eligibility. Venture capital helps small business entrepreneurs gain credibility on solid ideas that have the potential for commercialization. However, while venture capital serves as an important component in facilitating small business success, it must also be closely monitored and scrutinized. We must ensure small business interests are at the heart of SBIR and STTR programs. After all, that's why they were created back in 1982. Through H.R. 5819, small business companies who utilize SBIR and STTR programs have the latitude to incorporate venture capital funding into their operation, but section 201 in the bill provides safeguards so that small businesses are not merely conduits for venture capital interests, and I want to thank Chairwoman Velazquez for this. While I believe this section of the bill is a very good step in the direction of protecting small business interests, I believe that this language could be even stronger to specifically reinforce the integrity of these two programs. Madam Chairman, I do support the mission and the intent of SBIR and STTR programs. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 5819.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly come to the floor today in support of the Small Business Innovative Research Act, and if some of the amendments, particularly the one offered by my friend on the other side, Mr. Welch, is approved, and maybe a couple of other amendments, I definitely plan to support this bill. But in regard to this rule, Mr. Speaker, I am fully supportive of my colleague from Pasco, my former colleague on the Rules Committee, that says we want to defeat this previous question to give Members an opportunity to come to this floor and talk about something that indeed is more of a crisis than what we do with our Small Business Innovative Research Grants, although that is important. So that is the reason why I will vote in favor of defeating the previous question. Mr. Speaker, the promises that were made, and I just want to show, if my colleagues will look at this chart, the day George Bush was sworn into office as President, the price of regular gasoline was $1.49. Two years ago, about 2 years ago, the day that Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $2.33, and today, 15 months into her leadership, gas prices have spiked at $3.50 a gallon for regular, a $1.30 increase in my home State of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is really unacceptable, it's downright deplorable, especially when the new Democratic majority and the new Speaker of the House campaigned and made a pledge that they would bring down the price of gasoline. Instead of bringing it down, Mr. Speaker, look what has happened. This is not a linear growth, this is an unbelievable exponential growth. So as part of this changing of the rule if we defeat the previous question, it would require, Madam Speaker, within 5 days, she's had 15 months, but it would require her within 5 days to bring a bill to provide a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. The previous gentleman from Illinois had some great ideas; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) had some great ideas. There are so many Members that could come to this floor on both sides of the aisle and give some amendments and some ideas that would truly bring down our dependence on foreign oil. Right now, 60 percent of our usage comes from either the Middle East or from Venezuela.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My good friend, my subcommittee Chair on the Science Committee, made a comment. He said, the reason for the skyrocketing price of gasoline is because of what is going on in the Middle East; this war that we are waging in Iraq. Well, I would like to point out to him that the production of oil from Iraq today is exactly what it was prior to the war 5 years ago commencing. And that is about 2.5 million gallons a day from Iraq. So the price of oil has nothing to do with that. It absolutely has nothing to do with it. We are going to control this with some of the ideas, the coal-to-liquid idea that Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois, just talked about. We are going to help solve this problem by licensing some new nuclear power plants. As the former chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, the gentleman from California, talked about, yes, we are going to look at solar, we are going to look at wind. We certainly, as our minority party, now former majority party, have tried so hard to get us to explore for more oil and gas in this country. ANWR could produce another 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, and drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, why are those things blocked? It's time for us to do something about it, and I am glad that the gentleman from Washington is going to ask all Members to vote against the previous question and let's give an opportunity for Members to come down and give their ideas.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, Public Law 101 was signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt 100 years ago today on April 23, 1908. Accordingly, I rise to congratulate the Army Reserve on its centennial. First conceived by President Roosevelt and senior military leaders as a means to increase the efficiency of the Army's Medical Corps by establishing a reserve force of specially trained personnel, the mission of the Army Reserve has since been expanded to include additional military occupational specialties. Indeed, it is testament to the stature of the Reserve that it now provides nearly 40 percent of the mission-essential combat support and combat service support forces of the Army. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, since September 11, 2001, 98 percent of Army Reserve units have either deployed or provided mobilized soldiers, and more than 180,000 individual soldiers have been mobilized or deployed in support of this global war on terrorism. As we honor the Army Reserve on its centennial, I would like to pay tribute to all of our citizen soldiers, past and present, whose personal courage, contributions, and sacrifices have helped preserve the freedom and advance the national security and homeland defense of the United States.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, today the residents of Floyd County, Georgia are saying goodbye to a native son who died while bravely serving his Nation in Iraq. Sergeant William Elliot Allmon was killed in action on April 12, 2008 outside of Baghdad, after his vehicle encountered an IED, an improvised explosive device. Last night, I joined Sergeant Will Allmon's family, friends, and supporters at his visitation to honor the life of this brave soldier. He was remembered as a man of the highest character whose receipt of two Army commendation medals, an Army achievement medal, a combat action badge are testament to the supreme sense of duty he felt to his country and to his brothers in arms, his comrades. Most importantly, he was remembered as a first-born son, a father, and grandson whose contagious smile brought a sense of warmth to those in his presence. Born and raised in Floyd County, Georgia, Will joined the National Guard at age 17 before going full active duty in 2003. After serving one tour in Iraq, and even being wounded, Sergeant Allmon selflessly decided to return to the war zone for a second tour, from which his unit will return home this summer. His whole mission in Iraq centered on keeping his fellow soldiers safe, risking his life for the sake of others. Sergeant Allmon served as a combat engineer for the Army, where he specialized in building protective structures for friendly forces and destroying protective structures for the enemy. I think his mom put it best when she said, ``He was a leader who was looked up to by other soldiers. He was a loyal soldier who went beyond the call of duty.'' Sergeant Allmon leaves behind his wife, Jennifer; his 3-year-old son, Damien; an 11-year-old stepson, Jason Luke Johnson; his mother, Donna Fortune; his father, William Allmon; his grandfather, Leonard Allmon; and grandparents, Billy and Joann Phillips. Mr. Speaker, my prayers go out to his family and my deepest gratitude goes out to Sergeant Allmon for his selfless sacrifice for this Nation, and I ask all Members, and I know they will, join me in honoring the distinguished memory of Sergeant William Allmon.