Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to say, the Republican Party is in absolute agreement. This is about jobs. This is about immediate action. That's why we have offered a plan that gives twice the jobs at half the cost. We believe it should be also debated today, but instead, the Democrats have chosen to pass the largest appropriation bill in the history of the United States. Now, I don't think they've read it. We all know this bill hasn't been read but by a mere handful of people, but part of this bill actually increases the debt ceiling to $12 trillion. And you know what, if deficit spending worked, we would be in great shape. Last March, $29 billion to Bear Stearns; in May, $168 million for another stimulus package; in July, $200 billion for Fannie Mae; in September, $85 billion for AIG; in October, $700 billion for Wall Street. My goodness, we would be in great shape if deficit spending stimulus bills like this and bailouts worked. But instead, what we're doing here today is just one more of the same. This is a bill that has 17 percent tax cuts, a big 20 cents an hour for the workers out there. It has a mere 7 percent in shovel-ready projects, dams, roads, bridges that need to be rebuilt. But the Democrats have instead decided to increase the Federal Government spending: 31 new Federal programs; $200 billion in phantom earmarks that will be decided where the money is spent by State and local governments, even though the Federal legislative branch should be deciding where Federal money goes; $2 billion for groups like ACORN; $500 billion in a non-earmark bill for the NIH headquarters in Maryland. Isn't that interesting? $600 billion for DTV; $30 million for a rat in San Francisco. Mickey Mouse is going to be envious. He's no longer the mouse with the greatest net worth in California. Now, there's a San Francisco rat that has edged him out. While people are being foreclosed and unemployed, the Democrats are spending $30 million for a rat.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I sometimes find serving in Congress greatly baffling because here we are, while many, many Americans, millions of Americans are unemployed, and we're actually going to debate a bill on if we should start working at 9 a.m. Why are we having that debate? Let's just go ahead and do it. Maybe we should show up for work at 8 a.m. and start voting. This is not exactly a real controversial issue. And then, while unemployment is at an all-time high, foreclosures right and left, and there's a big credit crunch, we're going to spend time and tax dollars congratulating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Why don't we just say, hey, congratulations. Now we've got to get people working again. But we are actually printing a bill that congratulates the Pittsburgh Steelers, while people are having their houses foreclosed. Meanwhile, out in San Francisco, a rat is going to get $30 million in the so-called stimulus bill. Apparently, it's a full employment bill for rats in the San Francisco Bay area. Of course we would never call this an earmark because the Speaker has told us there are no earmarks in this bill. And the fact that this rat lives in her district and it's a $30 million specified earmark, would not suggest that it's an earmark because we've been told there are no earmarks in it. Thirty million dollars to preserve a rat, while the Federal Government also spends millions of dollars eliminating rats. This is hard to understand. I guess it's a job-creation program because you're creating jobs eliminating rats in some areas, and creating jobs preserving rats in other areas. Thirty million dollars. Meanwhile, if you've been laid off or your house is being foreclosed, what's in this bill for you? Well, very little. But perhaps you could go to San Francisco and borrow some money from the rats. Maybe they could say, hey, you know, we actually can reproduce without $30 million. Oh, wait a minute. I just thought about it. That's why it's called a stimulus bill. It stimulates rat activities so we can grow more rat families out in San Francisco. You know, the Republican alternative has twice the jobs created at half the cost. The Democrat big government spending plan creates 3.7 million jobs, or saves 3.7 million jobs. We're not sure exactly what saving means. We do know it saves lots of government jobs. We know that if you're in the rat preservation business, certainly that $30 million will be saving your very important job during this time. But I'm going to go ahead and say, it does create or save 3.7 million jobs. But the Republican plan, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, creates 6 million jobs. The Democrat big spending plan is about $790 billion, as the opening bid. Because we all know that what the government plan does is create new floors for the budget. So when we go back on the regular budget process, these temporary expenditures will become the permanent floor. And we also know that there will be billions of dollars spent on interest as we borrow this money. So the Democrat plan, basically, is about $1 trillion. The Republican plan is less than $400 billion, and it's in targeted tax cuts that create jobs in the small business sector. That's what we need right now. We need small businesses to go out and expand. We need them to buy new equipment. We need them to hire new employees. That's what the Republican plan does. The Federal Government, under the Democrat plan, will continue to borrow and print money. We know right now we owe foreign governments $3 trillion, 22 percent of which is held by the Chinese, followed by Japan, followed by Great Britain, but $3 trillion that we are borrowing from foreign governments, and we will have to borrow more money. In fact, in 1 year, we will borrow more money than we did the first 200 years of history in the United States of America. That is, from 1799 to 1980, we've borrowed less money than we will this 1 year. We are doubling the money supply, which will lead to inflation. This Democrat big government expansion plan that is using the tragedy of people's unemployment and foreclosures as an excuse to expand good government includes 32 brand new Federal programs. As Ronald Reagan said, if you don't believe in resurrection, try killing a Federal program. You just can't do it. There's $100 million in here for school lunchroom equipment. I guess now we can start serving popcorn and maybe put in smoothie machines, maybe even cotton candy. That probably will help kids' self-esteem, so we probably should do it. There's $4 million in here to create a green building oversight agency in the Federal Government. So $4 million, again, create some government jobs, I guess, but we'll have a green building monitoring system. I'm sure that that 4 million is targeted, temporary, and will disappear at the end of this budget cycle, but that's not going to be the case and we know that. The Department of Energy, their budget, their annual budget is doubled in the stimulus plan. Now, there may be reason to double the bureaucrat budget over at the Department of Energy because I know that that creates lots more government jobs. But why aren't we doing that in the annual budget? Why does that have to be sneaked in the back door? There is money in here. Of course, we never call this an earmark, but there is a non-earmark ``earmark'' in here to study the profit-making of private industries in the Northern Mariana Islands and in American Samoa. I don't know why. I don't think anybody on the floor can tell us why we need to study the profit-making ability of private industry in the Northern Marianas and in American Samoa. I certainly would say that is not an earmark, but I wonder who put that in. Who sneaked it into this voluminous piece of legislation? Now, there is also $200 billion in phantom earmarks, phantom earmarks because they don't have anybody's name by it. There is $200 billion in largess that will be spent by State and local governments. The difference is, in these non-earmarks, they are phantom earmarks because no one's names will be by them. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, and if I request new barracks for the soldiers of the 3rd Infantry down in Fort Stewart, Georgia, my name will be listed by it. I will have to be justified as to why I think those barracks should be paid for by the taxpayers. I will explain why the soldiers who have been in Iraq need to come home to good barracks. That's fair. It gives sunshine to it. It gives transparency. Yet $200 billion in phantom earmarks of which we won't know how it is spent? You know, I'll say this: At least with regard to the $30 million for the San Francisco rat we've got an idea as to who put that one in, and we certainly know where it's going to be spent. I am looking forward to seeing these $30 million rats one day if I can get out to San Francisco, because they must be some fine-looking animals. I mean we don't just spend money like that on any rat. They've got to be San Francisco marsh rats. They're probably walking around, have got some nice looking clothes on--San Francisco stuff. They're probably wearing flip flops and sunglasses as they're going over to Sausalito for lunch and looking out across the bay at Alcatraz and saying, ``Hey, is that where the Guantanamo prisoners are going to end up?'' Probably not. Of course, that would be an earmark if we did that. Anyway, Madam Speaker, here we are with a bill that I will venture to say not one Member of Congress has seen yet. I know that there have been some inside-the-beltway people who have seen it, but I don't think there is one Member of Congress who has seen this stimulus bill which we may be about to vote on. This bill is bigger than the leftover budget from last year. It is $790 billion. It is the largest single vote in terms of an expenditure in the history of the United States Congress. Yet I have not seen the bill. I would love to know where I could see the bill. Where can I find this bill? I want to start reading it. I will ask my friend from North Carolina: Have you seen this bill?

Mr. KINGSTON. Here we are. You are a member of the Rules Committee. The bill has to go through the Rules Committee. You have to be the one to sign off on it. Would the gentlewoman tell me this: Would we be able to offer an amendment--I don't want to say to ``kill the rats''--but maybe to let them continue breeding on their own as they have since--well, some will say ``creation'' and some will say ``evolution''? I don't want to touch on some tenderness out there, but rats have probably been doing really well. Here they are, surviving. Could we offer an amendment to kill this proposal?

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I appreciate that. My friend from Colorado, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. Well, I want to say this to my friend from Colorado, and I want to say this to my friend from North Carolina: where I am very frustrated is that here we have this huge bill. As I understand it--and I know the gentleman supports this--they lay it on the table for 48 hours so that people can look at it. I'm afraid, beyond the people who are in the Chamber right now, that that rule is going to be waived. That is not what we're voting on now as I understand it, but I am concerned that, later on in the course of this day, we will get a rule that will say we will waive the requirement that a bill has to sit on the table for 48 hours so that Members of Congress can read it. Now, remember that we have philosophical disagreements on this bill. I support tax cuts, a little spending, more money for public works-- more money for highways, roads, dams, and bridges--as does the next person, and I understand we're going to have a good debate on it, but I think that the democratic way of doing business in a legislative chamber should be to put this bill on the table so that everybody has time to read it. I would venture to say, whether you are Democrat or Republican, rank-and-file Members have not been able to read this bill. It is very important that we read the bill and that we have transparency and sunshine and an open debate on it. So, when that time comes, I hope that we will have bipartisan support that does not waive the 48-hour requirement so that we have an opportunity to see what is in this bill. Also, I want to say this: you know the Republican proposal. It is twice the jobs created at half the cost, which I support, but with the passage of this, it doesn't end the debate. I'm going to continue to fight for it. I know the gentlewoman will, and I look forward to working with my friend from Colorado on these things because there will be some opportunities down the road to change and to modify this because, if this stimulus package that was cut in a backroom deal last night is voted on today or maybe tomorrow instead of next week sometime after we've already read it, then I think we're just going to have to continue to stay engaged and see what we can do to improve upon it. I will take the President at his word when he says he wants to do bipartisan things. I want to engage in that process on a bipartisan basis. I don't think three Republicans in the Senate who move over constitutes something as being bipartisan. In fact, if you want to talk bipartisan, there were eleven Democrats who voted against it in the House, so the bipartisan vote in the House was against the stimulus package. Yet, if we need to keep working and not vote on this bill for two or three more days, I think it's very important, because no one, Democrat or Republican, is talking about not doing anything. Not doing anything is not an option that anybody on this side of the aisle is discussing. We're talking about twice the jobs at half the cost. Couldn't we combine the best ideas of the Republican Party with the best ideas of the Democrat Party and put aside the labels and try to do what is best for America? That person out there who cannot borrow money, that person out there who has been foreclosed on, that person out there who has lost his kid's college education or his savings, and that person out there who is unemployed, that is who we need to focus on.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, when the Democrats shut the Republican Party out of negotiations and from having any input on this alleged stimulus package, the big spending package, $836 billion, the Republicans had their own set of hearings. They were open to the public and open to Democrats. The result of the Republican Working Committee, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, was a plan, an alternative, that created twice the jobs at half the cost. Now, just roughly, the Democrat proposal creates 3.7 million jobs at a cost of $830 billion. The Republican plan creates 6 million jobs--over 6 million, in fact--at a cost of just less than $400 billion. Tax breaks that are targeted at job creation, tax breaks that are targeted for small businesses, tax breaks for people who are unemployed so they would not have to pay taxes on their unemployment insurance, these are things that we need. Twice the jobs, half the cost.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Why is that money there? What is the interest of the Speaker with American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands? What is that about? Why would that be in a jobs bill? To study private sector profits? It makes no sense. You know, our national debt right now is $10.6 trillion. We spend $450 billion each year just paying interest on the debt. That's almost as much as what we pay for the entire Department of Defense. We are letting the generation that's in charge rob from the next generation. That would be our kids. You know, Democrats and Republicans have done a lousy job of controlling spending and, certainly, as a Republican, I want to say we have not done the job we should have done. But our worst deficit when we were in charge of Congress was $412 billion. This quarter, this quarter alone, the Democrats will exceed $1 trillion in deficit spending. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to go back to the table. The Republican bill provides twice the jobs at half the cost.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for speaking, and I certainly am going to support this bill. All I have to say is here we are with high unemployment, with economic disaster happening, and yet we are spending time debating a bill which is going to pass by 435 votes. It is a good bill. It is a noncontroversial bill. It will pass. It should be voice voted. But why are we spending time to do this when we have millions of unemployed Americans and other people who are on the brink of getting laid off? We have a stimulus bill that the Democrats are very proud about. It has about $830 billion price tag at the moment. It creates 3.7 million jobs. Now the Republican alternative is half the cost and twice the jobs. I want to repeat that. Twice the jobs and half the cost. It is a bill that targets small business job creation. It targets Main Street, not Washington, D.C., not Wall Street, but Main Street, so that the jobs could come from the bottom up rather than centralized bureaucratic governmental planning here in Washington, which failed in Moscow. It has failed everywhere else that the government thinks they know best. The Democrat bill costs $280,000 per job in a country where the household income, on an average, is $50,000. Just 7 percent of this money goes to public works, roads, bridges, highways, things that actually put people to work with shovel-in-hand, only 7 percent of their money. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that only 22 percent of the entire bill could be spent this year. So much for urgency. And one interesting provision that now the Senate has rejected is the E- Verify, the electronic verification language of the House that will make sure that the jobs go to legal American workers, now that might get thrown out. Boy, that is such a signal to our Americans. The Senate compromise continues the House folly of creating 32 net new Federal programs. Some of the programs include $29 billion for weatherization, $1.2 billion for the National Science Foundation, $1.3 billion for NASA. Now, remember, this is a jobs program. It's not a normal appropriations program. These things the Federal Government has a hand in. I understand that. But they're not job creation. This bill has $200 billion in undisclosed, phantom earmarks, $200 billion which will be used for earmarks, but it won't be disclosed because decisions will be made by State and local government. It contains about $8 billion for corporate welfare, by saying to telecommunication companies who want to expand broadband, we know you're doing that right now with your own money, but we want to give you the money to do that. In fact, there's even language in there that specifies the speed at which the broadband tax credits will be available, and there's only one company that will be eligible for that. This bill rolls back the 10-year long welfare reform. It eliminates the back-to-work provision in welfare, and you don't have to necessarily land a job, you have to be searching for the job if you're able-bodied, and this bill eliminates that. This bill creates a brand new program, $100 million to allow schools to buy new lunchroom equipment. Popcorn, anybody? Smoothies? Don't worry, the Federal Government will put the machine in the lunchroom near you. And then $100 million for an ag disaster, even though we just passed a permanent agriculture disaster bill in the farm bill. This bill still goes out and puts another $100 million for it. This bill doubles the annual budget for the Department of Energy. It goes from $23 billion to $40 billion. This bill allows a new program which puts the Federal Government in charge of buying $300 million worth of electric cars like this. Now, I am a strong proponent of alternative energy, and I think that these cars have a purpose. But it doesn't belong in a jobs bill. We do not need that in a jobs bill at this point. The list goes on. This bill has $4 million for a Federal high- performance green buildings office. This bill actually has language in there to study the private sector profits in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly agree with the previous speaker that we do need to have bipartisan cooperation on this. And of course, we got off on the wrong foot. This bill was passed in the House without having the beauty of subcommittee hearings. There was one general hearing back in December, before many of the Members who voted on it were even sworn in to be a Member of Congress. So I think we could go back and this week, maybe in a conference committee, open it up and allow some of the amendments that were left out of the Senate or the House side to be included in it, and maybe we could work in a bipartisan fashion. This bill, as it is now, is more expensive as it comes out of the Senate than it was by the House, which had a bipartisan vote against it. There was a partisan vote for it, but a bipartisan vote against it. Only 7 percent of the spending in the bill goes to public works projects. That's $57 billion out of $838 billion. And only 22 percent of the money could actually be spent this year. So much for urgency and shovel-ready projects. The Senate bill actually increases spending $19 billion over the House bill, which, on a bipartisan basis, so many of us voted against. It creates all kinds of new programs, 32 new programs. Now, some of them were being stripped out by the Senate that the House put in there. That was good. But I just found out about a new $100 million program to get new lunchroom equipment into schools. Now, maybe that's a good idea, but why can't that be done where it's always been done, on a local level? $100 million so that schools can buy new lunchroom equipment. There's also funding in there for the Department of Energy that actually doubles their annual appropriation, in a stimulus package. There's even a grant in there to study privatization on American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. What is that about? Have you read that language? I don't think anybody has. It's very peculiar. How did that get in there? And you know, this bill the President brags about has no earmarks, let's be serious. It has $200 billion worth of earmarks, but they will be made by State and local authorities. It won't be made by the Congress. At least when the U.S. Congress does earmarks it gets posted on the Web page and people can find out who requests it. But no, we're going to have phantom, ghost earmarks to the tune of $200 billion. Madam Speaker, the Republican alternative to this bill creates more jobs at a lower price tag. The Republican bill, through tax credits to small business, creates about six million jobs, and that's from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan analyst of this. The price of the Republican one is about $400 billion. We stand ready to work with the President and work with the Democrats on a good, bipartisan package because we think doing something is the right move. But this package deserves a ``no.''

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the chairman, and I wanted to respond to some of the comments that my Democrat friends have been making. Number one, we do want to work with them on this package. We met with President Obama yesterday to pledge our support of turning this economy around. We have offered a lot of good ideas, ideas that the House Democrats have not embraced as of yet, but we hope that they will, because we think President Obama and we made some progress yesterday. One of the things we talked about is extending tax breaks for small businesses so that they can create more jobs. We think that is very important. We talked about easing the credit crisis so people can go out and borrow money and make investments in new jobs. We also talked about housing, stabilizing the housing market so that people can become homeowners. One of the things that's not in this package is also tax credits for small businesses to purchase health care for their employees. We think that would be very, very helpful. And also ending some of the unfunded mandates that are strapping our cities and local governments. We believe we have a lot of good ideas. We are very disappointed that this committee, Appropriations, only had one hearing and we were shut out of some of the subsequent negotiation and crafting of this bill that we think could have been helpful to do on a bipartisan basis. Now Mr. Hoyer had talked about history and how stimulus bills work. Let's talk about the stimulus bills and let's talk about recent history. I don't need to go back to Ronald Reagan. Last year, 2008, $29 billion for Bear Stearns, $168 billion for the other stimulus package we just passed in May, $200 billion for Fannie Mae bailout, $85 billion for AIG bailout, $700 billion for the TARP, the Wall Street bailout. If this kind of spending worked, we would be in great shape in our economy right now. But we keep throwing more and more money on the problem to the extent that this country now has a $10.6 trillion national debt. In fact, the interest on this package alone, Mr. Chairman, will be $347 billion a year. And so this really isn't just an $825 billion package, this is a $1.1 trillion expenditure. Who is going to pay for it? Not people here today but our children and our children's children. We are digging a hole. And where does this money come from? Three sources. You can tax people, and I can tell you the working man is taxed to death right now. And I am glad there is some tax relief in here for some people, but not tax relief for everybody in the middle-income bracket, which is what we desperately need. The second way we can do that is to print the money. We print money, and it just leads to inflation. Or we can borrow the money. Right now we owe foreign governments $3 trillion, China being the number one lender to us at 22 percent, followed by Japan and followed by Great Britain. We are digging a huge hole.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say this. I do think there should be a balance of tax credits and a balance of public works spending in this bill, but it is sad that while the National Endowment For the Arts gets $50 million--I don't know what kind of job creation that's going to do--but $50 million, we only spend 7 percent on shovel-ready projects in the year 2009, only 7 percent, and total public work spending for roads, highways and bridges is about 13 percent. We can do better, and I would like to work with the Democrats and the President, as would all the other Republicans, and try to make a better package than what we are looking at today.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. This changes our $400 million loan program to extend broadband, changes it to a $2.8 billion grant program, thus creating one of the largest corporate welfare elements that's out there--and I don't know how that creates jobs--and $23 million for the Inspector General for audits, and how does that create jobs. There are better ways. We should reduce unfunded mandates, we should increase the public works, we should have more tax cuts for small business, we should implement the SAFE Act, and we should reward responsible behavior. Announcement by the Chair

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was in a meeting today with the Republican Party and President Obama, and we pledged to work with him to turn this economy around, and we feel very serious about working with the President on a bipartisan basis. But as we look at the stimulus package, I don't think this is quite what he had in mind. Only 7 percent of the appropriation goes to shovel-ready projects, only 13 percent in general goes to public works- type projects. At that rate it spends $275,000 per job, and the household income for America is about $50,000. This is not bold enough in terms of job creation for the targeted 3 to 4 million jobs. The second part is this bill creates 32 brand new Federal programs at a cost of $136 billion, new spending, and yet we didn't have hearings on all of these new programs. Then it has extension of some spending that we already have, millions of dollars for contraceptives, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $200 million for grass resodding on The Mall. In fact, for every $1 in small business tax relief, this bill gives $4 to resod The National Mall, and $600 million to prepare the country for universal health care. And then, as Mr. Wolf said, we are going to talk about the debt. Our Nation is $10.6 trillion in debt. Now, the worst Republican deficit was $412 billion. The Democrats this quarter will exceed $1 trillion in deficit spending and, as Mr. Walz said, we owe $3 trillion to other countries, led by China. I sit on the Agriculture Committee. We have about $26 billion in the Agriculture portion of this bill, but only $1.7 billion is spent on public works, things that will create jobs. The rest of it is traditional left-wing spending, expansion of the Food Stamp Program, even though food stamps has an automatic enrollment, and it also has an automatic inflation guard. But we are increasing food stamps.

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say I apologize.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, the Islamic group Hamas--which does not acknowledge Israel's right to exist--took control over the small strip of land. Since then, relations between Gaza and Israel have steadily deteriorated. On December 19, Hamas ended the 6-month cease-fire with Israel by launching dozens of rocket attacks into southern Israel, randomly targeting civilian neighborhoods. Eight days later, Israel began a counter defensive of large scale air strikes. Hamas has continually used Gaza as a launching pad for rockets against Israeli cities and has contributed deeply to a reduction in the quality of daily life and the deteriorating humanitarian situation. I deeply support Israel's right to defend themselves against Hamas attacks. I also hope to see a sustainable crease-fire brokered to save the innocent victims of Hamas' continual instigation of Israel's defensive power. A friend recently sent me this compelling Washington Post article which I would like to submit for the Record. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 4, 2009] As My Son Goes to War, I Am Fully Israeli At Last (By Yossi Klein Halevi) Jerusalem.--``I just heard on the news that Gavriel's base has been shelled,'' my wife, Sarah, said to me last Tuesday, referring to our 19-year-old son, a member of an Israeli army tank unit waiting on the Gaza border for the order to enter. And, she added in a deliberately calm tone, ``A soldier was killed.'' We texted Gavriel, and within five minutes he called, safe. How, Sarah asked, did families survive war before cellphones? For days we waited for a cabinet decision: Will there be a land invasion or a new cease fire? The politicians began to bicker while our soldiers waited on the border, in the rain and the mud. Anything but this, I said to Sarah. Not another Lebanon War, which, like Gaza, began with an impressive show of Israeli air power but ended with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah predicting the imminent end of ``the Zionist entity.'' If we don't win this time--deliver an unambiguous blow if not topple Hamas entirely--our deterrence will further erode, inviting more rocket attacks and encouraging the jihadist momentum throughout the Middle East. And then I caught myself: How can I be hoping for an outcome that will send my son into battle? This is my first experience as the father of a soldier, and now, after 26 years of living in Israel, I finally understand the terrible responsibility of being an Israeli. I had assumed that I'd become initiated into Israeliness when I myself was drafted into the army as a 34-year-old immigrant in 1989. But perhaps only now have I become fully Israeli. Zionism promised to empower the Jews by making them responsible for their fate; the price for that achievement is to be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for one's commitments. I know Gaza from a previous conflict. During the first intifada of the late 1980s, when Palestinians revolted against the occupation, I was part of a reservist unit that patrolled Gaza's refugee camps. There I learned that there is no such thing as a benign occupation, as Israelis had once deceived themselves into believing. Our unit not only arrested terrorist suspects but also dragged people out of their beds in the middle of the night to paint over anti-Israel graffiti and rounded up innocents after a grenade attack just to ``make a presence,'' in army terminology. At night, in our tent, we argued about the wisdom of turning soldiers into policemen of a hostile civilian population that didn't want us there and which we didn't want as part of our society. A majority of Israelis emerged from the first intifada convinced that we need to do everything possible to end the occupation and ensure that our children don't serve as enforcers of Gaza's despair. That was why I initially supported the 1993 Oslo peace process that took a terrible gamble on Yasser Arafat's supposed transformation from terrorist to peacemaker. And even after it became clear that Arafat and other Palestinian leaders never intended to accept Israel's legitimacy, I supported the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, simply to extricate us from that region, knowing that we would not receive peace in return. And now my son is fighting in Gaza. The conflict he and his friends confront is far worse than my generation's experience in Gaza. In our time, we were confronted with mere rocks and Molotov cocktails; my son faces Iranian-supplied anti-tank weapons--one more price we will pay, along with the missile attacks on our towns, for the Gaza withdrawal, just as the Israeli right had warned. Still, I don't regret that withdrawal. If Israelis are united today about our right to defend ourselves against Gaza's genocidally minded regime, it is at least partly because we are fighting from our international border. My son and his friends have one crucial advantage over my generation's experience in Gaza: They know, as we did not, that Israel was ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for peace, uprooting thousands of its citizens from their homes and endorsing a Palestinian state. My son confronts Gaza knowing that its misery is now imposed by its leaders. He knows that his country was even prepared to share its most cherished national asset, Jerusalem, with its worst enemy, Arafat, for the sake of preventing this war. That empowers him with the moral self-confidence he will need to get through the coming days. The face of my Gaza enemy was a teenager throwing rocks; the face of Gavriel's Gaza enemy is a suicide bomber. But we are hardly free of moral anxiety. Even as I pray for Gavriel's physical safety, I pray too for his spiritual well- being: that his tank doesn't accidentally shell civilians, that he isn't caught in some terrible mistake, which can so easily happen in a war zone where terrorists hide behind innocent people. For the past eight years, Israel has fought a single war with shifting fronts, moving from suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to Katyusha attacks on Israeli towns near the Lebanon border to Qassam missiles on Israeli towns near the Gaza border. That war has targeted civilians, turning the home front into the actual front. And it has transformed the nature of the conflict from a nationalist struggle over Palestinian statehood to a holy war against Jewish statehood. Except for a left-wing fringe, most Israelis recognize the conflict in Gaza as part of a larger war that has been declared against our being and that we must fight. But how? Even some right-wingers are saying that we should have declared a unilateral cease-fire after the initial airstrike and then dared Hamas to continue shelling our towns, rather than risk another quagmire. And even some left- wingers are saying that we should now destroy the Hamas regime and then offer to turn Gaza over to international control or, if possible, an inter-Arab force led by Egypt. Every option is potentially disastrous. Most Israelis agree on two points: that we cannot live with a jihadist statelet on our border, and that we cannot become occupiers of Gaza again. The despair of Gaza is contagious. One friend, a Likud supporter, said to me, ``I don't know what to hope for anymore.'' Meanwhile, I try to reassure myself about Gavriel's safety. Growing up in Jerusalem during the suicide bombings in the early 2000s, he has already known danger, intimacy with death. A 13-year-old acquaintance was stoned to death, and was so mutilated that he could be identified only by his DNA. A friend lost the use of an eye in a bus bombing on his way to school. At least now, Gavriel and his friends can defend themselves. Perhaps one reason most of them volunteered for combat units was because now the generation of the suicide bombings can finally fight back. Just before the conflict in Gaza began, I happened to visit Gavriel at his base. His unit's barracks had been turned into what young Israelis call a ``zula''--a hangout. There were muddy couches, chairs without backs, a darbuka drum, a TV (Jay Leno was on). It could have been a teenage scene anywhere in the West, except that hanging on the walls were Hamas banners captured by the unit's veteran members in a previous round of fighting in Gaza. In a corner of the room hung a photograph of a fallen soldier. Across the bottom someone had written, ``What was the rush, Shachar? Why did you have to leave us so soon?'' Even now, perhaps especially now, I feel that our family is privileged to belong to the Israeli story. Gavriel, grandson of a Holocaust survivor, is part of an army defending the Jewish people in its land. This is one of those moments when our old ideals are tested anew and found to be still vital. That provides some comfort as Sarah and I wait for the next text message. Yossi Klein Halevi is a senior fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the author of ``At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew's Search for God with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land.''

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize five students in my district that have received national honors from Future Farmers of America. These young people--Ryan Highsmith, Jordan Culpepper, Nicholas Worley, Jacob Schindler, and Courtney Curlin--have surpassed many other students to earn top honors for their work in local Future Farmers of America. All of these students excelled though challenging assessments at State and National level against their peers before being awarded these top accolades. Ryan Highsmith of Lake Park, Georgia, won first place in the nation for Specialty Animal Production for his four year work with honey bee cultivation. Jordan Culpepper of Lake Park, Georgia, won second place in the nation for Diversified Agriculture Production. Jordon dutifully worked with both livestock and crop production in a wide range of operations for over 5 years. Nicholas Worley of Valdosta, Georgia, was named National Agriscience Student of the Year. Using clean wood chips and leftover biomass from Georgia forests, Nicholas found that a large amount of ethanol can be produced from these two sources. Jacob Schindler of Valdosta, Georgia, won second place in the Junior Individual Botany Division. Jacob's project involved research on the effects of inert gases on kudzu. Jacob researched the uses of gases on kudzu, which enabled him to eradicate several large infestations of kudzu in the Valdosta area. Courtney Curlin of Valdosta, Georgia won third place in the senior individual Engineering Division. Courtney designed a filter using urea, which was able to filter out over fifty percent of particulate emissions from a tractor exhaust. Agriculture plays an important role in the Georgia economy and it is wonderful to see our young people taking an interest in developing our resources. Their projects not only show their innovative thinking, but also prove that this generation recognizes the need to get involved. I am proud to recognize these five students today and wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Savannah Drama Club for their excellence in the arts. The Savannah Drama Club is a youth based ministry that presents youthful styles of praise and performance. Founded by Pastor Carl Gilliard and his wife, Lashawanda, thirteen years ago, the Savannah Drama Club is now known for its polite and respectful youth members as well as their amazing talents. The Savannah Drama Club is visiting Washington DC this coming October and will be making their fifth performance at the White House. The group has also performed on the steps of the Capitol, the Nation's monuments, as well as local jails, community centers, Christian camps, and family shelters. Through their use of theater, poetry, music, dance, spoken word, and even miming, the group is able to spread the Word of God to all. Since its inception, it's estimated that about 900 children have been involved with the program and currently has 42 active participants. This revolutionary drama club has not only touched the thousands who have bore witness to their show, but has also had a great influence on the children involved. This program has kept students off the streets, shown them the rewards of strong discipline, and most importantly, how important it is to serve a higher power than themselves. I would like to take this time to recognize their accomplishments in the arts and ministry, and also to wish them a warm welcome to Washington.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information: Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston (GA-1). Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: RDT&E, Army. 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: Provide an earmark of $4,700,000 to complete the instrumentation of live threat systems and simulators and to develop and integrate virtual threat systems and simulators into a live training environment. Approximately $1,200,000 [or 26%] for integration of command and control systems with threat simulators, $1,600,000 [or 34%] for upgrade of actual threat simulators, $800,000 [or 17%] for integration of aircraft radar homing and warning, and $1,100,000 [or 23%] for simulation of counter-IED training capabilities to benefit our aircrews, training environments must realistically replicate the threat environment in which they are training to fight. The existing Tactical Aircrew Training System (TACTS) that is integrated into the Townsend Range located outside of Savannah, GA, has repeatedly demonstrated the importance of having well instrumented systems in a training environment. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army Research and Development account. Spending levels may be adjusted accordingly for the level of funding agreed to in conference. Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston (GA-1). Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: OM, Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: MPRI. Address of Requesting Entity: 2961 West California Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84104. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $4,000,000 to deliver approximately 45 weeks of Driver's Training Services to U.S. Army Soldiers stationed at Fort Stewart, GA and Hunter Army Airfield, Savannah, GA. The program's training scenarios and associated curriculum provide 4 hours of intensive vehicle operator's training to each Soldier. The training program will utilize 3-4 vehicle simulators at each location, employ 4-6 instructors and focus on vehicle handling, roll-over avoidance and decisionmaking. Approximately $35,000 is for shipping and setup and $3,965,000 is for the execution of the training. The program will provide Driver's Training to approximately 8,000 Soldiers. Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston (GA-1). Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: RDT&E, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Intergraph Corp. Address of Requesting Entity: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $4.2 M for the Strategic Airlift Transformation for Aircraft Availability Improvement team to implement current logistics processes that directly support eLOG21 goals of reducing total ownership cost and optimizing aircraft availability, reliability, and maintainability. Approximately $2.2M will be used to migrate C5-MSG3 principles and practices across additional weapon systems. The current C5 MSG3 implementation will result in a $1.3B net present value savings until FY40 due to maintenance interval extensions and seven additional Aircraft available, per day, to the warfighter. Approximately $1.0M will be used for Logistics Initiatives reducing weapon systems TOC (Total Ownership Cost) and improve Aircraft Availability. Support will include implementing web enabled supply chain tools, and providing supply chain and logistics analysis in support of transitioning workload and ECSS transformation initiatives. Approximately $1.0M will be used for Data Management Initiatives to streamline complex logistics challenges and to bridge the IT gaps as ECSS is implemented across the AF. Spending levels may be adjusted accordingly for the level of funding agreed to in conference. Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: O&M, Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Tremco. Address of Requesting Entity: 3735 Green Road, Beachwood, OH 44122. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2.7M to repair roofs in Company Operations buildings in 3 blocks on Fort Stewart, Georgia. These critical operations facilities are of 1970's vintage and have flat, built-up roofs that are deteriorated and outdated. This type of roof is not suitable for the harsh southeast Georgia climate (heat and moisture) and is not weather-tight. As a result, these buildings require more energy, particularly in the summer, and the interiors are susceptible to water damage (leaks cause mold/mildew problems). These roofs are in dire need of replacement with more durable pitched metal roofs to ensure building integrity, enhance soldier quality of life and morale and decrease exorbitant energy costs. Approximately $750,000 will be used for labor, equipment and material for roof removal; and approximately $1.95M will be used for materials, labor and equipment to replace the current roofs. Spending levels may be adjusted accordingly for the level of funding agreed to in conference. Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: RDT&E, Defense-Wide. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Georgia ANG CRTC. Address of Requesting Entity: 1401 Robert B Miller Jr. Dr, Garden City, Ga 31418-7299. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $4M for the Range Element Network Enterprise Technology (RE-NET) project at the Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center and Townsend Range with additional multi-mission critical data link (Link 16/SADL-XY) capability integrated with the Test/Training Enabling Architecture (TENA) network. The TENA interface will be developed and transferable across all the Major Range & Test Facility Base (MRTFB), and will enable sharing of the tactical data link data by geographically separate Ranges. The RE- NET project will be executed at the Savannah Air National Guard Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC) and Townsend Range, and the program will expand the CRTC' s training capabilities to include additional support for the test and evaluation of net-centric operational employment of current and future weapons systems. Approximately $2.5M is for the integration of additional Link 16 Remote Elements at multiple test/training organizations throughout the Southeast United States, $1.0M is for a net-enabled weapons data link information that will be developed into a TENA format allowing movement of tactical data link messages, and $500K for TENA enabled remote control of threat targets and simulated threat emitters. This plan will be adjusted accordingly to the final funding level provided for in the agreement. Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: O&M, Army NG. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: TerreStar Networks. Address of Requesting Entity: 12010 Sunset Hills Road, 9th Floor, Reston, Virginia 20190. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2M to equip the Georgia National Guard with a command and control system that integrates cellular and satellite communications within the same device, providing them the ability to rapidly respond to crises, such as a mass evacuation event. This system will provide commanders with satellite and data services in the event that terrestrial infrastructure is damaged, unavailable or non-existent, and will ensure redundant voice and data communication with the Georgia National Guard Emergency Operations Center, civilian agencies, and connectivity to the public switched telephone network. The employment of National Guard assets is a critical component for Homeland Defense Civil Support missions, but interoperability between civil and military first responders and civilian emergency planning authorities using commercial networks is still in the preliminary stage. This project will enhance interoperability between responders, making coordinated response activities significantly more effective. Such capabilities will be especially important in any Guard mission calling for the evacuation of coastal Georgia, but could also be deployed across the state in any other mission which the Georgia Guard is supporting civil authorities. Funding provided in this legislation would allow the Georgia National Guard to procure: (1) Satellite service and terminal devices ($1.1 million); and (2) Engineering and deployment planning services ($.5 million). Spending levels may be adjusted accordingly for the level of funding agreed to in conference. Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: OP, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Engineering & Software Systems Solutions, Inc. (ES3). Address of Requesting Entity: 16 Green Street, Suite C, Warner Robins, Georgia 31093. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2M for the Information Modernization for Processing with Advanced Coating Technologies (IMPACT) Program to complete development of high velocity oxygenated fuel repair techniques for the C-5 aircraft slat and flap tracks, which are currently non-repairable and are unavailable for purchase. USAF is projecting they will potentially ground C-5 aircraft due to a shortage of slat track sets beginning in 2009, which could negatively affect the war effort. The IMPACT Program will mitigate this risk. Approximately $1.25M is for engineering services, $375,000 is for manufacture and testing, $200,000 is for purchase of raw materials, $140,000 is for purchase of equipment, and $35,000 is for training and certification. ES3 will contribute on-site personnel, engineering services, and other items to support this effort. Spending levels may be adjusted accordingly for the level of funding agreed to in conference. Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: OP, Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Meggitt Training Systems. Address of Requesting Entity: 296 Brogdon Road, Suwanee, Georgia 30024. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $5M to the Army National Guard to continue to upgrade its fielded Combined Arms Marksmanship Trainers (CATS) to the U.S. Army Validated FATS 5. Approximately $1M (or 20%) of the funds will be used to replace and upgrade the computer simulation hardware and software needed to allow the Guard to train to the U.S. Army standard. The remaining $4M will be used to purchase new weapon simulators to support the ever-increasing pre-deployment and sustainment training requirement. Spending levels may be adjusted accordingly for the level of funding agreed to in conference. Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: O&M, Army NG. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Georgia ANG CRTC. Address of Requesting Entity: 1401 Robert B Miller Jr. Dr, Garden City, Ga 31418-7299. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 to support Atlantic Thunder Joint Training Events. Approximately $160,000 will be used for JICO (Joint Interface Communications Officer) support providing Link-16 network management for all Atlantic Thunder Joint Training Events and unit level Link-16 ``spin-up'' training preceding real world deployments throughout the year. Approximately $340,000 will be used for EW (Electronic Warfare) support services for Atlantic Thunder Joint Training Events and to support miscellaneous pre- deployment ``spin-up'' training and other test and training activities throughout the year. This EW support includes providing an opposition force operating real SAM (Surface to Air Missile) systems against units in training. This plan will be adjusted accordingly to the final funding level provided for in the agreement. Bill Number: FY09 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. Account: RDT&E, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Mercer Engineering Research Center. Address of Requesting Entity: 135 Osigian Blvd, Warner Robins, GA 31088. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $4,000,000 to continue development of a comprehensive Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) program for the U.S. Air Force C-130 fleet in concert with the Air Force High Velocity Maintenance Program. Approximately, $2,000,000 [or 50%] is for development of condition-based maintenance scheduling programs for both field-level and depot maintenance; $800,000 [or 20%] for developing recommendations for employment of appropriate sensor technologies; and $1,200,000 [or 30%] for comprehensive, Reliability Centered Maintenance-based analyses of the C-130 structures and systems. The Department of Defense and the US Air Force have directed implementation of CBM+ strategies to improve maintenance agility and responsiveness, increase operational availability, and reduce life- cycle total ownership costs. Completion and implementation of a comprehensive CBM+ program for the C-130 will achieve the goals of the DoD and Air Force by providing tailored maintenance actions based on actual aircraft condition information, with actions timed to match the needs of individual airframes, and forecasts of required maintenance and replacement parts as well as optimum timing of inspection and maintenance actions reducing unscheduled maintenance and overall operating costs. This plan will be adjusted accordingly to the final funding level provided for in the agreement.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston (1-GA). Bill Number: H.R. 6599. Account: MILCON, Navy. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: NSB Kings Bay, Kings Bay, GA, USA. Description of Request: Provide $6.37 million to construct a 5,000 square feet Communication Addition to the Limited Area Reaction Force Facility in support of the National Weapons Security Program. This high security facility will serve as a command and control center, exercise and recreation spaces, and extended housing for United States Marines and Navy personnel while on duty. This project will provide required ballistic protection for security forces and vehicles as well as the monitoring of perimeter sensors.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, today I rise along with the city of Savannah in congratulating the Armstrong Atlantic State University's men's and women's tennis teams. Both squads were named National Champions in the 2008 NCAA Division II Tennis Tournament held on May 17th in Houston, Texas. It is rare for one university to obtain two national titles in the same season much less the same sport, but the Pirates managed to accomplish this feat. Brigham Young University was the last school to achieve such success in 2003. The Lady Pirates beat Lynn University of Boca Raton, Florida, to achieve their fourth National Championship. The undefeated Men's team swept Barry University of Miami Shores, Florida, earning the University its first ever NCAA title in Men's athletics. Both teams are coached by Simon Earnshaw. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Armstrong Atlantic State University's Men and Women's Tennis Teams for their remarkable accomplishments, and Go Pirates! Women's 2007-2008 Roster: Martina Beckmann, Sophomore, Bonn, Germany; Johanna Dahlback, Senior, Hasselby, Sweden; Sofia Haggstrom, Senior, Taby, Sweden; Alisa Kagukina, Sophomore, Nikolayev, Ukraine; Gabriella Kovacs, Sophomore, Szazhalombatta, Hungary; Alida Mueller-Wehlau, Freshman, Flensburg, Germany; Iuliia Stupak, Senior, Kiev, Ukraine. Assistant Coach--David Secker, Volunteer Assistant Coach--Zsofia Golopencza. Men's 2007-2008 Roster: Rafael Array, Freshman, Las Palmas de Gran Canakia, Spain; Christian Bergh, Sophomore, Oslo, Norway; Paul Bishop, Junior, Whitwell, England; Robert Jendelund, Senior, Huddinge, Sweden; Tim Johannsen, Freshmen, Hohenlockstedt, Germany; Kevin Sijmons, Junior, Beligneux, France; Davor Zink, Senior, Santiago, Chile. Assistant Coach--David Secker.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I certainly thank the third base coach for yielding the time. I do think that there is a healthy thing that's going on here, and that is the Democrats are beginning to hear from their constituents that we've got to do something about foreign oil, and we've got to use our American resources. I think that's good. I think this bill will probably pass. I don't actually know why we're debating it. It's pretty much a restatement of current law. I heard one Democrat say it's a ``drill now'' bill. You know, that's what they are doing right now. They're exploring these leases. These leases are very expensive. They don't buy them to sit on them and for the U.S. Congress to think. This is really ridiculous that they're sitting on land where there are great reserves of oil, but for some reason, they're not drilling there. Come on, guys. This is a capitalist system. These companies are money hungry. They run after profit. If there were oil in these places, certainly they would be working on it. If you want to give them a nudge, I'm all for it. I plan to support the bill. I think it ought to be voice voted out on suspension. It's no big deal. It's a rhetoric bill. It's not a realistic bill. What we do know is that 65 percent of our land resources are tied up and off-limits. We do know that, for example, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is the size of South Carolina in a State twice as big as Texas. And in this massive amount of land the size of South Carolina, there is a tundra area of about 2,000 acres which we believe would increase our domestic American oil supply 10 percent. It was vetoed by Democrat liberal President Bill Clinton 10 years ago. If it hadn't been vetoed by the Democrat liberal, special-interest President, we would have that oil today. It's too bad. And then we hear so often from the Democrats, well, you know, if you open up ANWR and all of these places, it will be 10 years before we get the oil. Well, where are these electric cars? Where are these battery- operated cars? I mean, all of this alternative energy, which I certainly support and have been funding from the appropriations side, working very diligently on, that's going to be 10 and 15 years down the road as well. We've got to do three things on our energy crisis: we have to have conservation, we have to have innovation, and we have to have exploration. It's that simple. But you have got to explore where their actually is oil. I concur with the gentleman from Texas. This is good because the Democrats are admitting that we have to open up more lands. So we're going to pass this bill. Nothing is going to happen to the price at the pump. It's not going to be affected by this because it's basically current law, but I'm glad that you guys are slowly, reluctantly entering into the debate of drilling because we believe that in an environmentally safe fashion, you can drill in Alaska, and you can drill offshore.

Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to say 108 oil platforms were damaged in the Gulf of Mexico during Katrina, and there was no pollution. All of the problems in the gulf, pollution wasn't one of them because now we have environmentally safe ways to extract oil from the bottom of the ocean or from land. I want to say this. You know, we tied up the offshore in the day of the 8-track tape player. That was when you had an 8-track tape player in your GTO and you were the cool, edgy, high-tech guy. Today in the world of iPods and BlackBerrys and cell phones and everything else, technology has moved past the good old 8-track tape player. And the same thing has happened in medicine, the same thing has entered in entertainment, the same thing has happened in oil drilling. We have new technology, modern technology that will extract oil in an environmentally safe fashion. I want to close with this. What is so sacred about protecting the American global environment but not the foreign global environment? The Democrats are fine if you are drilling offshore in your country or drilling on the land in your country, but not in America.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to hear the Democrats flail around for reasons that they won't put energy issues on the floor. I agree with the preceding speaker. Let's talk about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let's talk about offshore drilling. We haven't moved a single appropriation bill because of the fear that we may have an amendment on offshore drilling. Now the President has lifted his ban, and what we hear from the Democrats is it will take 10 years, it will take 20 years. It means two things: number one, they agree there's oil out there; number two, there's a discussion about how long it will take. But my question to them is where are your electric cars? Where are your hybrids that suddenly are going to save us? Those are also going to be 10 years down the road. We need to put it all on the table. We need to look at conservation, we need to look at alternative energy, and we need to drill. It is that simple. You have got to have a three-legged stool to answer the energy situation. And I don't know why the Speaker of the House is afraid to put it on the floor. That is right. There will not be a debate on it because the Democrats are afraid to put it on the floor. I say let's have an up-or-down vote on all of these issues.