Floor Statements

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

If the gentleman from Pennsylvania would continue to yield to me to ask a question of the gentleman from New York. The gentleman from New York said, well, he wasn't sure, but maybe anywhere from 30 to 50 million barrels would be released from the SPR, Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The purpose of that reserve is if the countries that hate us, and certainly many in the Middle East and Venezuela do, if they cut off the supply of oil to us tomorrow, we're talking about about 12 million barrels a day, about 12 million barrels a day that we would not have of the 22 million that we need. So releasing 30 to 50 million barrels of oil from the SPR would do nothing. And the purpose of the SPR, of course, is if we do get cut off completely from 12 million barrels of oil a day, we literally have about 60 days to utilize the SPR, and then that is all gone. And it's during that period of time, of course, that we would need to negotiate with these countries and bring whatever power to bear that we need, hopefully diplomatic, to free the flow of that oil back up. So that is why we say on this side of the aisle we can ill afford to release any of the SPR because of price manipulations in the market.

I think the gentleman from New York had to step off the floor, but his chart is still up there and it says ``oil companies reap record profits during the Bush administration.'' Now, my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Price) pointed out it is about 8 percent per year. Many of our parents and grandparents have stock in oil companies, and they are glad that the companies are doing well.

But I wanted to point out during the Clinton years, during the dot- com years when profits were double digit year after year after year, I never heard my colleagues call for windfall profits against these dot- com companies, mostly out in California and Silicon Valley, and then the bubble burst and the market corrected itself. And it will do the same thing in regard to this. Oil companies will not continue to make record profits forever. I want my colleagues to put that in perspective.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this resolution, H. Res. 1315, honoring NASA on its 50th anniversary.

As an original cosponsor of this resolution, I'd like to commend my colleagues from the Science Committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lampson, the ranking member, Mr. McCaul of Texas, for introducing the thoughtful resolution commemorating NASA on this important milestone for our country.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, NASA has not only been the leader in human space exploration, but has successfully used technological capabilities like, as mentioned by my colleagues, the Hubble Telescope and GPS systems. I anticipate the men and women of NASA, they will continue being the true leaders and innovators in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, as we speak today, NASA is undergoing aggressive research to convert domestic energy sources, coal, natural gas, biomass, oil shale, into cleaner and more economical alternatives to traditional jet fuel. Now, why is that important? It's important, Mr. Speaker, because in the

year 2003, the NASA agency spent $4.5 million on their jet fuel, 4.6 million gallons. In 2007, 4 years later, they spent $18.3 million. So they're doing this research in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the United States Air Force to try to find alternative sources of fuel to lower the costs to the government.

And everybody in this chamber, everybody in this Nation, knows that we are suffering tremendously from a lack of supply and a tremendous demand, and that's why we're paying $4.11 a gallon for regular gasoline.

We can solve this problem, but there's one little glitch, and that's the Democrat Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which absolutely prohibits NASA and the Department of Defense from utilizing any petroleum source other than conventional petroleum if it's not as clean.

Well, in times like these, when the country's on the verge of bankruptcy, I think the first priority, Mr. Speaker, should be to lower the price of gasoline, and let NASA continue to research so that we can make the conversion of shale which has something like 1.3 trillion barrels of petroleum embedded in that rock and that we can convert coal to liquid, to petroleum. We have 1.5 trillion tons of coal in this country, and we only use about 1 billion tons a year. We have a tremendous excess amount of coal right here in River City, and yet, this energy bill the Democrats passed last year prohibits us from going after this source, increasing the supply so that the price of gasoline at the pump goes down.

And I would implore my colleagues to bring these bills to the floor. They're over there. There's a discharge petition. Republicans have signed them, just a handful of Democrats. We need to bring these issues to the floor, have an up-or-down vote. At least give NASA and the Department of Defense a waiver of section 526 so that we can solve this problem and we're not so dependent on these foreign Nations that hate our guts, countries such as Venezuela and countries in the Middle East.

It's time to act. I commend the committee for bringing this resolution. It's a great resolution honoring NASA on its 50th anniversary. I support it fully, but I also support a balanced approach to solving our energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1315 honoring NASA on its 50th anniversary. As an original cosponsor of this resolution, I would like to commend my colleague from the Science Committee, Mr. McCaul of Texas, for introducing this thoughtful resolution to commemorate NASA on this important milestone for our country.

Mr. Speaker, there is no Federal agency that has risen to the challenge of innovation over the last 50 years like NASA. We, as a nation, are today the fortunate heirs of NASA's legacy: conviction, resolve, achievement.

When the Soviets put a man into orbit, NASA was challenged by President Kennedy--in the truest form of the American competitive spirit--to put men on the moon. Many of our NASA pioneers paved the way for the crew of Apollo 11--Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins--to reach that once unattainable goal. Now, those famous words, ``One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind'' exemplify the legacy that NASA has established.

Over the years, NASA has not only been the leader in human space exploration, but has successfully used technological capabilities like the Hubble Telescope to explore the far reaches of our galaxy. Given the precedent of achievement that NASA has set, I anticipate the men and women of NASA to continue being among the true leaders and innovators in the years to come.

While this resolution represents a time for us to celebrate the achievements of NASA over the past 50 years, this is also a time to reflect and memorialize those who gave their lives in their service to NASA and the Nation--particularly the crews of Apollo 1 in 1967, the Challenger in 1986, and the Columbia in 2003. The sacrifices that these men and women made in the service of our country will always remind us of the fragile nature of human life, and the risks associated with successes that NASA has accomplished.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to take this time to think about the impact and legacy that NASA has left our great Nation over the last 50 years, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 1315.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding. I also, Mr. Speaker, want to thank my good friend from Illinois, Representative Davis, for the kind words that he just expressed toward Sergeant Paul Saylor and for allowing this bill to come forward today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6092, a bill that I introduced to honor the life of Paul Anthony Saylor by designating the post office in Bremen, Georgia, in Haralson County, as the Sergeant Paul Saylor Post Office.

Mr. Speaker, thankfully we are at a point today where the Iraqi Government is proving to be more and more capable of securing its country and where al Qaeda terrorists are on the verge of being completely routed. But we can all agree that the road on which we have traveled has been anything but smooth. Indeed, we have lost 4,166 of our Nation's greatest treasures in Iraq, the lives of the patriotic, heroic men and women who have served there.

They are not just statistics, Mr. Speaker. There is a story behind each and every one of the brave men and women who have died serving our country in this global war on terror. I have come to know Paul's story very well over the last 3 years. You have heard the stories of other fallen heroes today who are being honored in the same way.

Paul Saylor's story is indeed one of courage, kindness, generosity, and devotion to his family and to his great country. Paul was a beloved son to his parents, Jamie and Patti; a beloved brother to Little Jamie, his big brother; and a beloved nephew to Linda Kirkland. He enjoyed playing high school football with his older brother, and was known for his smile and his caring heart. My colleagues, I want you to look at Paul Saylor in this poster. He is, indeed, a kind young man.

Since Paul's death, many have spoken of his penchant for standing up for others who were being bullied, for picking people up when they were down. It is a testament to the affection that others had for Paul that of the 5,000 citizens of Bremen, Georgia, his hometown, over 1,500 attended his funeral.

Mr. Speaker, it was Paul's sense of duty that led him to join the Georgia National Guard following his attendance at North Georgia College and State University. Upon joining, Paul probably had no idea he would be called upon to defend his country and our freedom in Iraq, but when he was, he bravely answered that call.

He served our Nation in Iraq as a member of the Georgia National Guard's 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. Paul lost his life on August 15, 2005, almost 3 years ago, while on patrol in Al Mahmudiyah, Iraq, when the vehicle in which he was traveling rolled down an embankment into a canal. He and two of his fellow scout team members died that day. Paul was 21 years old.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, upon being returned to his family, Paul's remains were in a state of advanced decomposition and they were not able to see him that one last time for the final good-bye.

His family has worked tirelessly since then to assure that the improved treatment of the remains of all fallen soldiers would ensure that no family, no family would ever have to experience a similar fate of not being able to view their son or daughter one last time.

As I worked with Paul's family to address any potential shortfalls in our mortuary process, I have visited the mortuary facility at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, as well as Mortuary Affairs Collection Point in Iraq, exactly where Paul fell, to try to evaluate the current processes and the procedures and identify any areas where improvements could be made. And those efforts led eventually to the inclusion of a provision last year in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 requiring that all medical personnel be thoroughly trained not only in saving lives but also in remains preservation before they are deployed into the theater.

This training is currently being carried out in the medical training facilities at Fort Sam Houston and the Brook Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. On a recent visit last month, I was able to determine that the Army is solemnly carrying out this duty, and I am proud to report that to my colleagues.

While we could never do enough to support and honor Paul's sacrifice, it is the least we can do to ensure that we honor the remains of our fallen heroes with the dignity and respect that they deserve. Our Nation will be forever indebted to Sergeant Paul Saylor. I know he is here with us today, and I would like to say to him, Thank you, Paul. Thank you for your service. And I want to thank his family. Paul, your spirit lives on, and you will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me today in honoring Sergeant Paul Saylor. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6092.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my good friend and colleague from Georgia yielding, and I appreciate his taking the time and leading the time tonight to continue to talk about what I consider and what my constituents in the 11th district of Georgia, Northwest Georgia, feel is the most important, the single most important issue facing our Nation and, for that matter, political issue as well as we move toward these November elections.

People in my district told me on Monday, just yesterday, at a town hall meeting in Bartow County, Cartersville, Georgia, a great part of my district--a town hall meeting, Mr. Speaker, as you know, they are not partisan. You don't just invite Democrats or Republicans. You invite your constituents. And we probably had 50 people there. And I don't know if it was an equal mix. I guess since I won my election last time with 71 percent of the vote, it probably wasn't an equal mix, but there were some very bright young Democratic folks there who probably in November won't vote for me. But we had a great discussion about this issue and just what Congressman Westmoreland is talking about in regard to the need to come up with a solution and not continue to play politics over this.

I have a couple of posters, if my colleagues will bear with me. I want you to take a test, one of these tests that I always loved taking in high school and college and even medical school, a multiple choice question. Sometimes you can guess. But I'm going to hold up this slide for my colleagues and ask them this question. And I appreciate my good friend from Illinois for helping me do this.

Question: How do we bring down the price of oil? A pretty simple, straightforward question. Well, it's multiple choice.

A, open up oil exploration in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. ANWR, of course, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. That would be one of the choices.

B, build new oil refineries. That might be a pretty good choice. We haven't made it in the last 25 years, unfortunately. All the oil refineries in the United States, unfortunately, are down along the gulf coast, and we know all too well how dangerous a situation that is, especially as we are coming into what could be a rather horrific hurricane season.

Maybe choice C, commercially develop renewable energy. Now, we are talking about wind and solar, two perfect examples of renewable energy. In this country our electricity grid, we generate about 1 to 2 percent of our power from those renewable sources. We can do better. I absolutely think we can do better when countries like Germany probably are producing 30 percent of their energy from renewables.

Well, maybe you would pick, let's see, D, if my colleagues could again refer to this slide, commission new nuclear power plants. I think since the mid 1970s, we have not commissioned a new nuclear power plant. I used to work in one as a co-op student in Barnwell, South Carolina, when I was attending Georgia Tech. Clean, efficient, safe, a great source of energy. Maybe when the price of gasoline was $1.50 a gallon, you might say, well, it's too expensive to start a nuclear power plant; but when it's $4.10 a gallon, I think it's time to consider strongly nuclear power. That could be a good choice as the perfect answer to this question, How do we bring down the price of oil? France, I believe, if I am not mistaken, and my colleagues can correct me if I'm wrong, I think, produces about 80 percent of their energy from nuclear power, as do some of the Scandinavian countries, and I have been there and I have visited.

Let's see. How about choice number E, promote conservation? I think a lot of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the American people would agree we ought to conserve. We are 300 million people, and a world population of 6 billion. If my math is correct, and I took six quarters of calculus at Georgia Tech, that is not 25 percent of the world population, but we are using 25 percent of the world production of fossil fuel. That is too much. And we need to bring it down, and we can do that. I think maybe that would be a good choice.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, choice number F. That says: All of the above. I won't keep you in suspense too much longer as we move to my second and last slide. The answer clearly is F, all of the above. We have got a few pictures here kind of pointing that out. Oil and natural gas off of the Outer Continental Shelf, including the Gulf of Mexico, the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico, where we are prohibited from drilling, where there are literally trillions of barrels, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil when you add that eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of our country.

But the picture shows it all; nuclear power, wind and solar, drilling, of course, in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, which is a tiny portion, 2,000 acres out of 19 million, as depicted here in this corner of Alaska.

So this is basically, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate very much Mr. Westmoreland letting me develop this point of argument that people in my district clearly yesterday let me know that this is what they want. They want a balanced approach, and all of the above is what we need to do. That is exactly what Mr. Westmoreland has been saying, and my colleagues, repeatedly.

We are ready, Mr. Speaker, and I turn to my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, the majority, who has the ability, the power. They can control everything that comes to this floor. And it's time to worry less about monkey bites and more about the people of this country suffering.

I think Mr. Westmoreland earlier used the expression: Let my oil and gas flow. It made me think a little bit biblical. I don't want to get too biblical because I will get out of my lane in a hurry, Mr. Speaker. But it's like Moses said to Pharaoh: Let my people go. Moses wouldn't do it, he wouldn't do it. He promised time after time. He kept reneging, even though his own people were suffering tremendously. I don't know what he was betting on back there many thousands of years ago, but he was wrong. He finally did let the people go.

I don't know what game, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority is playing. I don't understand it. If they look at the polls, if that is the way they are making their decisions on legislation, people, Democrats, Republicans, independents by a wide majority want a solution. They want a comprehensive approach. We are ready. We are reaching out. We are literally begging. That is

why we are here tonight, saying to our colleagues on both sides of the aisles, Let's get this done. Let's get it done ASAP, and that means as soon as possible, before we leave this town at the end of July and walk away from here for a month's break. Shame on us if we don't get this done.

I yield back to my colleague.

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

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

That is why I would say to the environmentalists, help us solve that problem, so we don't have to import all this raw petroleum from other countries.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeanette Irene Lalime-Sellner-Hutchison, who is celebrating her 80th birthday today. As an indispensable member of my staff, Jeanette has served as my Constituent Service Director for almost six years, assisting 11th District residents with problems ranging from Social Security and veterans' benefits to passports and immigration issues.

But Madam Speaker, Jeanette has always had a passion for helping others. Born in Appleton, Wisconsin, Jeanette moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota as a young girl, where

she grew up and eventually met her first husband, Mr. Thomas Sellner. Married for 28 years, Jeanette and Tom had six wonderful children.

Along with raising her four sons and two daughters, Jeanette served as a foster mother for many years, taking in and caring for children in need of a loving family. After the passing of her first husband, Jeanette eventually met and wed Mr. Marion Hutchison, and together they moved to Iowa, where she began her Congressional career as a staff member for Congressman Cooper Evans, and then for Senator Charles Grassley.

Now a resident of Marietta, Georgia, Jeanette has served various Congressional offices for 25 years, acting as the constituent service director for the legendary Georgia Senator Paul Coverdell and Congressman Bob Barr before joining my staff in 2003.

Madam Speaker, Jeanette Hutchison has led a very inspiring and rewarding life. Over the years she has made and kept many friends, and I ask that you join with them, with me, and with her family in honoring Mrs. Jeanette Irene Hutchison, as she celebrates her 80th birthday. I thank her for a quarter century of service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time.

I wanted to, first off, say that I am a very proud cosponsor of the legislation introduced by Mr. Hensarling from Texas and by Mr. Conaway also from Texas, H.R. 5656, which he referred to at the outset of this hour.

I want to talk specifically about that particular bill because it's so important, but before I get into the discussion about 5656, I want to make sure that we put it into perspective in regard to the discussion tonight.

We first heard from our colleague from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, who was talking for 5 minutes about the issue of supply and demand. She was saying that that is a basic economic principle, and I think we all know that. As she pointed out, Mr. Speaker, our Democratic colleagues cannot legislate away the basic principle of supply and demand.

So what we're talking about and will talk about during this hour is, I guess, the opportunity lost if we continue this folly of not going after petroleum products in our own country. We call it and we refer to it, of course, as domestic production. A lot of the focus is on ANWR-- that frozen tundra on the North Slope of Alaska, that very small area where we know, as the geologists have already told us, there are something like 10 billion barrels of petroleum. At full production, we would be producing 1.5 million barrels of additional domestic oil every day from that one source.

That is a small amount compared to what is available if we were not handcuffing ourselves off of our coasts--off both our east coast and our west coast--and off the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico in what is known as OCS, or the Outer Continental Shelf. There are literally trillions of cubic feet of natural gas there which is part of our, the United States', territorial waters on the Outer Continental Shelf for which we could be drilling. There are tens of billions of gallons of petroleum. Yet the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, continues to prohibit, continues a moratorium which has existed since, I think, maybe, back to 1990.

Today, what we're talking about, of course, is the price of a gallon of regular gasoline. In the year and a half since the Democrats assumed the majority of not only this House but also the majority of the United States Senate, the price of a gallon of gasoline has gone from $2.60 to $4.08. Mr. Hensarling, of course, pointed that out very well at the beginning of this hour.

I want to ask my colleagues to just take a look at this one poster that I want to show you. I think it's very important. I think it's very instructive. This basically is the courtesy of Representative John Peterson from Pennsylvania, who is retiring this year. He is a great Republican Member of this body who has spoken so well on this issue of giving us the opportunity to go after that natural gas and oil in the Outer Continental Shelf off of our coastline.

On this poster, it shows here that, off the Pacific coast, the amount of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf is 10 billion barrels. The amount of natural gas is estimated to be 18 trillion cubic feet. That's off the Pacific coast. Off of the Atlantic coast, the amount of oil is 2.3 billion barrels, and the amount of gas is 28 trillion cubic feet. The eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico is also off limits: Oil, 3.58 billions of gallons. Natural gas, 12 trillion cubic feet.

Mr. Speaker, that's bad enough, but now lets get to 526. I want to just take a little time before I yield back to my colleagues, who are the real experts on this.

Last year, the Democratic majority passed a bill. They called it the Energy

Independence and Security Act of 2007. It doesn't give us independence, and it darn sure doesn't give us security. What they did in that particular bill is they put in a section, section 526, that the Hensarling-Conaway legislation, H.R. 5656, would repeal that section 526.

Why is that important?

Well, section 526 literally prohibits our Government, any agency of our Federal Government, from contracting for any petroleum product that is not conventional fuel if that product, that nonconventional petroleum source, yields one scintilla--by the way, my colleagues, a ``scintilla'' is a very, very small amount--of an increased carbon dioxide footprint.

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the House, that may have made sense when the price of gasoline was $2.60 a gallon and when we had this expectation and this hope that it would drop down to $1.50, but on June 24, 2008, when the price of gasoline has now gone up 75 percent--not down--and it's $4.08 a gallon, does it make any sense to prohibit our Federal Government from contracting for other sources of petroleum? They are in this country in abundance.

The reason I have this poster is I want to point out to my colleagues--and it doesn't show the exact spot, but in the western States, in the Rocky Mountain States--and there are about five of them--there is this rock product called shale, S-H-A-L-E. It is estimated by the geologists, by the experts, that within that rock is 1.3 trillion barrels of petroleum. Yet our Federal Government is prohibited from mining that shale and from getting this petroleum source because it might, just might, result in a little bit more carbon dioxide.

To put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government actually uses 380,000 barrels of refined product every day, and most of that is used by the Department of Defense, and 75 percent of their usage is by the Air Force in jet fuel. Just think about that and the cost. Well, I'm going to tell you exactly what it is.

For the year 2008, this year, it's estimated that our Air Force will spend an additional $9 billion on jet fuel at the cost of $135 a barrel of petroleum. Yet all of this oil and natural gas and this petroleum that we could get from shale in the Midwest, in the Rocky Mountain States, sits there, and there it remains trapped in rock because of this senseless section 526 that the Democrats passed last year in their energy bill, in their so-called Energy Independence and Security Act.

It is time, as Mr. Hensarling, as Mr. Conaway and as the many other cosponsors, including myself, have said, to say, look, that doesn't make any sense today. We're all concerned about global warming--of course we are--and about the environment and about clean air, but we're not going to die tomorrow from that. We are about to starve to death, and this country is about to go bankrupt when people can't get to work and when they can't get to the grocery store. When they get to the grocery store, they can't afford to buy food because of this senseless ethanol conversion from corn to ethanol. That's a whole different issue. I'm just here tonight to weigh in with my colleagues. I thank them for giving me the time.

I sit on two committees--on the House Armed Services Committee and on the Science and Technology Committee. This year, of course, we reauthorized the National Defense Act of 2009, and we reauthorized the NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Act. Both of these agencies of the Federal Government utilize a lot of jet fuel. I tried to take the Hensarling-Conaway bill and make it as an amendment to strike that section or at least to grant a waiver from that restriction of 526.

This Democratic leadership refused to even make those bills in order so that the men and women, the commonsense men and women on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, would have an opportunity to vote up or down in these trying economic times when we're losing jobs and when people can't even afford to go to work.

So I thank the gentleman for letting me join with the Texas delegation, if you will--my three classmates--who know so much about this issue and about the many other issues of supply and demand as Ms. Foxx said earlier. So I look forward to the rest of the hour.

I yield back to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for yielding to me and for my having the opportunity tonight to join my colleagues to discuss what clearly is the most important issue facing our Nation at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, you know my background is that of an OB/GYN physician, and health care has always been a passion of mine. Ever since I got here in the Congress, I've been working on health care legislation in a bipartisan way. Clearly, with 45 million, 47 million uninsured in this country, health care continues to be a very important issue, but when I talk now to my constituents in northwest Georgia, in the 11th District of Georgia, the most important thing to them as we come upon these Presidential and congressional elections in November of this year, without question, is the price of gasoline, and my colleagues have pointed this out so clearly, Mr. Speaker, with the statistics that they have given.

Mrs. Bachmann just talked about the fact that the price of a gallon of gasoline, regular gasoline, is about $4.08 a gallon. Disease fuel is even higher than that. People are going to enjoy a 4th of July weekend at home this year, I can assure you, not just in my district in Georgia but across this country.

A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Iowa was talking about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With his words, he was trying to put a picture, a description, in our colleagues' minds of what it looks like. I just happen to have a couple of posters that I want to show my colleagues. If we look at this first poster, I think that a lot of people across this country have received this in their mailbox, this picture as it may have appeared from MoveOn.org or from whoever happened to send this across the Nation, suggesting to people that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge looks like this--some pristine, beautiful area with lots of swans and caribou and moose--and that this is a year-round picture of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Really, in fact, if my colleagues will take a look at this second poster, 11 months out of the year, this is what ANWR looks like. It's a frozen tundra. There is nothing there, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, in the area, in the footprint, where we would drill and where there is plenty, plenty of oil. In fact, we estimate there could be 1.5 million barrels a day that we could add to our domestic production by drilling in this very small area, which is, I think, something like 2 square miles. In any regard, it is a very small area.

So what we have tried to present to our colleagues in this hour is the fact that we are suffering. Yet there is plenty of oil and natural gas within this country and on our Outer Continental Shelf. There are literally trillions of cubic feet of natural gas off of our east and west coasts. There are probably tens of billions of barrels of petroleum off of our Outer Continental Shelf in addition to that, that I mentioned, in ANWR, up in Alaska. Yet we are just simply doing nothing.

I have another poster, my colleagues, I want you to take a look at. This pretty well depicts what this ``do nothing'' Congress has been up to for the last year and a half under this new majority. If you would look at this cartoon, starting over here, I'll read it to you.

Now, this is from Congress. It says: We demand you energy companies do something about these high energy prices. Their first answer is: Well, we can drill in ANWR. Congress' response: Forget it.

The next cartoon: Well, how about offshore? the Outer Continental Shelf? Congress' response: Are you kidding?

The next response from these oil companies: Well, how about clean coal, converting coal to liquid in a clean way? We can come up with millions of gallons of petroleum by doing that. Congress' response: Out of the question.

Well, the oil companies say in this next cartoon: Well, how about nuclear power? We haven't licensed a new nuclear power facility for over 30 years in this country, back in the 1970s. You know, nuclear power since then has gotten more sophisticated. It's clean. It's safe. Congress' response: You must be joking.

Finally, the energy companies just throw up their hands and say: What? Congress' response: Well, don't just sit there. Do something.

Well, it's a cartoon, but it's also very serious. The bottom line is we are spending and have spent for the last 2 years all of our attention worrying about global warming and climate change. Yet here we have seen, in the 17 months that Speaker Pelosi has enjoyed her speakership, this Pelosi premium, and the price of gasoline has gone up about $1.75 a gallon.

It is clearly time to get some of these domestic sources on-line, these resources which are right here that we have, rather than continuing to depend on foreign countries, like the OPEC nations, like Venezuela, that are not very friendly to us. And that's, pure and simple, Mr. Speaker, the reason why we're here tonight to say to our colleagues, in a bipartisan way, we ought to do this.

And in addition to drilling for oil and natural gas and doing it now, certainly, there are other things, nuclear power, as I mentioned, alternative fuels, solar, wind farms, all of these things are part of the mix. But it is time, and it is time to act now. And that's what real leadership is. And that's what the Republican Party is trying to bring to this Congress and say to our colleagues, look, we have got six bills sitting right over there with discharge petitions which will allow us to do some of these things which will make us energy independent and absolutely will bring down that price of gasoline, almost overnight, because a lot of this is sort of speculation. And people, as soon as they realize that we are going to do something, the price will definitely come down.

So I appreciate the opportunity to be with my colleagues tonight. I know there are others here who want to weigh in on this issue, so I want to thank the gentlelady from Minnesota, especially thank her for giving me this time, and I yield back to her.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, there is no Federal agency that has risen to the challenge of innovation over the last 50 years like NASA. When the Soviets put a man into orbit, NASA put men on the moon. We, as a Nation, are today the fortunate heirs of NASA's legacy: conviction, resolve, and achievement. As a Congress, we owe it to NASA to create an environment that promotes creativity rather than one that prevents innovation.

Unfortunately, I deeply regret this House has not fully empowered the men and women of NASA to meet the challenges of our Nation in the 21st century. Instead of providing it the tools needed to thrive in energy innovation, the Democratic majority chose to handcuff NASA when it enacted section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Section 526 placed an artificial limitation on the ability of Federal agencies, including NASA, to utilize alternative fuel sources for their energy needs; even if they could be safely developed within the United States. These domestic energy sources would reduce the cost of fuel and save the American taxpayers billions of dollars.

While families across the Nation pay higher and higher prices for their own fuel needs at the pump, section 526 ensures that they will also bear the full cost of the Federal Government's fuel needs, no matter how high they may go. That, Mr. Speaker, is an inconvenient truth that even politicians turned documentary filmmakers can understand.

This motion to recommit will provide a waiver for NASA from this misguided provision. It will also foster the American innovative and competitive spirit by putting in place prizes for the private sector to work with domestic sources of energy that are readily available--coal, oil shale, tar sands, and biomass--to develop liquid fuels that will reduce costs.

Mr. Speaker, today nearly a year and a half after Speaker Pelosi promised the American people a ``common-sense plan'' to bring down gas prices, the price of a gallon of gasoline is $4.08. This marks an increase of $1.75 since the beginning of the 110th Congress, a nearly 75 percent increase since the Democrats took control. Indeed, a Pelosi premium that is wrecking this economy.

Since we are the people's House, one might presume that the Democrats would listen to the American people. However, the 20 percent of Americans who favor suing our way to lower gas prices have trumped the nearly 60 percent of Americans who favor domestic drilling. Perhaps this is motivated out of a deference to the trial lawyers and environmental extremist groups who are, shall we say, ``closely tied to the Democratic Caucus.''

Mr. Speaker, this same establishment is preventing us today from extracting oil shale in the western United States in which an estimated 1.2 trillion barrels of petroleum is trapped in porous shale rock, of which 70 percent is on public Federal land. That is exactly where it is going to stay, trapped as long as section 526 remains intact.

Whatever action this Congress does take, a repeal of section 526 is in order--or at the very least a waiver, grant a waiver as this motion to recommit proposes--so we do not hinder progress at the very agency that has been on the cutting edge of technology for these last 50 years. But time after time, in the committee rooms of the House, in the Rules Committee and on the floor of this body, my Democratic colleagues have refused to address section 526 in any meaningful way.

And let me point out, Mr. Speaker, the Lampson amendment does virtually nothing. It only allows us to continue importing oil from Canada, our largest source of imported oil because it might contain just a little trace of petroleum that was obtained from tar sands. That's all that does.

If this Congress insists on sacrificing American competitiveness and innovation on the altar of environmental extremism, then it will be one small step for NASA, but one giant leap for Greenpeace.

Mr. Speaker, this is about more than the pain at the pump. It is also about the spirit of discovery and innovation that is the backbone of our great Nation. The decisions we make today will not only impact this generation, but generations to come. We can either provide American engineers and innovators the tools they need to realize limitless opportunities for the American people, or this majority can continue to put up arbitrary roadblocks that stymie their potential.

Now, while I believe that many on the other side have good intentions, I cannot sit idly by while the Democratic Leadership seems to care more about a carbon footprint than an American footprint on Mars. I cannot sit idly by while this Majority continues to say ``no'' to American entrepreneurship in energy exploration. I cannot sit idly by while this Majority seems content to blame the President or the previous Republican Congress.

Blaming the past while ignoring the future is not leadership; that's not why the American people award Majority status to one party or another.

The American people awarded you the leadership reins to solve the problems our country faces on a daily basis, and nothing is more important than our energy independence. I therefore challenge the Democrats and all of my colleagues to start solving the biggest problem facing our country today, energy independence, by supporting this Motion to Recommit with its instructions to relieve NASA of the shackles of section 526.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Chairman, I have a number of concerns with the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, my colleague on the Science Committee.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that this amendment does anything to alleviate the Draconian problems presented to us by section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Even if this amendment passes, Americans will still not be able to increase the supply of fuels from alternative sources derived from resources available in the United States. Oil shale, with its estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum in rock, would remain trapped there in our southwestern States, I think five States have a lot of this oil shale that's there for the taking. We, furthermore, will not be able to use clean carbon captured coal-to-liquid fuel.

So the amendment intends to create an exception under section 526 for generally available fuel not predominantly produced from a nonconventional petroleum source, and NASA, under the amendment, will still be able to purchase Canadian fuels that do have traces of oil sands, as the gentleman says, that may create more of a carbon footprint than completely conventional fuel. And this is what basically section 526 is. As the gentleman explained, he is trying to allow an exception so that this fuel that we purchase from Canada, a lot of people think most of our foreign sources of fuel are from OPEC or Venezuela, but actually, Madam Chairman, they are from Canada. Some of this fuel does have the tar sands footprint in it.

The gentleman, and I have no objection to that, is saying let us continue to purchase this fuel and not be restricted by 526. Yet my opposition is this, the agency won't be able to utilize any of the sources of fuel that may be totally derived from resources we have readily available in the good-old USA, clean domestic alternatives, coal, natural gas, biomass and, as I mentioned, oil shale that is estimated to have 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum that can be extracted from that in our own country.

At committee markup, Science Committee and at the Rules Committee, I offered amendments that would have removed the handcuffs placed on the NASA administrator by section 526. I would have been happy to work with my good friend from Texas to protect his amendment so that implementation of it would have, indeed, a positive effect for NASA. Unfortunately, I just don't think the amendment does much of anything.

I fear that the amendment does nothing to rectify, as I said, the underlying problem with 526 that prevents the Federal Government, any agency of the Federal Government, not just NASA, but also the Department of Defense, which utilizes something like 380,000 barrels of refined petroleum products every day, every day, and the increased cost to the Department of Defense is $9 billion. Just the increase in the year 2008, the increased fuel cost to NASA over the last 5 years has been 400 percent. It has gone from $4.5 million a year to $18.3 million a year.

Our efforts should be focused on easing the pain felt by American taxpayers, not codifying this misguided policy, 526, that prevents us from future innovation. Again, the gentleman's amendment, in my opinion, does no harm, but it does very little good.

I felt compelled to stand and express my opposition--not strong opposition to the amendment--but rather to make this point that we need to allow the administrator of NASA to have a waiver, at least have a waiver if, in his knowledge of innovation and what they are doing in trying to develop alternative fuels that are available in this country, he would not be bound by the crazy restrictions put on him and other agencies by section 526 of this so-called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed 17 months ago. Since that time the price of a gallon of regular gasoline has gone up by $1.70, up to over $4.05 a gallon.

I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, thank you very much.

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

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and the previous gentleman that spoke, the gentleman from Illinois, talking about those airline prices. There is no question what's causing that is the cost of jet fuel.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule where the Democratic majority has once again denied the American people a full debate on the ramifications of our Federal policies on American energy independence. Unfortunately the rule for H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, made only one Republican amendment in order and has effectively shut down debate once again, breaking the promise, as my distinguished colleague from Florida said, that Speaker Pelosi made that this would be the most open and honest Congress in history.

I, along with several of my Republican colleagues, offered two of the amendments that were not made in order. Our amendments would have worked to correct a misguided provision of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 526, that prevents the Federal Government from developing and implementing alternative fuels from domestic sources that could help NASA reduce fuel costs.

Over the past 5 years NASA has seen an increase of almost 400 percent in spending for jet fuel from $4.5 million in fiscal year 2003 to $18.3 million in fiscal year 2007. Put simply, this growth is out of control. NASA has been actively researching alternative fuel sources to help reduce fuel costs, not only for itself, but for other Federal agencies as well. Indeed, listen to this, the Department of Defense uses 380,000 barrels of refined products per day, 380,000 barrels.

They estimate that its increased cost of fuel in 2008 will be approximately $10 billion. Now this is just the delta. This is just the increase because of ballooning oil prices.

NASA, as my colleagues have pointed out, has historically been on the cutting edge of innovation with contributions that have been mentioned here, technologies this Nation uses on a daily basis. What a lot of people don't know, currently NASA is partnering with the Air Force on aggressive research to convert domestic energy sources--domestic, that means right here in River City--on aggressive research to convert things like coal, natural gas, biomass, oil shale into cleaner, yes, cleaner, and more economic alternatives to traditional jet fuel.

Gas prices continue to rise, and yet the Democratic majority, and I don't blame my colleague from Florida in the majority who I enjoyed thoroughly serving with on the Rules Committee, I blame the Democratic leadership. They have effectively stymied innovation at NASA that could potentially help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

We have this great opportunity, and yet the leadership of the Democratic Party has turned their back on the American people.

My amendments, by either repealing section 526 or by providing a full waiver to NASA, just to that one agency as my amendments would have done, we could allow the agency to continue its ongoing work to develop emerging technologies and not be held hostage to baseless policies driven by out-of-control environmental extremists.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Democratic majority again chooses to deny an open debate on important energy issues. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and this rule so we can help the Democratic majority live up to its promise to conduct the most open and honest Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3229, and would like to commend my good friend from Georgia, Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, for offering it.

The bill before us today will allow coins to be issued in support of the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center during the year 2012. The coins will be emblematic of the courage, pride, sacrifice, sense of duty, and history of the infantry, and the proceeds received from issuance of the coin will be used to establish an endowment to support the maintenance of the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee who previously had Ft. Benning--the Home of the Infantry--in my district, I have long supported the efforts of the National Infantry Foundation to establish the new National Infantry Museum and wholeheartedly support the issuance of this coin in support of the museum.

The National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center at Patriot Park will honor the 233-year heritage of the Army's largest branch, the infantry. This museum will be instrumental in helping to educate future generations about the vital role of the infantry in the history of our Nation. Furthermore, this building will honor the men and women who serve in and support the infantry, and preserve the infantry's legacy of service.

This legacy of service is indeed quite remarkable, Mr. Speaker. The first successful and systematic training of the U.S. infantry can be tracked back to Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in 1778. It was not until 1826 that a formal post for infantry training was established, and over the course of history, the Infantry School has existed at the Jefferson Barracks in Missouri, Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas, in Monterrey, California, at Ft. Sill in Oklahoma, and at Fort Benning--the ``Home of the Infantry''--since 1918. Through the years the Infantry School at Ft. Benning has gradually emerged as the most influential infantry center in the modern world. The school has either trained in its officer courses or honed in its command structure some of the Nation's most prominent military figures, including five-star generals Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower, and George Marshall, as well as George Patton and Colin Powell. And, Mr. Speaker, over the course of American history, nearly 80 percent of all servicemen and women who have died serving our Nation were part of the infantry.

This museum has one mission, Mr. Speaker: to honor the infantryman and his more than two centuries of proud service to our great Nation. This coin will support this mission.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2268, the Mother's Day Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. First, I would like to thank Representative Capito for authoring this legislation before us today.

H.R. 2268 would instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue $1 coins in recognition of the 100th anniversary of President Wilson's proclamation designating the second Sunday in May as Mother's Day.

As an original cosponsor of this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank mothers across this nation for what they have done, do, and will do to keep our families and our country, strong.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take the personal privilege of recognizing my mother, Mrs. Helen Gingrey. Ninety years young, my mother instilled in me the very values and work ethic that prepared me to serve in these hallowed halls.

Her example testifies to the fact that we owe so very much to our mothers, to our fathers, to all those who cleared the way and smoothed the paths for us to succeed and realize our potential. We should honor their work not just in word but in deed--by ensuring a smoother, clearer path for the next generation--for our children and our grandchildren.

And so, I call upon my colleagues to demonstrate their appreciation for mothers everywhere by supporting this legislation.

And I appreciate my colleague from Michigan--both of my colleagues from Michigan--and my colleague from Georgia. We've got a number of other Members here as well tonight.

But this issue that Mr. Upton is talking about is Section 526, Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Now, this is the bill, Mr. Speaker, that the Democratic majority passed back in February of 2007 that had in it this Section 526. It basically said this, my colleagues--and I hope that you all will listen very carefully to this because it's so crucial. Section 526 will not allow, it prohibits any agency of the Federal Government, our Federal Government, including our Department of Defense and including NASA, from utilizing any fuel source other than conventional fuel if it results in one nanogram increase in carbon footprint.

I am not talking about tonnage of CO2. I am talking about any increase. So what my good friend from Michigan was talking about in regard to shale, s-h-a-l-e, shale is a solid product. It is a granular product. And we have, as Fred Upton pointed out, Mr. Speaker, an abundance of that product out in the West. There are about five States. And I think Mr. Upton said that it is estimated that you can get something like one and a half trillion, with a T,

one and a half trillion barrels of petroleum from that source.

But this section 526 that the Democratic majority put in their ``no energy bill'' back in February of 2007 means that we can't utilize that. We can't get that source increase of supply so that the prices will go down. And the reason I am so outraged about that, Mr. Speaker, is that tomorrow, on the floor, we will be doing the rule on the NASA reauthorization bill of 2008, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Well their price of fuel in the last 5 years, my colleagues, has gone up 400 percent from something like $4.5 million to $18.3 million. That is what NASA is having to pay on an annual basis for jet fuel.

And yet they are the very agency of the Federal Government that is doing research. A lot of the research that NASA has done, we all know, we have utilized in the private sector. There are many things. I can name several. But they are doing research on shale. They are doing research on tar sands. They are doing research on coal to liquid and carbon sequestration and sharing that information with the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force, which could save us a tremendous amount of money.

So I yield back to my colleague for a colloquy on this issue because it is so important and so timely.

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

Reclaiming your time. I am sure the pages don't remember the movie ``Giant,'' but we all do, and how that oil just came bubbling up out of the ground. I believe that was in Texas. It may have been Oklahoma.

In any regard, what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is saying is that these tar sands and shale, shale has to be mined. And then you have to go through a process, as he is saying, and you have to extract. And it is a little bit more difficult.

Again, we're about to reauthorize NASA in the next day or two. They are doing research on that very process now where they can get that petroleum, and I said to you 1.5 trillion barrels probably from the shale in our West, western part of the United States, and Mr. Upton pointed out that these tar sands in Canada, it is estimated that it is probably another 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum that we can get from that. And they are producing it in Canada. And they are selling it to somebody. And yet we can't utilize it. It absolutely makes no sense. As my colleague from Georgia said earlier, I think he used the word ``idiotic,'' ``insanity'' or ``crazy.'' He is right on all three points. But I will yield back to my colleague.

If my colleague from Michigan will yield, the whole issue here is when the Democrats passed this Energy Independence and Security Act some 17 months ago, the price of regular gasoline, as all my colleagues know, was about $2.60 a gallon. Now, if Speaker Pelosi, at that particular time, or Leader Hoyer felt that the price of gasoline at the pump was going to drop $1.50, then maybe I could understand their emphasis on protecting the environment from any iota increase in carbon dioxide footprint or greenhouse gases.

But what has happened with their ``no energy plan,'' unfortunately the price of gasoline has gone up about $1.55 a gallon, and here we are looking at $4, $4 and a nickel now, and so we have to ask ourselves, what is the crisis? Is the crisis global warming? Or is the crisis bankruptcy of our country because of the price of energy? And people can't afford to buy gasoline. They can't afford to buy food. We are losing jobs to other countries. I think it is time to say to our majority party, for goodness' sakes, at least make in order the Gingrey amendment which would allow the administrator of NASA to have a waiver of section 526 and utilize some of these sources that Mr. Upton and Mr. Broun and others are talking about, getting that shale oil product from Canada. It just flows right down the pipeline. It is an easy flow, easy obtaining it. There is not a lot of hard work. It is the same thing with tar sands. And let NASA continue to do their research. Share it with the Department of Defense.

And I will make this one point to the gentleman from Michigan who is controlling the time, and then I will yield back so that others can weigh in, but do you know that in the year 2008 the Department of Defense is going to spend an additional, a delta, of $9 billion on fuel because of price of gasoline right now? And I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5940, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.

Nanotechnology represents the future of science and information technology. These scientific methods have already been responsible for a number of products that are used every day in our country, like car parts, cosmetics, and first aid dressings.

The future of nanotechnology holds a world of possibilities for a number of fields including health care, which, Mr. Speaker, is incredibly important to me as a physician member of this House.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative is a multi-agency Federal program aimed at accelerating the discovery, the development, and deployment of nanometer scale science, engineering, and technology. Since its implementation in 2003, NNI represents the Federal Government's commitment to harnessing and developing the world's most cutting edge technology to help keep our country competitive in a technologically based global economy. H.R. 5940 is a bill that builds on the successful aspects of the NNI by making some improvements and modifications while keeping much of the initiative intact. This legislation acknowledges and addresses the need for enhanced research and education in the field of nanotechnology, and it is in line with President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this legislation moved through the

Science and Technology Committee in a bipartisan manner so typical of our members. Unfortunately, that bipartisan spirit does not apply to the most important issue facing the American people today, and that is the price they are paying at the pump for gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, here we are 16 months after the vaunted promise of a commonsense plan to reduce energy prices by Speaker Pelosi, yet gas prices are now surpassing $4 a gallon with no end in sight. At this point, I am not holding my breath for this commonsense plan Speaker Pelosi promised over 2 years ago. I only know the result of the plan, an increase of $1.60 per gallon for regular gasoline. However, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that Democrats will begin working with Republicans much like they did on this bill, H.R. 5940, on our common sense plan for energy.

The Republican proposal, H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act sponsored by my good friend Mr. Thornberry of Texas, will allow us to explore domestic sources of energy and will reduce the amount that we all pay at the pump. It is time for the Democrats to get serious about reducing gas prices. I call on them to join the efforts of House Republicans. Let's enact real solutions that will provide relief for our taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I am very supportive of H.R. 5940 and the possibility that nanotechnology has for the future of science. I urge all my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to both this restrictive rule and the underlying bill brought forward today by the Democratic majority.

As a former chairman of the Marietta City School Board in my district, I strongly believe that there needs to be more of an emphasis on public school construction but at the State and local level. However, H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, sends the wrong message of how the Federal Government should be involved in local education decisions.

With limited exception in the 1930s and 1940s, the Federal Government has rightly left the responsibility of public school construction up to the State and local governments. State and local governments know the construction needs in schools much better than bureaucrats in Washington. And the Federal Government has promoted the autonomy and flexibility of local control over education in this matter. However, this bill would negate much of this work and would only expand the size and scope of the Federal Government, as my good friend from Delaware, Mr. Castle, just pointed out.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3021 would cost $20 billion over 5 years for a brand new Federal program to compete for the already precious Federal assistance dollars for education. Currently these funds are focused on the curriculum needs of States through our title I grants to provide assistance to low-income and disadvantaged students, as well as funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, for special education.

Mr. Speaker, I can remember when I was on the Education and Workforce Committee in the 108th Congress when we were in the majority. There was this outcry constantly from the Democrats about not funding fully to the 40 percent level of IDEA, and of course the trajectory of spending in the Bush administration under Republican majority was a geometric progression. We spent much more money than the Democrats have spent in the previous 10 or 12 years when they were in control.

But now we're going to take this money that should be spent on these programs like title I and IDEA and create a whole new program. It makes no sense. If enacted, it will create abundant squeeze, make it less likely the Federal Government will be able to fulfill financial commitments that have already been made for student achievement.

Mr. Speaker, we need to continue promoting local control over education decisions while providing Federal assistance for student achievements. The best and most immediate way that we can do that is by defeating the previous question and the rule for H.R. 3021. For these reasons, I ask that all of my colleagues oppose the rule and the underlying legislation.