To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1009 Crystal Road in Island Falls, Maine, as the "Carl B. Smith Post Office".

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2173) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1009 Crystal Road in Island Falls, Maine, as the ``Carl B. Smith Post Office''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present H.R. 2173 for consideration. This legislation will designate the United States postal facility located at 1009 Crystal Roads in Island Falls, Maine, as the ``Carl B. Smith Post Office.''

This bill, introduced by my colleague and friend, Representative Mike Michaud of Maine, on April 29, 2009, was reported out of the Oversight Committee by unanimous consent on May 6, 2009, and enjoys the support of both members of Maine's House delegation.

A lifelong resident of the town of Island Falls, Maine, Carl B. Smith dedicated over half of his life to public service and local and State government, the United States military, and the United States Postal Service.

Born on March 30, 1922, Carl B. Smith graduated from Sherman High School in 1940 and 2 years later joined the United States Army Corps. Representative Smith's subsequent 10-year tenure in the United States Army included service in Europe during World War II, as well as service in Japan and Korea during the Korean conflict. He would go on to become a lifelong member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 7529 out of Island Falls as well.

Following his discharge from the service, Representative Smith attended barber school and proceeded to serve his beloved community of Island Falls as a barber for 30 years. In addition, he also worked as a rural letter carrier with the United States Postal Service and, of course, was a proud member of the Maine Rural Letter Carriers Union.

Representative Smith would subsequently embark on a distinguished career in local and State government.

First, he served as the town clerk of Island Falls for 13 years and later served on the Island Falls Board of Selectmen.

In 1980, Mr. Smith was elected to the Maine State Legislature as the representative serving house district 140, which includes Island Falls, Ludlow, Oakfield, Sherman, and other areas. His admirable career in the Maine House of Representatives would span 10 years, during which time he was a member of the State's Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Agriculture, and State and Local Government.

Throughout his tenure in the Maine State House, Mr. Smith was widely noted for his efforts on behalf of environmental causes, as well as his devotion to social issues such as poverty, health, and aging.

In 1987, Mr. Smith received statewide recognition when he was selected by House Speaker John L. Martin to serve on the Maine Commission on Outdoor Recreation. Upon announcing Representative Smith's appointment to the commission, Speaker Martin described Smith as an ``extremely hardworking legislator who has devoted a great amount of time and energy to environmental issues.''

Regrettably, Carl B. Smith passed away on October 4, 2000, at the age of 78.

Madam Speaker, let us honor this dedicated public servant through the passage of this legislation to designate the Island Falls post office in Carl B. Smith's honor.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2173.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from northern Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield myself such time as I may consume just to rebut the fallacy that the other side of the aisle needs to step on a bill that Mr. McHugh put forward to recognize someone from his district because we're naming a post office for that individual; or the gentleman from Tennessee who was honored, Governor Wilder, 30 years served as Lieutenant Governor of that State.

The other side argues that there's a lack of opportunity to talk about these other issues so they have to use the time that was designated to honor these people--a very brief amount of time, by the way. Normally, just a few minutes on each side, we get rid of these bills. They have extended the time we have spent on this floor.

But I just want to take today's schedule. Today's schedule, we have hearings all over the Capitol. We have 14 hearings in the Senate; some of those dealing with cap-and-trade. We have 18 hearings where Members of Congress will stand behind microphones just like this one and expound of their views on issues everywhere from agriculture to appropriations to energy and commerce, which is the subject matter that the other side would like to talk about.

There are ample opportunities for people in Congress to talk and talk and talk. Matter of fact, it reminds me of that movie, ``Charlie Wilson's War.'' Charlie Wilson's secretary, who was not familiar with the workings of Congress, turned to the Congressman and said, Charlie, why do Members of Congress talk and talk and talk and talk and never do anything? And Charlie turned to her and he said, Well, honey, mostly it's tradition. And that's what's going on here.

I have great respect for the ranking member, the gentleman from Utah, who came up and talked about the bill that was on the floor, talked about its merits. And Carl B. Smith; this is a post office being named after a gentleman who worked as a rural letter carrier.

Now you may laugh down your nose at that, but we seem to think that's honorable service to our country. Just because this guy was a letter carrier is no reason for Members on the other side of the aisle to denigrate his service, to denigrate the honor that's being bestowed upon him.

This man worked his entire life. He was a veteran. He was a letter carrier. This is the backbone of America. He was a proud union member. He dedicated his life. He was a good American. He put on the uniform of this country. Served in the Army. What about his service? What about his service?

Instead, we get a bunch of . . . standing up here spouting about stuff that you can talk in any single committee hearing on this schedule.

I withdraw my comments. I apologize. I apologize on the word ``blowhard.'' I retract that. I retract that.

Instead, we have Members----

I ask to strike.

That was overreaching on my part.

Instead of giving those gentlemen--the gentleman from Tennessee, who served 30 years, Carl Smith, 30 years as an elected official and a postal servicemember, and Frederic Remington--giving them their due time on this floor, the brief moment that they have, probably the highest moment of achievement for certainly Mr. Smith in Maine--and, by the way, the sponsor of that resolution, Mike Michaud, is actually chairing a subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs so he can't be here. So he has relied upon us to extend the basic courtesy to someone in his district who dedicated their lives to this country.

He was a man of a common position; just a rural letter carrier--like a lot of folks in this country, from a small town--and we're trying to name a post office after him.

Mr. Michaud sent this bill over while he is in committee dealing with veterans' affairs and debating those issues and asked us to handle this. I just think some of us have handled that responsibility poorly. That's what I think. That's my opinion.

And I just wish that even though you may look down your nose at this, you may not think that this is important at all, it's very important for these families and for these individuals to be honored.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I welcome the gentleman's remarks. I understand the pressures put on the schedule, but I do know there is enormous opportunity for Congress. Never in the history of this country have we had more outlets and more opportunity to get our message out.

Last night, I know that our side took an hour just to talk about cap- and-trade. I know that your side does the same thing. There are a lot of opportunities and a lot of forums in this building and elsewhere on Capitol Hill to speak about them. We have a lot of issues. We have a lot of issues that confront us today, and there are many, many, many opportunities to express our opinions. I just think that this is one little slice of time that we have put aside for a significant purpose. It may be a narrow purpose in recognizing certain individuals, but I think that it should be dedicated and spent on that purpose without intervening subject matter denigrating that recognition and that honor that is so well deserved.

With that, I welcome the gentleman's remarks. Again, if it were not clear before, I apologize for my earlier remarks. The descriptions were inappropriate, and I do apologize for those remarks. Again, I ask that they be stricken from the Record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, with that and on behalf of the gentleman who is the lead sponsor of this resolution, Mike Michaud from Maine, in honor of Carl B. Smith, we ask that this resolution be supported unanimously by the Members of Congress in recognition of a good, good American.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for introducing this. I think it's appropriate that the Congress at times names post offices, but I don't think that it is appropriate that we spend hours and hours doing it.

I think that if we ask our constituents at home if they want us to spend more time naming post offices or talking about post offices that have been named or talking about something important that will really affect them like cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax coming down the road, I think they'd say the latter. And I plan to vote for this post office naming, and I think it's appropriate that Carl B. Smith have a post office named after him in Maine.

Now, I think it's important that people across the country know what we're going to be debating this summer. It's going to affect them and affect them deeply, and if I was convinced that we're going to have adequate debate time on the floor for cap-and-trade, then I might feel more inclined to talk about post offices. But my guess is, when it comes to this, we're going to be having a very small amount of time actually on the floor. Very few amendments, if history is any guide, will be allowed on this cap-and-trade legislation, and there will be a truncated time and space that we actually have to talk about what is going to affect people all across the country.

Now, if I were supporting this cap-and-trade legislation that's coming down the pike, believe me, I wouldn't want to talk about it much here either because I think the more people learn about it, the more they fear about what is coming down the road here.

What is coming down the road are higher energy taxes. Let's be real here. And I think some on the other side of

the aisle have been honest enough to admit that. The Representative from Michigan said it best: I think nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax, and it's a great big one. Even the President, we know, said during his campaign that electricity prices, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket under cap-and-trade.

So we know that that's going to happen, but let's be honest about it. This is a high energy tax that Americans all over the country are going to be paying that's going to come to Washington, and then Washington is going to decide how to spend it, likely on something completely different.

If we want to be honest about helping the environment, then just impose a carbon tax and make it revenue neutral, give commensurate tax relief on the other side. Myself and another Republican colleague have introduced that legislation to do just that. Let's have an honest debate about whether or not we want to help the environment by actually having something that is revenue neutral where you tax consumption as opposed to income. Then you would have a real honest debate at least here.

Instead, this is a revenue source to pay for other items. Not just that, it is a revenue source that is haphazardly imposed, more tax that is haphazardly imposed. I shouldn't say haphazardly because I think it's by design. When you look at this cap-and-trade legislation that is coming through committee now, you realize that certain sectors, certain utilities and others, have been exempted from it, will be given permits instead of sold permits to pollute.

And so this is nothing more than bringing more revenue to Washington, deciding who is going to be taxed in the end, and down the road somehow the environment is supposed to be helped.

But whenever you have just a new revenue source for Washington to decide how you're going to spend it, you don't really have an honest debate about what you're doing, let's face it.

What we're likely to have is something like we've had over the past few decades with ethanol policy where we've subsidized ethanol again and again, every year more and more, by tariffs, by market protections, by all-out subsidies. You name it, we've protected that industry. And in the end, what have we gained by it? I think it's a record that is dubious at best, and we keep saying we are just going to prime the pump just a few more years and it will be on its own, but it never is. Now, it's not working that well, but it's a bridge to something else.

Let's be honest about this debate. Let's have a debate where if you're going to help the environment, if you feel that we ought to put a value on carbon, then do it in a revenue neutral manner so you're not bringing more revenue to Washington, and that's what this cap-and-trade legislation is about.

I don't know how else you can put it. That's why it's important to talk about this rather than simply talk about post offices being named because this will affect the average American family in a big way. Some have estimated a few thousand dollars a year it might impact the average American family.

Whatever it is is going to impose a cost on the economy that is very difficult at this point to bear. And for what? What do we get in return? More revenue that Washington can spend on a different purpose or some other program? That's what this is turning into right now.

So I think it's appropriate, Madam Speaker, that we talk about cap- and-trade today, and I'm glad that we have something on the floor that allows us to do that.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) be allowed to control the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate and thank my colleague from Massachusetts.

I rise in support of H.R. 2173, to designate the United States postal facility at 1009 Crystal Road in Island Falls, Maine, as the ``Carl B. Smith Post Office Building.''

As an advocate for all of the citizens in Maine's House District 140, State Representative Carl B. Smith was a standout legislator in the Maine House of Representatives.

After graduating from Sherman High School in 1940, and then marrying Annie Jane Porter in 1946, Representative Smith began a long and distinguished career in a number of fields. Prior to his marriage, Mr. Smith joined the Army Air Corps in 1942, serving in Europe during World War II, and in Japan and Korea during the Korean conflict for a total of 10 years. He then returned to his home in Island Falls where he trained and worked for over 30 years as the local barber.

Throughout the years, Mr. Smith served as the town clerk of Island Falls, town selectman, and for 10 years as a rural letter carrier for the United States Postal Service.

Mr. Smith's successful and varied careers made him well-suited for public office. His responsiveness to the needs of the citizens of his district ensured him of a successful 10 years in the State legislature.

He believed that as a true representative of his constituents it was his obligation to introduce legislation when asked to do so by a citizen even though there were times he did not necessarily support the bill. He believed by doing this he was giving the requesting citizens an opportunity to have an issue that was important to them addressed. He had a deep belief in local input on legislation and local control of development issues. Mr. Smith was also a strong advocate in requiring the State to reimburse any locality 75 percent of the cost of all mandated programs.

A true representative of the long-held ideal of Maine's citizens, Mr. Smith felt very strongly about energy and environmental conservation issues.

He championed many environmental initiatives and served on committees in the legislature related to fisheries and wildlife.

During his time in the legislature, he supported the Clean Indoor Air Act, a nonsmoking ban for the State. Another area of interest to Mr. Smith was prison reform. While serving on the Corrections Committee, he proposed a bill that would provide a restitution program where imprisoned persons convicted of nonviolent crimes worked to pay their room and board at the prison, supporting their dependents, and pay damages owed to persons as a result of their crimes.

Representative Smith personified the ideals of this country. He served his country in war, worked hard in his community of Island Falls, and was elected to serve in the State legislature, where he was able to positively affect the lives of citizens of Maine well beyond the borders of his legislative district.

With gratitude for his service to the State of Maine, I ask all Members to join me in the support of H.R. 2173.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as she may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I ask to take his words down.

May I inquire as to the remaining time, please.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me just say that I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts and sometimes the emotions. It seems to me, having just joined this debate, that we have spent more time criticizing what the Republican side of the aisle would like to talk about and that we have started to engage in the politics of personal destruction as opposed to talking about the issues of the day that are going to affect not just this one letter carrier who has served honorably.

I just want to reiterate the great work and dedication that this individual gave to the State. I think it is appropriate that we recognize and have a post office named after him. That's quite an honor that will stay, I hope, for a long, long period of time, for eons of time so that people can appreciate and can get to know and recognize him.

At the same time, I think a fair assessment would be, while we can give these individuals a few minutes of time and can recognize their strengths and contributions to the State, we do need more ample time to deal with what could be the single largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America, an increase that is going to touch every single American's life.

While there may be committee meetings over in the Senate and on committees that I'm not a participant in, I would hope that this body would continue to extend the time to talk about one of the most pertinent issues--the cap-and-trade--and the opposition that many of us here on the Republican side of the aisle feel to this bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2173, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague from Utah for the recognition. I want to make it clear, as my colleague from Arizona made it clear, we mean no disrespect, no denigration to the people for whom these post offices are being named. In fact, we're all very proud of Mr. McHugh, the nominee for the Secretary of the Army, whose bill preceded this bill.

I want to commend my colleague from Maine for introducing this legislation to honor Carl B. Smith with a post office named in his honor. However, we know the way that things are handled around here. It's been all too clear a pattern.

When it comes time to debate the legislation that is of major significance to everyone in this country, we wind up with closed rules and we wind up with debate cut off. And so it is up to us to inform the American people at every opportunity that we have what the impact of proposed legislation by the majority is going to be.

We hear over and over again when earmarks are requested by people on the other side that it's important that they bring home the bacon to their districts. Well, it's important to our constituents that they be told how much this cap-and-tax bill is going to cost them, because many Americans do not know it.

And I would say that the things that I have heard in Special Orders and even in the 1-minutes where folks on the other side are talking about cap-and-tax, it's as though we're talking about two different bills.

So we're not really having a debate on the merits of a piece of legislation. We're hearing a lot of propaganda about that legislation, but we're not having a real true debate on it. So it's up to us to inform the American people of the facts of the legislation.

As my colleagues have said before, the cap-and-tax bill that was passed out of the Congress in the Energy Committee a couple of weeks ago is a government planning scheme. It is more of taking all the choices in people's lives in this country up to the Federal Government level.

It will stifle private sector innovation. We are the most innovative country in the world because of the freedom that we have, and yet all the legislation coming through this Congress is aimed at stifling that freedom.

It is going to result in higher consumer energy prices. We know that. The President has admitted it. One of our colleagues from Michigan has admitted it's a huge tax. The President has said the prices are going to skyrocket. So how can they deny it when their own leadership has said it?

We know it's going to result in job losses, lower wages, and stock devaluation. It's not likely to reduce emissions, and there is no guarantee that reducing U.S. emissions is going to stop what is being called global warming. We don't even know that human beings are causing the global warming.

So we're using--I'm not even sure you can call it bad science. I think using the term ``science'' in conjunction with what is the underlying rationale for this bill is too strong a word.

But Republicans do have an alternative. Contrary to what our colleagues are saying over and over, we are not the Party of No. We are the Party of Do, and do right by the American people.

The American Energy Innovation Act, which is the Republican alternative to this, encourages innovation within the energy market to create the renewable fuel options and energy careers of tomorrow. It promotes greater conservation and efficiency by providing incentives for easing energy demand and creating a cleaner, more sustainable environment.

It increases the production of American energy by responsibly utilizing all available resources and technologies and streamlining burdensome regulations.

We have an alternative. It is a viable alternative. But that bill will never be debated. You talk about wanting debate. You talk about wanting discussions. Why not bring that bill up and let it be debated? Why not put it up for a vote just like the cap-and-tax bill will be put up for a vote?

No, that's not the way of this majority. The way of this majority is to stifle every idea that is good for this country and say, We won. We're going to do what we want to do. That's the attitude of the majority party. That is not true debate.

We would love to have true debate. We'd love to see the people on this floor have choices. They are not being given choices. They're not being allowed to debate.

So, Madam Speaker, we don't mean in any way to take away from the honors being given to these people for whom post offices are being named. As was pointed out earlier, one of them was by one of our Republican colleagues that we respect. But we think it's important to inform the American people of what they will be facing if some of the legislation being proposed by the Democrat majority is passed.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and my friend from Massachusetts. I can't help but rise, having heard our friend from Arizona who decided that really we were sort of wasting our time, despite the words of our friend from Utah just now, on the naming of a post office.

I'm reminded of the words from the book of Ecclesiastes that to everything there is a season. Today, at this moment, that season involves the naming of a post office that matters a lot to that community, that family, the memory of that individual, to the Members who represent that area in the United States Congress.

There will be time enough to debate cap-and-trade. In fact, last night we spent over an hour talking about cap-and-trade on our side of the aisle. I was privileged to participate in that.

But I think that it's easy sometimes when one has perfected the politics of ``gotcha'' to sound sanctimonious that one is rising above the trivial and addressing real issues when, as a matter of fact, in this body we address a whole range of issues.

I just rise in defense of the naming of a post office that's not trivial to part

of the folks we represent in this body and hardly represents the avoidance of a vigorous debate that I look forward to on cap-and-trade when that season is right.

I thank my friend from Massachusetts.