Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I congratulate the gentleman on his work on this alternative that we are going to see.

The one before us is the Progressive budget, and it seems to me that what we have here is a continuation of the problem that we are all focused on, which is we've overdosed on credit, and there really is a limit to how much you can spend. This is an unfortunate thing. We wish that we had no limits, but there are limits. I hope that Progressives won't stand on the floor and say what I've often heard them say before, which is, ``The question is not whether we can afford to do this. The question is whether we can afford not to do this,'' which is, of course, inherently irresponsible because there are limits. There are limits on how much money there is available, on how many resources we can commit to various programs and projects, and we've got to live within those limits.

There has been a lot of talk about inheriting this financial mess, and as the gentleman from Texas said a little while ago, it is a mess, and it is something that this administration is dealing with and that this majority is dealing with, but it's also something that we've got to admit has been coming for a long time. This is not, really, a brand new thing. The housing bubble was new--or the bursting of it was new. The buildup and the blowing up of that bubble took a while. The bursting of it is more recent, but the thing has been going on for a long time under, frankly, Republicans and Democrats. It is the runaway spending and entitlements that must be constrained. I would submit the only way to change it is to change the underlying programs and the incentives and the way that those programs work.

For example, in Medicare, we just have got to find a way to incentivize the patient to care about how much it costs, and we have just got to find a way to make prevention part of our health system. Now, that's something we need to come together on and figure out-- Progressives, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats.

How do you do that? How do you change the underlying incentives in a program like Medicare to bring it under control? I would submit that these sorts of things where you just sort of cap the rate of growth really don't work because we've seen that, we've done that, and then we've extended the cap, so that doesn't work.

What's going to have to happen is we have to figure out a way to come into those programs, those big ones--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security--and figure out a way to change the underlying program. Hopefully, we can do that in a cooperative, collaborative way. There are ideas on this side of the aisle that will work in health care--that will work to bring down the cost, the runaway cost of Medicare and Medicaid. I hope that we can get to that.

Madam Speaker, today I read another one of these hopeful statements. It's the hope from some folks that say we want energy independence with increased development of all of our natural resources, including renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

What I trust my colleagues here are beginning to notice is that hope is not a strategy. And when you hear somebody, or a group of us, or outside group saying that we hope we can get to renewable energy resources, what we really need to say to them is, so how do you get there? What is the strategy? What is the strategy beyond just hope?

Well, for me, the path is laid out in sound economic principles. If you have a price signal that causes entrepreneurs and investors to see how they might get married along some point of a projection of cost, such that they could see where it is that they could take out the incumbent technology, then you have a strategy. Up until then, you just have some hope.

So, Madam Speaker, the thing that I hope we see is that, if we take the incumbent technology, in the case of transportation, which is gasoline, and start attaching its externalities to it, basically internalizing the externals and saying, okay, gasoline, bear the full weight of your cost; in other words, bear the weight of the national security risks that we're running by being dependent on a region of the world that doesn't like us very much. Bear the environmental consequences, and then let's compare to some other possibilities.

Today I had the opportunity to meet with some folks that are looking at electric vehicles. Those are fairly attractive in today's market, but not as attractive as they were at $4 a gallon. Today gas is somewhere around two. But I'm here to predict for my colleagues that we will be dealing with $4 a gallon gasoline before too much longer. Within the next couple of years, as the economy takes off, I think we can expect to be back at $4 a gallon. At that point, of course, this electric car company will be far more competitive.

So we could just wait and be jerked around, essentially, by OPEC and the problems of a constrained supply and an increasing demand, which means that the price may gyrate very rapidly. Or we can plan our way toward energy security with a solid plan that's an actual strategy rather than just a hope. And that hope, that strategy that I hope we will pursue to basically say, get something better than cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade, by itself, is an enormous tax increase in the midst of a recession. It's also trusting Wall Street to do maybe derivatives in carbon credits when they didn't do so well with derivatives in home mortgages.

So, rather than doing that, what if we reduce taxes somewhere else, say, in payroll, and then increase taxes or, for the first time, placed a tax on carbon dioxide?

The result would be no net increase to government, no increase in taxation but, rather, a swap of taxation, moving from one source of taxes, payroll, to another, carbon dioxide. If we do that, and lay it out on a curve where entrepreneurs and investors can see the price signals that are being sent, then we can have a real strategy, one that's not based on hope, but one that's based on sound economics.

Madam Speaker, I hope that's what we get to in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, following up on the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) in talking about energy, I have got a different take on that, and the different take is this: It is all about economics.

Actually, technologies exist right now to be the alternatives. The problem is, they don't compete real well against the incumbent technology, because the incumbent technology doesn't have all of its negative externalities attached to it. If you attach those externalities to those incumbent technologies, all of a sudden new things would happen. And rather than being driven by government and grant programs for this or that, it would be driven by free enterprise, with people making money selling the competing technology.

What do you have to do to get there? You have got to figure out a way to, what economists call, internalize the externals. You have got to figure out a way to attach to the incumbent technologies, which in this case with transportation is gasoline, attach the negative externalities to the price. In other words, demand accountability. Insist on accountability. Say we are going to attach the national security risk, for example, to gasoline, and we are going to say, what is it really costing us for a gallon of gasoline? Is it the $1.90 that I paid recently in my car, or is it a lot more than that? The answer is, it is a lot more than that.

If you consider just the supply chain that we have to protect the assets that we have forward deployed to protect the supply chain, and attribute some percentage, it doesn't have to be 100 percent, but some percentage of the cost, for example, of protecting the shipping lanes that carry this stuff that we are addicted to, to us, if you just attach the cost of a percentage of that, maybe 50 percent of it, give 50 percent cost accounting to somebody else, somebody else's account. But let's account to gasoline at least 50 percent of the cost of the operations in protecting the shipping lines. If you do, it is not $1.90 a gallon. It is a lot more.

But as long as there is an unrecognized externality, then what happens? There is a market distortion. And as long as that market distortion exists, nothing happens in free enterprise. Because what free enterprise is about is a wonderful thing called ``making a profit.'' And the people generally on this side of the aisle understand very well that we are in business to make money, to make a profit. But when

your competitor gets a freebie in the national security realm or a freebie when it comes to climate change impact, or a freebie when it comes to, say small particulates, when it comes to coal, nuclear doesn't develop, and alternative energies don't develop because you have got this freebie.

Why not continue on with the cheap old technology, the one that really doesn't take a lot of rocket science? You stick pipe in the ground, out comes some crude, you refine it, stick it in a car and you run it. Not real rocket science. But how about some rocket science of hydrogen, for example? Well, you have to internalize some externals in order to make that work for a profit-making venture.

Until then, we will be talking science projects. I'm on the Science Committee. I'm happy to do science projects. But what I really want to have happen is to have people making money selling the competing technology. Here is a way to do it. We are just hearing about how we don't want more taxes. So let's start with a tax reduction. What if you reduce taxes on something, say payroll or income, and then in an equal amount, apply a tax to carbon-based fuels? Then we will see what happens. What would happen then is all kinds of exciting things. The new entrepreneurs in the energy field, the Bill Gates of the world in energy would suddenly do for energy what Bill Gates at Microsoft and Steve Jobs at Apple did for the PC and the Internet. America would break free. It would be no additional intake to the government, and Mr. Speaker, we would be on our way to energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 130, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

I thank the distinguished ranking member for that glowing recommendation of my great State. We are here today to recognize the plight of the Tibetan people. Several speakers have already mentioned incredible stories of the indomitable human spirit.

One story was told to me earlier today by a staff member who was visiting in China, and tells a story of going to a Tibetan temple where, during the Cultural Revolution, the people of that town took their food rations and the grain that would have been food for them and put it in a temple in order to hide a statue of a Buddha so as to protect it from desecration by the Chinese Communists. Many of those townspeople starved to death as a result of giving up those food rations.

That is a story of the indomitable power of the human conscience and the tragedy that comes when nations try to defy that basic human right. So we are here today to celebrate the spirit of the Tibetan people and to call on the Communist Chinese to give greater political rights and economic opportunities and respect the dignity of the Tibetan people.

As we consider this resolution right now, the Chinese government has forbidden foreign journalists and tourists from entering Tibetan areas under their control. A massive crackdown is underway that involves beefed-up paramilitary forces deployed throughout the area and a deliberate disruption of normal cell phone service to prevent reports from leaking out.

For all practical purposes, as we have heard here earlier today, Tibet is under an unofficial state of martial law, 50 years after the Dalai Lama fled into exile. From March 2008 to June 2008, Chinese officials disclosed that authorities detained more than 4,400 Tibetans for allegedly rioting, the vast majority of whom are known to have engaged in peaceful protests.

A Tibetan NGO reported that a total of more than 65,000 Tibetans have been detained in 2008, and over a thousand of whose whereabouts and well-being remains unknown, many of whom are monks and nuns.

According to an August 21 report from the Tibetan government-in- exile, at least 218 Tibetans died between March and June of 2008 as a result of the Chinese police using lethal force against protesters or from severe abuse, including torture while in detention.

Mr. Speaker, we in this Congress should rise in unanimous support of the people of Tibet and present a unified force of the Congress and the Obama administration to unambiguously condemn the Chinese government's ongoing crackdown in Tibet. We must also convey a clear and consistent message to Beijing that says this: Progress in talks with the Dalai Lama and bringing meaningful autonomy and religious freedom to Tibet is an essential benchmark that China must meet in order to advance relations with the United States.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to lament the fact that, today, in a stroke of a pen, utilitarianism beat down human dignity.

When President Obama lifted the ban on stem cell research additional lines, what he is saying really is that it's okay to kill some humans in order to improve the conditions of other humans. The problem with that is it devalues all humans when we say that you can kill some to benefit others.

We can do this research. We can do the more promising research on adult stem cells, and we can get to the place where we don't produce excess embryos. Other countries, Germany, for example, limits the number of fertilized eggs, but we produce excess embryos. We can stop that practice. We can also have adoptions of the existing excess embryos.

So Madam Speaker, it is a sad day when utilitarianism beats down human dignity. It's a sad day for America. This is a time when we should be, in a technological age, establishing bright-line tests so that we understand and preserve the dignity of human life. It's also not the interference of politics into science, but the bounding of science by ethics and morality.

Madam Speaker, I have been doing this series on our energy insecurity problem and opportunity. And it clearly is that. It's both a danger and an opportunity. Our energy insecurity, the fact that we are dependent on foreign nations for our transportation

fuels and the fact that we really don't have a great plan at this point about how to produce electricity. So we've got this energy insecurity and we've got a danger there, but we have also got an incredible opportunity.

But speaking especially to fellow conservatives, I wonder if our conservative environmental policy is being controlled by former Vice President Al Gore. You know, it's said that he who angers you controls you. So I wonder if the fact that when we hear ``climate change,'' we see Al Gore and we get angry; it makes him actually the one that's controlling our view of climate change. Wouldn't it be something if we conservatives were actually under the control of Al Gore because he angers us so much that we can't see past him and some claims he makes about climate change? Some conservatives think that's a bunch of hooey. But if we can't see past that to the job creation opportunity and to the national security risk, then is he really controlling us?

So what I'd like to ask, especially fellow conservatives, to consider is, is that really where we want to be? Do we really want to be controlled by a former Vice President, or do we want to see the opportunity, job creation opportunity, and the incredible national security danger, and then move to act to solve it?

Of course, I think that the solution that conservatives bring is an understanding of markets and how economics work, and how it is that people making profit will actually solve this energy insecurity problem.

So try this out for size: If I'm making Inglis widgets at my factory, and I'm belching and burning and basically dumping ash on my neighbor's property, it's a pretty good deal for me. It stinks for my neighbor. Now, under Biblical law my neighbor would have a cause of action against me. Under English common law, under American common law, and by virtue of EPA and regulations, my neighbor would have a cause of action against me or a regulatory regime to help him out.

Now, if I'm heard to complain to the local congressman, no, now, listen, you can't make me put scrubbers on my smokestack because that will drive up the price of my widgets. Inglis widgets will go up in price, and that will make it so that the customer is hurt. Well, will it? Or will it actually create the opportunity for another entrepreneur across town who is ready to compete with me and take me out because he's got a cleaner process, a smaller smokestack, if you will? So if society wants to move along to that better product that my competitor is offering across town, then what we have to do is figure out a way to make me keep my ash on my property. If you do that, it's called internalizing the externals. It's something that we conservatives can understand. It's a market distortion that we have got to fix. If we fix it, then my incumbent technology, the cheaper widgets because I get to dump ash on my neighbor's property, suddenly becomes more expensive, and the competing technology now takes me out.

That's where we are with gasoline, for example. The reason the gasoline is so cheap, and it is so cheap, is there are all these negative externalities that aren't recognized by the market: the national security risk, the climate change risk, the environmental problems associated with it. If you stuck those onto the product of gasoline and said, now, gasoline, compete with plug-in hybrids, suddenly plug-in hybrids would be popping up everywhere because the competition would be able to take out the incumbent technology.

I think that's an inherently conservative idea. I think it's understanding how markets work, how economics work, and how profit can solve this energy insecurity. Because if we get to the place where that competing technology can take out the incumbent technology, we will break this addiction to oil, and we will improve the national security of the United States, and we will create jobs, because those new technologies have a lot of jobs in them.

So even if you think that climate change is a bunch of hooey, there are two other reasons to pursue it that are equally valid and very exciting opportunities to fix this energy insecurity that we face, and that I look forward to talking with you again about.

My colleagues, this is an opportunity for us to work together to build consensus, to collaborate as Republicans and Democrats. We can fix this problem.

Madam Speaker, the last couple of weeks I have been discussing opportunity and the danger that we confront with our energy insecurity. There is this enormous danger that was talked about over the last couple of weeks. There is also this incredible opportunity to create new jobs.

And to give you an idea of what that means in a district, the Fourth District of South Carolina, one of the six in South Carolina, has the wonderful fortune of having General Electric make gas turbines and wind turbines there. They have somewhere around 1,500 engineers and somewhere around 1,500 production employees, and at that facility they make wind turbines. They tell me that 1 percent of the world's electricity right now is made by the wind.

If it goes to 2 percent, it's $100 billion in sales. I am pretty excited about that because, presumably, a lot of that money would be attributed to the Greenville facility and jobs would be created there.

So the question is how do you get from here to there? By the way, Madam Speaker, the Department of Energy says that we can, in the United States, get to 20 percent of our electricity being made by the wind, and we consume 25 percent of the world's electricity. So it's a tremendous business opportunity.

So how do we get from here, the intention of having fuels of the future, to the reality of fuels of the future? Well, I think it's all about economics. It's all about whether there is a price signal and an internalizing of the externals associated with fossil fuels--and that's what I talked about last week here on the floor--is the need to internalize externals associated with some of our fossil fuels, especially coal in the case electricity; and in the case of the national security risk we are running with petroleum, the externalities associated with what comes out of our tail pipes and the national security risk associated with what we put in the gas tank.

So if you start attaching those externals to the price of the product, then some good things start happening and we start moving toward this incredible opportunity. So the opportunity at hand for us in a place like Greenville, South Carolina, is to create jobs by having a price signal sent through the marketplace that coal, for example, is no longer going to get the freebie that it has gotten. Right now, it's free good in the air. You can belch and burn all you want without any accountability for what's going up there.

That's a pretty good deal if you are the one belching and burning. But if you are the guy across the street who has got a better technology, a cleaner technology, a technology of the future, rather than of the past, then you are not going to take out that incumbent technology until a price signal is sent that could be sent by attaching the internals associated with the production of electricity by something like coal.

So what I am here to suggest, Madam Speaker, is that what we should be looking at is a revenue neutral carbon tax, revenue neutral in that you start with a tax reduction, reduce payroll taxes. In fact, I would like to eliminate them, but reducing payroll taxes is a first step.

Second step, apply a transparent tax to carbon. The result would be that no additional taxation would be coming to the U.S. government. The burden would not be greater on the American citizen, but we would send a price signal that would cause companies like General Electric to be able to see their way clear to make those wind turbines and electricity generators to buy those gas turbines because the freebie, the

free good in the air, would no longer be going to the coal-fired plants.

So it's an incredible opportunity for us, Madam Speaker, that we begin this move towards fuels of the future. It starts with sound economics, conservative principles of accountability and of attaching externals to internalize the externals associated with some fossil fuels.

If we do that, Madam Speaker, the future is very bright in creating jobs in America. I am very excited about that and look forward to talking about it more with my colleagues as we go forward to figure out a way we can break this addiction to foreign oil and to power our lives in cleaner and job-producing ways.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of HR 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: HR 1105 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act--Energy and Water--Department of Energy

Account: Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Clemson University

Address of Requesting Entity: 209 Sikes Hall, Clemson, South Carolina 29634

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide an earmark of $951,500 to the Clemson University Cellulosic Biofuel Plant project. Cellulosic ethanol comes from breaking down the lignin and hemi-cellulose shell in order to access plant sugars for fermentation into renewable fuel. It is estimated that cellulose conversion to ethanol can produce 800-1000 gallons of ethanol per acre (compared to 416/acre for corn). Capturing 20% of the state's gasoline fuel market through bio-ethanol would build a $1Bn industry. In order to accomplish that goal, South Carolina must have the capacity to produce 700M gallons of ethanol/year. Based on recent studies of the economic impact of corn ethanol plans in the Midwest, 700M gal/year of bio-ethanol capacity could lead to $1.5Bn in capital investments, create 10,000 new jobs, add $2Bn to the local economy and increase local and state taxes by $20M. Approximately $50,000 (5%) will go towards site utilities/ grading; $680,000 (71%) will go towards building structure; and the remaining $228,000 (24%) will go towards process equipment, support utility systems and construction fees; with multiple funding sources in subsequent years completing the project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: HR 1105 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act--Energy and Water--Department of Energy

Account: Science

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Clemson University

Address of Requesting Entity: 209 Sikes Hall, Clemson, South Carolina 29634

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide an earmark of $1,427,250 to The Clemson University Cyberinstitute (CUCI) project which will assist research universities around the State of South Carolina to perform scientific research in nanotechnology, bioinformatics/computational biology, environment/ecology and global climate change. The project links South Carolina to a nation-wide backbone of world-class university research, industry partners and cutting-edge technology entrepreneurs. CUCI will serve as a conduit for a virtual research campus that brings together cyber resources and strengths from each of South Carolina's research institutions, including Clemson University, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the University of South Carolina. Approximately $250,000 (18%) will go towards network connectivity; $200,000 (14%) will go towards network redundancy, $250,000 (18%) will go towards high performance computing, $250,000 (18%) will go towards data storage, $200,000 (14%) will go towards visualization resources and $250,000 (18%) for personnel management support, with multiple funding sources in subsequent years completing the project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: HR 1105 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act--Financial Services and General Government--Small Business Administration

Account: Salaries and Expenses

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Union, Mayor Bruce Morgan

Address of Requesting Entity: 101 Sharpe Avenue, Union, South Carolina 29379

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide an earmark of $100,000 to build a facility for world-class robotics training that would serve manufacturing facilities in the surrounding counties. The project will provide significant technical training in a state, local and private partnership to meet the needs of an existing and growing robotics industry. It is a critical focus in an economically distressed area to diversify from a shrinking textile employment toward higher paying, higher skilled technical jobs. The facility would offer specific training (hydraulics, pneumatics, electronics, robotic software and diagnostics) for the automotive, aerospace, rail, and super

precision industries. The building will be divided between Union County, the University of South Carolina-Union, and Spartanburg Community College for the specific programs. The entire amount will go towards laboratory equipment for training purposes.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: HR 1105 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act--Interior and Environment--U.S. Forest Service

Account: Capital Improvement and Maintenance (construction)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Forest Service, Sumter National Forest

Address of Requesting Entity: 3557 Whitmire Highway, Union, South Carolina 29379

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide an earmark of $250,000 to improve multi-use access to Sumter National Forest resources according to the Forest Service adaptive management plan. The U.S. Forest Service will repair and upgrade facilities along the Broad, Tyger and Enoree Rivers in Union County, SC and improve signage and mapping to allow better access for visitors. Approximately $20,000 (8%) will go towards finalizing the adaptive waterways/river management strategy; $100,000 (40%) will go towards a river feasibility study; $10,000 (4%) will go towards Enoree & Tyger River trail maintenance; $20,000 (8%) will go towards stabilizing erosion problems occurring at access points; $40,000 (16%) will go towards river maps and signage; $10,000 (4%) will go towards closing off illegal river access areas; and $50,000 (20%) will go towards constructing a jetty to prevent silt deposits.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: HR 1105 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act--State, Foreign Operations

Account: Global Health and Child Survival

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Christian Blind Mission International

Address of Requesting Entity: 450 E Park Avenue, Greenville, South Carolina 29601

Description of Request: Of the funding provided for vulnerable children, $2,000,000 is provided for child blindness programs. USAID should consider the work of Christian Blind Mission (CBM) which acts upon the needs and rights of people with disabilities; 18 million people worldwide benefit from CBM's support. 1.5 million children are currently blind, and another 7 million suffer from poor vision. CBM's eye care programs focus on four preventable and reversible sources of blindness: cataract, river blindness, vitamin A deficiency and trachoma.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: HR 1105 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act-- Transportation, HUD

Account: Interstate Maintenance Discretionary

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: South Carolina Department of Transportation

Address of Requesting Entity: 955 Park Street Suite 341, Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide an earmark of $475,000 to the statewide Interstate Rehabilitation Program which is in need of funding for the main thoroughfares across the state. Funding would allow interstates to be preserved, reconstructed, or rehabilitated. These routes are ranked in priority order based on daily traffic (ADT) volumes, length of the project, and the condition of the road (PQI rating). Approximately $190,000 (40%) will go towards interstate maintenance projects located in Greenville county, $285,000 (60%) will go towards interstate maintenance projects located in Spartanburg county.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: HR 1105 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act-- Transportation, HUD

Account: Transportation & Community & System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: South Carolina Department of Transportation

Address of Requesting Entity: 955 Park Street Suite 341, Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide an earmark of $285,000 to the SC 9 Interchange Improvements in Spartanburg, SC project which will include the widening of 4.3 miles of SC 9 from the existing two to three lane ditch section to a five lane curb and gutter sections. This also includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities and enhancements. The entire amount will go towards Right of Way acquisition.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: HR 1105 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act-- Transportation, HUD

Account: Transportation & Community & System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: South Carolina Department of Transportation

Address of Requesting Entity: 955 Park Street Suite 341, Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide an earmark of $95,000 to the Salter's Road expansion project which will widen Salter's Road from Verdae Boulevard over I-85 to Millennium Drive, and provide the necessary infrastructure support for the ICAR/ Millennium Park and Verdae developments. This area is becoming a growing business and commercial nucleus for the Upstate of South Carolina, requiring more adequate transportation and infrastructure. This project is listed as a top priority on the approved Greensville- Pickens Area Transportation Study Long Range Transportation Improvement Plan. The entire amount will go towards the development of final construction plans, and environmental requirements.

Mr. Speaker, just before the President's Day recess, I stood on this floor and talked about the national security risk we're running with our energy insecurity. Tonight, I'd like to talk about the economic opportunity that's present in moving from energy insecurity to energy security.

You know, I'm on the Science Committee, and in the Science Committee, we get to see a lot of new technology. The question of the hour really is how to get that technology to the market, how to do for energy what Microsoft and Apple did for the PC and the Internet; how do we get from here, from ideas, to jobs.

Well, I happen to think that this is a place where folks on my side of the aisle, Republicans, can be particularly helpful because what we realize is some market distortions, and the impact of those market distortions, on bringing products to market.

So the market distortion I'm particularly interested in talking about tonight comes from the fact that certain negative costs associated with the incumbent technologies, especially petroleum, aren't attached to that product. As a result, we drive around in our cars unaware of the extra costs that are really associated, properly associated with a gallon of gas.

So, for example, it's a huge national security risk associated with buying gasoline. Gasoline right now in my district is costing about $1.70 a gallon. But that doesn't factor in the cost of operations in places like Iraq. It doesn't factor in the risk of future operations in the Middle East. And, of course, it also doesn't factor in the environmental consequences of that $1.70 worth of gasoline.

So what would happen if you had what economists call internalize the externals. What if you attached to the price of that gallon of gasoline those externalities, those costs that are currently unrecognized? Well, that's really the key to moving technology from the lab into the showroom. Because right now, it's there in the lab; we know a lot of things will work.

But it doesn't really compete with the incumbent technology because the incumbent technology--gasoline in this case, talking about transportation fuels--it gets a big freebie or two. It gets us subsidizing their business in the form of national security expenditures, and it gets us winking and disregarding the environmental consequences associated with that gallon of gasoline.

If those externalities were internalized to that price of gasoline, of course the price of gas would rise; but the other technologies that are out there that are ready to take out that incumbent technology and reduce our national security risk and to create these new jobs would become viable.

And, of course, in this economic downturn, we're looking for all of the ideas we can find about how to re-employ Americans, how to get our economy going. And what I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, is that we see a tremendous opportunity in energy.

Our insecurity in energy can become energy security when we internalize the externals associated with the incumbent technologies and make it so the market doesn't have this distortion any longer. This is a strength that I think that people who understand markets can deliver to this process. I hope the Obama administration is going to listen to those ideas because together, we can solve this problem and we can reach an American solution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Back to the nanotechnology bill for a moment. This bill is a good bill, and I wanted to congratulate the chairman, Mr. Gordon, for something that he said earlier in this debate about the need to help the public understand new technology.

Of course, use the example of nuclear power. In South Carolina, we use nuclear power very effectively. It does take some education to get people comfortable with the concept. The same with nanotechnology. An important part of this bill, I think, is enabling the public to begin to understand nanotechnology--all of us to understand nanotechnology.

It's a little bit difficult. But, as we do, we get more comfortable with it, the uses of the technology, the safe uses of that technology will benefit us and will drive, hopefully, an increase in productivity within our economy.

And that brings me, of course, to the other discussion that is going on here today about how to get the economy going. What is the best way to accomplish this sort of thing long term?

In this nanotechnology bill we are taking good steps that the House is wise to take. In the stimulus package I wish we were doing the same sort of things. I wish that we were setting up a trajectory forward where we are going to have higher productivity out of this economic downturn. The risk that we have got is what we are going to do is simply spend some money that we borrow, which means that we pile on the debt, and the result is that we don't really get the growth we are looking for because the growth will be eaten up in inflation and perhaps a risk of hyperinflation once this debt really comes to be digested by our economy.

So, the hope that I have is that we could actually come up with the same sort of approach we are using here in this nanotechnology bill, a collaborative approach, where we have Republicans and Democrats working together to accomplish something good for the long-term benefit of our economy and our country.

In the case of the stimulus, what we have is not that process. We have sort of the opposite, where this basically compromise, which is a zero sum game, as opposed to collaboration, which uses the strengths of both parties to come together and solve problems that America faces.

So, it's with excitement that I vote for the nanotechnology bill. It's with real disappointment that I vote against the stimulus package.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the word ``crisis'' in Chinese is written with two characters. The first means danger and the second means opportunity.

It occurs to me that that's really where we are in our country today when it comes to energy. We've got both a danger and an opportunity. Of course, this may sound a little bit dated because, you know, 6 months, 8 months ago on this House floor we were talking about prices of gasoline at $4 a gallon or something. Now, gas at $1.60 a gallon is a sleeper cell waiting to detonate, and it will eventually detonate. So we get this enormous danger.

We saw the danger this summer. It became real and present, and we saw what happened when gas hit $4 a gallon. Now, it's going to get a little bit of a sleeper cell action going on here where it's $1.50, $1.60, $1.70. But what we've got there is a huge danger looming for us in the future.

We've also got, though, this incredible opportunity. In this midst of this economic downturn, we're looking for jobs. We're looking for a way to create productivity for the future and to get beyond just stimulus and into long-term growth.

So, in that regard, I had an opportunity to visit with the wind unit of General Electric Company in Greenville, South Carolina, recently, and they told me that 1 percent of the world's electricity is made from the wind. If it goes to 2 percent, just from 1 percent to 2 percent of the world's electricity coming from wind, it's $100 billion in sales, $100 billion. That's an opportunity.

So we've got this danger in our precarious position with energy, dependent on foreign Nations, some of them that really don't like us very much. But we have also got this tremendous opportunity, which is the job creation opportunity by these fuels of the future.

So the question is why don't we move quickly to those fuels of the future, and here's where I think folks from my side of the aisle can really add to this discussion because, you know, one of the strengths of Republicans is understanding free enterprise, how to make a profit, how to make things work, how to create things, build things, grow things, make things work. That's our strength.

And so when you're thinking about wind, for example, why isn't wind used more? Why isn't nuclear used more? Well, the answer is the price signals aren't there. It isn't cost-effective in a lot of cases to pursue those new technologies. What's cheaper? Well, the things we know: burn coal, burn natural gas, burn oil, gasoline. Those things are the incumbent technologies that have a market distortion going on. And the market distortion, which is something again that we Republicans understand very well, we understand about markets, the market distortion we've got going on is a free good in the air. That means I can belch and burn on my property 24/7 without any accountability for what it does on somebody else's property when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

And so if you start attaching that accountability and saying to me, Inglis, listen, you're going to have to keep

your stuff on your property--this is a biblical concept. It's an English common law concept. It's American common law, and it's part of our EPA regulatory regime. The idea is to be accountable for what you do on your property and hold those incidents on your property and not have the opportunity to belch and burn and dump on somebody else's because that creates a market distortion.

Over the weeks to come, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to talking more about that market distortion and how it is we might change that and how we might use the power of free enterprise to create these jobs, to solve the environmental challenge and to address this national security risk. In my view, it's the triple play opportunity of this American century. It's something we should be very excited about, and it's a terrific bipartisan opportunity. I look forward to talking more about that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The question before us, I think, is this: Is the risk of doing nothing greater than the risk of buying $700 billion of illiquid securities? The argument for it, of course, is that illiquid securities may turn out to be an okay investment. The best argument against it is it's basically socializing losses after Wall Street-types have pocketed profits. But, you know, when knowledgeable people tell us that there is a substantial chance of a depression, it's time to act.

Our financial markets have overdosed on credit. Truth be known, we have all overdosed on credit. The Federal Government, businesses large and small, families wealthy and poor. Working that overdose out of our system is going to take some time. But by buying up some of the securities that have fallen to a price below their value, the government might be able to stabilize the market and later sell off some of those securities at a profit. Some will be found to be worthless because they are so far removed from the original collateral, but some will have value, and we may just come out of this okay.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of

H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army--Sensors and Electronic Survivability.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Gecko Energy Technologies, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 1225 Laurel Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201.

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide $3,000,000 to research and create hydrogen batteries for the warfighter that would produce three to four times the energy as the best batteries in use today, resulting in battery weight reductions of 60-80 percent. Approximately $480,000 (16 percent) will go toward the R&D contract with the University of South Carolina; $900,000 (30 percent) to Gecko Energy Technologies Inc./MCEL Micro Power Design/Engineer prototype hydrogen battery; $360,000 (12 percent) to fabricate and test hydrogen battery; $390,000 (13 percent) for reliability testing; $150,000 (5 percent) to finalize design/engineer; $210,000 (7 percent) to tool and fabricate hydrogen batteries; $150,000 (5 percent) for test and evaluation; $150,000 (5 percent) for regulatory/logistics analysis; and $210,000 (7 percent) for program management.

The U.S. military has a critical need to reduce the weight and increase the run time of batteries used to power battlefield devices such as radios, Global Positioning Systems, night-vision goggles, remote sensors, surveillance equipment, and unmanned vehicles. Gecko Energy Technologies Inc. will become a part of the world-class fuel cell development community in South Carolina by locating at the university to leverage the tremendous assets of the NSF Center for Fuel Cell Research and the strong intellectual base at the university. Hydrogen battery products based on the revolutionary new passive planar Gecko PowerSkinTM fuel cell technology and highly energy dense Solid Stored Hydrogen on Demand fuel cartridges will be ruggedized to meet the needs of the military and demonstrated. Manufacturing capability for these products will be developed allowing rapid deployment and use by the military. The weight of the batteries carried by the warfighter will be reduced by 2/3, small unmanned aerial vehicles flight times will be 3 to 4 times longer, and unattended ground sensors will be capable of operating for months instead of days utilizing these revolutionary hydrogen batteries at mission costs which will be approximately 40 percent less than conventional batteries. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army--Sensors and Electronic Survivability Account. This project has received approximately $4 million in private investments as well as a decade of research by Millennium Cell and the University of South Carolina to make this warfighter tool a reality.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation, Air Force-- Materials.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Cytec Carbon Fibers LLC.

Address of Requesting Entity: 7139 Augusta Road, Piedmont, South Carolina 29673.

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide $2,400,000 to conduct research and development aimed at producing a domestic source of cost effective, high performance carbon fiber used to manufacture efficient manned and unmanned air and space vehicles for the military. Approximately $192,000 (8 percent) is to continue R&D for scale process optimization to ensure equivalent or superior product performance through modified polymer chemistry; $168,000 (7 percent) is to continue R&D for scale process optimization to ensure equivalent or superior product performance through carbon fiber surface science for improved property translation in composites; $192,000 (8 percent) to produce (pilot scale) and test 12k versions of phase I defined advanced PAN-based carbon fibers; $168,000 (7 percent) to establish testing protocol with Greenville and York Technical Colleges; $288,000 (12 percent) to generate meaningful preliminary composite data for use by target program managers; $96,000 (4 percent) to establish training parameters for manufacturing and use of high performance carbon fibers; $240,000 (10 percent) to begin scale-up of production/commercial capability; $288,000 (12 percent) to produce multiple production-scale carbon fiber lots of selected 12k versions of advanced fibers; $480,000 (20 percent) to initiate qualification/design allowable database test programs based on key military applications; and $288,000 (12 percent) for Air Force Research Laboratory project management. In an effort to reduce the Department of Defense's fossil fuel dependence, the DoD has recently given significant attention to lightweighting manned and unmanned ground and air vehicles through advanced materials, such as composite structures, which are currently only available from foreign suppliers. The military has demonstrated a need for access to a lower cost domestic source of new advanced carbon fibers and testing protocols. Cytec Carbon Fibers will provide a domestic solution and utilize its carbon fiber expertise to develop and manufacture high performance carbon fibers in its Greenville, SC plant to be used for military applications including J-UCAS, UCAR, Global Hawk, Predator, F- 18 E/F, JSF and V-22 as well as missile and satellite components. The ultimate goal would be for Cytec to work with local technical colleges, such as Greenville and York Technical Colleges to establish a knowledge base on the manufacturing, testing, repair and efficient use of advanced composite materials. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force--Materials Account. Since 2006, Cytec Carbon Fibers has invested $7 million to upgrade its R&D facilities and pilot plant capabilities.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation, Army--Aviation Advanced Technology.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Timken Company.

Address of Requesting Entity: 408 Industrial Park Road, Union, South Carolina 29379.

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to provide $1,280,000 to develop an advanced gear material system for helicopter power transmissions. Approximately $512,000 (40 percent) will be used to undertake material treatments, characterize 10 material treatments through elemental testing, and down select 2 material treatments; and $768,000 (60 percent) will be used for material 1 gear testing, material 2 gear testing, and the final report.

All major commercial and military helicopter manufacturers share a common fundamental goal in requiring more power dense transmissions. The intent of the Power Dense Transmission project is to create base information for engineering analysis and product application decisions relative to helicopter transmission components. The end result will be a fully tested prototype which will be ready for integration into helicopter field applications. The Department of Defense wants to use this technology in various helicopter gear box applications. They are interested in gear systems that can reliably carry more power and torque for longer periods. This conclusion is supported by the U.S. Army's RDS21 program through Sikorsky, where bearing technologies that support improved transmission system performance have been evaluated. Current programs to enhance the performance of military rotorcraft platforms such as the Chinook, Apache and Blackhawk would benefit significantly from the availability of a demonstrated, high performance gear material system technology. Current development programs such as the V22, X2 and Joint Heavy Lift would be enhanced by improved transmission system capability. This is a technology repeatedly stated as needed by the Army. The Department of Army wants this technology and approached The Timken Company to develop it. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army--Aviation Advanced Technology Account. The Timken Company will be contributing a minimum of 50 percent cost share to the project through internal company funds.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize and welcome Major Matthew P. Franke as a chaplain who serves God and country with devotion, dedication, and honor.

Among his stations over his 14-year military career, he provided pastoral ministry and counseling across Iraq and Kuwait to more than 600 members of the Air Force serving with Army and Marine units in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom at Balad, Iraq.

He currently works in our office, the Fourth Congressional District of South Carolina, where he serves with distinction as a legislative liaison fellow, and we are privileged to have gotten to know him over the course of this year.

His family continues to live in Wyoming. He and his wife Martha have three sons, Micah, Joshua, and Jacob, and a particularly beautiful daughter, Rachel.

We very much appreciate his service in the Fourth Congressional District of South Carolina.