Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution urging the Senate to end further proceedings to remove Samuel Kent from his judicial office.

On June 18, 2009, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to impeach Judge Samuel Kent by adopting four, separate articles of impeachment without a single ``no'' vote.

This House vote was the result of (1) a thorough investigation into Judge Kent's misconduct by the House Judiciary Committee's Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, (2) an investigatory hearing on the matter; (3) a Task Force meeting at which it made a formal recommendation to the full Judiciary Committee that Judge Kent should be impeached, and (4) a full Committee markup of the articles of impeachment.

Indeed, the evidence clearly showed that Judge Kent's misconduct merited the serious step of impeachment. Judge Kent lied to the FBI and DOJ about the nature of his sexual misconduct with court employees. In addition, he pled guilty to felony obstruction of justice and to committing repeated acts of nonconsensual sexual contact with court employees. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison for committing felony obstruction of justice, and on Monday, June 15th, he reported to prison and began his prison term.

However, because the Constitution provides that federal judges are appointed for life, Samuel Kent, despite the fact that he was sitting in prison, continued to collect his taxpayer-funded salary of approximately $174,000 per year, continued to collect his taxpayer- funded health insurance benefits, and continued to accrue his taxpayer- funded pension.

Citizens of the U.S. have a right to a fair and impartial judiciary. The House vote to impeach Judge Samuel Kent sent the strong message to all federal judges that the House of Representatives will carry out its Constitutional duty to root out abuses of power in the federal judiciary.

After the June 18th vote, the Senate began preparations for trial to convict Kent and remove him from office. On June 30, 2009, facing a public trial in the Senate, Judge Kent finally resigned from office. As a result of the swift action by the House and Senate, Samuel Kent is no longer a federal judge and he will no longer collect his taxpayer- funded salary or benefits while sitting in federal prison, nor will he do so after his release.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, for his leadership in this effort, along with all the Members of the Task Force on both sides of the aisle. As Ranking Member of the Impeachment Task Force, I appreciate the fact that this effort has been undertaken in an extremely bipartisan fashion. I would also like to thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their comprehensive, yet expeditious and bipartisan consideration of the articles of impeachment in the full Judiciary Committee.

Now that Samuel Kent is no longer serving as a federal judge, there is no longer a need for the Senate to remove him from office. Therefore, I support this resolution urging the Senate to end further proceedings in this matter.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received aspart of H.R. 3183, FY2010 Departments of Energy and Water Appropriations Act.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Goodlatte

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/City of Roanoke, VA

Address of Requesting Entity: 215 Church Street, Roanoke, Virginia

Description of Request: $1,075,000 to continue construction of a flood control plan that includes 6 miles of channel widening.

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 803 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510

Description of Request: The purpose of the Section 216 Study, $300,000, is to verify that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's draft total maximum daily load Gathright Dam flow modifications, along with additional proposed nutrient reductions, will correct the impairment of the Jackson River without adversely affecting the approved functions of Gathright Dam/Lake Moomaw.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

I agree with one thing the gentleman from Massachusetts had to say and, that is, this bill has very important consequences, but those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country, and it's in pursuit of the fantasy of thinking that this legislation will cause us to be able to turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing CO2 gas emissions when China and India and other nations are pumping more and more CO2 gas into the atmosphere all the time.

We would be far better served with legislation that devotes itself to developing new technologies before we slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal and oil and natural gas and nuclear power, the most CO2-free emission that we have; and this bill does nothing to promote it.

It stifles the ability of the people of this country to have the kind of competitiveness they need in the world to be able to get inexpensive sources of energy. So I strongly oppose this legislation.

You know, we, Republicans and Democrats, offered over 200 amendments to try to improve this bill. They made in order one. In shutting down this democratic process, the Speaker of the House has taken away the voice of the American people. The simple truth behind this legislation is it raises taxes, kills jobs, and will lead to more government intrusion.

It is estimated this bill will raise electricity rates 90 percent, gasoline prices 74 percent, natural gas prices 55 percent--and that's in addition to the expected rise in all of those sources of energy because this Congress, for the last 2\1/2\ years, has refused to take up a real American energy plan to devote more to producing domestic sources of all of our traditional sources of energy and developing new sources.

We support the effort for energy efficiency. We support the effort to promote new and alternative forms of energy. We do not support this kind of suicide for the American economy.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

It would be true democracy to allow the people's representatives to have a say about what is in this legislation. However, committees with jurisdiction, including the Agriculture Committee, were not allowed to mark-up the bill and make changes.

The simple truth behind this legislation--it raises taxes, kills jobs and will lead to more government intrusion. Many have said the ``Peterson compromise'' is a win for farmers. Let me be clear, this legislation is not a win for American famers. Agriculture is an energy intensive industry, and this legislation will make the cost of energy even higher for everyone.

In effect this legislation turns off the ability to produce energy from reliable sources in favor of energy technologies that have not proven that they can meet the energy demands of our nation. We cannot ignore that America's economy is intrinsically linked to the availability and affordability of energy. During this economic slow- down we should adopt policies that seek to rebuild our economy and create more jobs. We need reliable and affordable energy supplies. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for offering this amendment, which is a great opportunity for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop putting the cart before the horse and suppressing our traditional sources of energy, oil, natural gas, coal. Doesn't even do anything for nuclear power, and yet you want to push us into a direction where the technology doesn't yet exist.

This legislation, this amendment, this substitute is exactly what you can need. You can vote for this, put us on a Manhattan Project to develop the new green technology that we need in this country, to do it in a way that is commercially feasible, to do it in a way that can rise up to replacing the 95 percent of our sources of energy that we have in our country this day, that you can push down in this legislation.

And if you were to vote for that and against the underlying bill, we would be putting this country on a course in a bipartisan fashion that would lead our country to exactly what we need. Unlike the Markey- Waxman approach, this amendment does not pick winners or losers in technology. It allows the ingenuity of American citizens to create the technology that will make our country energy independent.

I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's substitute.

This amendment focuses on making our country energy independent through the innovation of American individuals and businesses, not through government mandates and intrusion. Unlike the Waxman-Markey approach, this amendment does not pick winners and losers in technology but allows the ingenuity of American citizens to create the technology that will make our country energy independent while at the same time reducing carbon emissions.

Most importantly, the Forbes Amendment won't raise the cost of living to American consumers or hinder the ability for American businesses to compete. The technology that a new Manhattan Project could spur has the ability to rebuild our economy and make it stronger than ever before.

The Forbes Amendment is the right approach to make our country energy independent while reducing carbon emissions. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it's a rare occasion when the House of Representatives must vote on Articles of Impeachment against a Federal judge. Indeed, the last time this occurred was 20 years ago. However, when evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own advantage, the integrity of the judicial system becomes compromised, and the House of Representatives has the duty to investigate the matter and take the appropriate actions to end the abuse and restore confidence in the judicial system.

It is also rare for the members of the House Judiciary Committee to agree on anything. However, the committee voted unanimously last week to report out House Resolution 520, which contains the four Articles of Impeachment against Judge Kent. This vote came after a thorough investigation and much work by the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment. Specifically, the task force conducted an investigation of Judge Kent's conduct, which included working with the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the Fifth Judicial Circuit. The task force also conducted an investigatory hearing on the matter, at which two court employees who were victimized by Judge Kent testified about the extent of his sexual abuse. At that same hearing, we heard from a constitutional scholar who testified that Judge Kent's misconduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses. It is important to note that Judge Kent was invited to testify at the hearing. His attorney was also invited to testify and participate in the hearing. Both declined to attend.

As you have already heard in statements today and as you have already seen in the Judiciary Committee report, Judge Samuel Kent's misconduct merits the serious step of issuing Articles of Impeachment. The evidence also shows that he lied to the FBI and the

Department of Justice about the nature of his sexual misconduct with court employees. In addition, he pled guilty to felony obstruction of justice and to committing repeated acts of nonconsensual sexual contact with court employees. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison for committing felony obstruction of justice, and this past Monday he reported to prison and began his prison term.

However, because the Constitution provides that Federal judges are appointed for life, Samuel Kent, despite the fact that he is sitting in prison, continues to collect his taxpayer-funded salary of approximately $174,000 per year, continues to collect his taxpayer- funded health insurance benefits, and continues to accrue his taxpayer- funded pension.

This is the first time that a Federal judge has pled guilty to a felony, has reported to prison, and has still not resigned from his office. This shows how deep Judge Kent's audacity truly runs. In fact, Judge Kent even took the step of sending a letter to the President explaining that he intends to resign 1 year from now. However, this purported resignation is not worth the paper it is written on because nothing would prevent Judge Kent from withdrawing his resignation at any time before the expiration of the year. What it really amounts to is an attempt to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from the American people.

It is not a pleasant task to impeach a Federal judge; yet when a judge so clearly abuses his office, it becomes necessary to take the appropriate action in order to restore the confidence of the American people in their judicial system. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power and responsibility to impeach Federal judges. It is my strong recommendation that the Members of the House adopt these Articles of Impeachment against Judge Kent. It is my hope that the United States Senate will then act to swiftly bring this matter to trial and quick disposition.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, for his leadership in this effort, along with all the members of the task force on both sides of the aisle. As ranking member of the task force, I appreciate the fact that this effort has been undertaken in an extremely nonpartisan fashion. And I would also like to thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their comprehensive yet expeditious and bipartisan consideration of these Articles of Impeachment in the full Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it's not surprising to me that the chairman of the Rules Committee continues to reserve her time and that there are few Democrats who have come down to the floor to defend this terrible rule or this embarrassing bill that the rule brings to the floor.

It's a disgrace what happened last night. After only a few minutes of debate, legitimate debate on legitimate amendments, the majority moves to rise, goes back to the Rules Committee, and writes a rule that slams down more than 80 Republican amendments, a number of Democratic amendments too, but far more Republican amendments, without any consideration whatsoever. We have heard from some of those speakers here just in the last few minutes, people who had good, sound amendments to offer.

But I would like to talk about the overall bill. That's my concern. This bill spends $64.31 billion, an 11.7 percent increase. Now, where is that money coming from? Every penny of that increase is going to be borrowed. In fact, the budget that the Democrats adopted for this coming year that this appropriations bill is a part of spends $1.2 trillion more than is coming in in revenues; $3.6 trillion in expenditures, $2.4 trillion in revenues coming in--a $1.2 trillion deficit in 1 year.

Until this year we have never had a single year in our Nation's history where we have had more than a $500 billion deficit, and $500 billion is a staggering amount of money. And yet the budget they just adopted for the next 10 years, every single year it exceeds $550 billion, rising until at the end of the 10 years about $700 billion. Year after year after year, doubling our national debt and putting our country in great jeopardy.

People don't even know what $1 trillion is.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and bring back the bill so that we can adjust and cut spending.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 332 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, as we speak here on the floor of the House right now, the House Agriculture Committee is holding a hearing on the legislation reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the so-called cap-and-trade legislation. Many of us know it as cap-and- tax or a massive new energy tax on the American people.

The Agriculture Committee has wisely decided to hold a hearing on this

complex legislation and, in fact, the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Vilsack, has been answering questions from Members on both sides of the aisle for the past 3\1/2\ hours, as Members are almost uniformly opposed to the legislation, regardless of their party status, and have expressed grave concerns about the impact that this will have on America's farmers and ranchers, that it will have on rural America and, indeed, the devastating impact that it will have on our economy and jobs and our standard of living as a whole. And I want to bring to the attention of the Members of the House some of the concerns that we have raised.

The impact that this legislation will have on our economy and our very lives is extensive, and we should make sure that not just the Energy and Commerce Committee, but every committee in the House fully vets this bill.

The cap-and-trade proposal is really an $846 billion national energy tax that will hit nearly every American. Moving into a cap-and-trade system will place the United States economy at a distinct competitive disadvantage because it would place significant additional costs on every American business, farmer, manufacturer, and American family.

This bill will raise electric bills across the country by hindering the development of traditional energy sources while also, ironically, limiting the development of renewable energy.

Coal provides the majority of electricity generation in our country, and this bill will effectively stop coal-fired power plants from being built in the United States at a time when one new coal-fired electric generating power plant a week is being built in India and China. They will use those coal-fired power plants to power the growth in their economy, taking jobs away from the United States and putting the same CO2 gas into the atmosphere that we are passing this legislation to try to stop in this country. It makes no sense.

Nuclear power is the second largest source of electricity generation and the largest source of CO2-free energy, and it is effectively ignored by this bill, notwithstanding the fact that it will reduce CO2 gas emissions by a far greater measure than any of the other alternatives that are being discussed.

Also concerning to me is the one-size-fits-all renewable electric standard. This legislation assumes that all States have the exact same amount of renewable resources and can develop them and penalizes States when they cannot.

Furthermore, the legislation excludes far too many people who should be able to participate in the renewable energy market. I know I speak for members on both sides of our committee when I say that the biomass definition in this bill is inadequate. Woody biomass is a clean, sustainable form of energy that deserves encouragement from the Federal Government, not unneeded restrictions. Given the restrictions already placed on woody biomass by the Renewable Fuels Standard, we should not be repeating the same mistake in this legislation.

We must keep in mind that agriculture is an extensive energy- intensive industry, and this legislation will make the cost of energy even higher. It's estimated that the Waxman legislation will raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation, gas prices 74 percent, and natural gas prices 55 percent.

There is no doubt that this legislation will also raise the cost of fertilizer, chemical, and equipment which farmers use daily. This will cause serious economic harm for the American farmer. According to the Heritage Foundation, farm income is expected to drop because of this legislation by $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent and 94 percent, respectively. I do not know how we can expect American farmers to survive when we cut their farm income by 94 percent.

What I find even more frustrating is that the impetus for this legislation is to reduce carbon emissions, yet it does not recognize the role that agriculture and forestry can play in sequestering carbon.

The legislation does not specifically provide for agricultural or forestry offsets but rather leaves eligible offsets to the discretion of the Environmental Protection Agency. To add insult to injury, over 30 pages of this bill are devoted to developing international forestry offsets, including provisions to send American taxpayer money overseas to forest owners in developing countries while disregarding our own forest owners.

I urge my colleagues to look at this legislation closely and to soundly reject it.

Quite frankly, leaving these offsets at the discretion of the EPA makes me nervous. The EPA is not known to have the best working relationship with farmers and ranchers. USDA has a long record of working with farmers and ranchers, and they have the extensive expertise in agriculture and forestry that will make an agricultural offset program successful. This legislation needs to be amended to allow the USDA, not the EPA, to be in charge of administering agricultural offsets.

This legislation has far reaching consequences for every person, farmer, and business in the country. We cannot ignore that America's economy is intrinsically linked to the availability and affordability of energy. During this economic slow-down we should be adopting policies that seek to rebuild our economy and create more jobs; we need reliable and affordable energy supplies. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy. Instead of government mandates and bureaucracy we should focus on policies that support technological advances and consumer choices. The bottom line is that we need policies which encourage investment in environmentally sound, cost-effective practices without stifling innovation and setting our economy further back. The simple truth behind the Waxman energy plan is that it raises taxes, kills jobs and will lead to more government intrusion.

I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1385, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act. Given that this bill could dramatically change localities in Virginia, I am offering an amendment to provide an additional protection for private property. This amendment would ensure that no use of eminent domain could be used to acquire private property to transfer it to the tribes. This would ensure that lands are not taken out of current private use for the sole purpose of expanding tribal lands and ensure some protection for private residents and localities. The bill greatly expands the congressionally recommended areas in which tribes can acquire lands for their trust. Given that this is a great expansion in comparison to versions of this bill introduced in previous Congresses, I believe that it is necessary and appropriate to provide this level of protection. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

I will be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, the chairman makes me feel a lot better, and I'm pleased that he will accept my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I have always supported granting these six Virginia tribes Federal recognition, and I am extremely happy that that bill has included language that seeks to prevent casino-style gaming in the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, I was troubled to learn of a change that was made to the bill without notification to any of the local communities that would be affected.

In the section dealing with the Monacan Indian Tribe, the area that the tribe could have placed in trust for their reservation grew from one county to seven. Originally, it was an area of approximately 479 square miles, and now it's an area of approximately 3,728 square miles.

What is even more disturbing to me is that none of these new localities knew that they would be part of an area in which the tribes could acquire lands. My office only discovered it once the bill was scheduled for floor consideration.

This bill could dramatically affect these counties. If tribal lands were established in these counties, it could mean the localities would lose all control of the lands that were placed in trust in them. We would no longer be in control of zoning, environmental reviews, and these localities could no longer collect tax revenues from these lands. These are serious concerns and could greatly impact operations of the counties.

The fact that the bill would establish tribal land in these counties is a total surprise to these jurisdictions. They have not had a sufficient opportunity to discuss and study how such a change would affect them.

The addition of these new counties is also a total surprise to me and the counties involved, and they should be removed from this bill. I've also spoken to my colleagues, Tom Perriello and Rick Boucher of the Fifth and Ninth Congressional Districts, who also represent these newly added counties, and they also support this amendment.

These communities should have the right to know how these changes will affect them as far as this legislation is concerned and the far- reaching consequences that could permanently change central Virginia.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say the gentleman's points are well taken. We certainly understand the concerns of the tribe and the interests of the individual who owns the land in Rockbridge County that would like to have it taken into trust.

My concern, of course, is that this has happened at a late hour and, as you know, we've been scrambling to figure out exactly what that land is. We now think we have a reasonably good definition of it, and subject to the approval of the local government, I think that we could agree on language. And if the chairman and the ranking member, or other Members for that matter, do not object, I would be prepared to make a unanimous consent request.

I am. I am asking unanimous consent to submit a modification.

If the gentleman would yield, the consent of the local unit of government, to me, would mean the approval of the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors by way of an ordinance or some other measure that they would pass, a resolution, approving the action taken. If the gentleman has some perfecting language, I'm certainly willing to consider it.

Well, if the gentleman would yield further, I take the gentleman's point. However, by the same token, we would have to have some kind of a date by which they would have to act in disapproval, because otherwise they could disapprove some time well into the future. So I think that the appropriate step here would be to adopt this amendment with the unanimous consent modification, if no one objects to that, and then the tribe would then proceed to go to the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors and ask them to approve this. If they refuse to approve it, they would still have the opportunity to come back in the future and ask them for approval at a later date. Whereas, the gentleman's language might be more confusing.

If the gentleman would yield, I don't think the gentleman is going down the right track because the gentleman who owns this land is still living, and it's my understanding that he's going to convey the land in a testamentary document, and therefore, to try to set a date for the action by the board seems to me to be trying to put the cart before the horse. I believe that I must insist, myself, on my own unanimous consent request.

Madam Chairman, with that modification, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. And I do believe that this is a good and effective way to address the concerns that I raise and were raised by Congressman Perriello and Congressman Boucher in my conversations with them and my staffs conversations with their staffs about the impact that this could have on these particular localities. And, therefore, I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment, as modified.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan ``Security and Fairness Enhancement (SAFE) for America Act.'' This much-needed legislation eliminates the controversial visa lottery program, through which 50,000 aliens are chosen at random to come and live permanently in the United States based on pure luck. The visa lottery program threatens national security, results in the unfair administration of our nation's immigration laws, and encourages a cottage industry for fraudulent opportunists.

Because winners of the visa lottery are chosen at random, the visa lottery program presents a serious national security threat. A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July of 2002. He was allowed to apply for lawful permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner.

The State Department's Inspector General has even weighed in on the national security threat posed by the visa lottery program. During testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Office of Inspector General stated that the Office ``continues to believe that the diversity visa program contains significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists attempting to use the program for entry into the United States as permanent residents.''

Even if improvements were made to the visa lottery program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign intelligence agencies from planting members in the U.S. by having those members apply for the program. As long as those individuals do not have previous criminal backgrounds, these types of organized efforts would never be detected, even if significant background checks and counter-fraud measures were enacted within the program.

Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the United States or with U.S. employers. These types of relationships help ensure that immigrants entering our country have a stake in continuing America's success and have needed skills to contribute to our nation's economy. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria.

In addition, the visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who comply with the United States' immigration laws. The visa lottery program does not expressly prohibit illegal aliens from applying to receive visas through the program. Thus, the program treats foreign nationals that comply with our laws the same as those that blatantly violate our laws. In addition, most family-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtain visas, yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job skills or education ahead of these family and employer-sponsored immigrants each year with relatively no wait. This sends the wrong message to those who wish to enter our great country and to the international community as a whole.

Furthermore, the visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. A report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states that it is commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery program multiple times using many different aliases. In addition, the visa lottery program has spawned a cottage industry featuring sponsors in the U.S. who falsely promise success to applicants in exchange for large sums of money. Ill-informed foreign nationals are willing to pay top dollar for the ``guarantee'' of lawful permanent resident status in the U.S.

The State Department's Office of Inspector General confirms these allegations of widespread fraud in a September 2003 report. Specifically, the report states that the visa lottery program is ``subject to widespread abuse'' and that ``identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are commonplace.'' Furthermore, the report also reveals that the State Department found that 364,000 duplicate applications were detected in the 2003 visa lottery alone.

In addition, the visa lottery program is by its very nature discriminatory. The complex formula for assigning visas under the program arbitrarily disqualifies natives from countries that send more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. within a five-year period, which excludes nationals from countries such as Mexico, Canada, China and others.

The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our country's immigration system. My legislation would eliminate the visa lottery program. The removal of this controversial program will help ensure our nation's security, make the administration of our immigration laws more consistent and fair, and help reduce immigration fraud and opportunism.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for holding this Special Order to talk about the cap-and-tax proposal that has been offered by Chairman Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and subcommittee Chairman Markey of the subcommittee dealing with energy on that committee. And it concerns me greatly as it should concern all Americans.

When you look at the sources of energy that we have in our country today, this legislation is going to drive up energy costs for the average American. It is going to drive up the costs of a whole lot of other things than simply their electric bills and the cost of other energy they receive. It is also going to drive up the cost of virtually every good that they receive and a lot of services that they receive as well. It concerns me greatly.

I have served as the ranking member and previously the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Today I serve as the ranking member on the subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee that deals with energy. And quite frankly, it is a situation where this is a solution in search of a problem. And quite frankly, the solution is going to create great problems for the American people.

What we really need to have in this country in this time of very severe economic turmoil when people are losing their jobs and the economy is suffering is we need to be looking at producing more domestic sources of energy of all kinds. And yet this legislation is going to discourage the production of most of the principal sources of energy that we utilize in our country today, including coal production and nuclear power.

The gentleman may correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that nuclear power, which is completely CO2 gas emission- free, is going to not receive any credit for the availability of electricity that is produced from this source which today produces about 20 percent of all of our electricity in the country. And it seems to me that if you're truly dedicated to solving our problems of energy sources, you would want to be encouraging increased production of all different sorts of energy.

Now nuclear power is very capital intensive. But once you have a new nuclear power plant, it is the cheapest source of electric generation that exists in the country, even far cheaper than coal as a source of energy. And yet the fact that it is CO2-free doesn't seem to make any difference, because there are those in the environmental community who are very hostile to nuclear power production, even though we have--and countries like France which now produces more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power--have addressed in new and innovative ways the waste disposal issue and other safety issues that make nuclear power very, very attractive.

And then when it comes to coal, do you know that more than half of our electricity in this country is generated by coal? It is a very, very important source of energy. And yet it is treated like the lost step-child in this legislation because no effort is really made here to help coal address the serious concerns that have been raised by some about the amount of CO2 that is emitted from coal production. That to me does not make any sense. We are the Saudi Arabia of the world in terms of coal production. We have more coal reserves than any other country in the world. And we have tremendous capabilities in terms of long-term ability to generate cheap, low-cost power.

So what are they going to replace it with?

They like electricity? I like electricity. You like electricity. But you have to produce it with something.

Seventy-five percent of our electricity--people who are paying attention to this issue should know that 75 percent of the electricity produced in our country today is produced from coal and nuclear.

And they have no good answer in terms of what to replace it with. Wind power and solar, two that are very commonly cited, produce just a tiny percentage of the electricity in our country today. I think wind power and solar are great and they have great potential and we should encourage more of them, but there is no way that they are going to replace our traditional sources of generating electricity any time in the near future.

So the natural result is going to be that if you write legislation that heavily penalizes other sources of energy, particularly coal, what you are going to have as a result is much higher energy costs. And it will affect people all across the country in very dramatic ways, and they will see it when they open their bill for their electricity. But they are also going to see it in ways that may surprise them in terms of the cost of goods and services and in terms of their very livelihood because many jobs will go outside of the country to other countries like Russia and China and India that have no intention of complying with the same type of a cap-and-tax system that is being proposed right here in this Congress. Therefore, they are going to have cheaper sources of energy.

China and India, right now, are building one new coal-fired power plant a week. Are they going to comply with cap-and-tax? Are they going to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? No, they are going to dramatically increase those greenhouse gas emissions, and the end result is they will produce electricity cheaper. Therefore, they will be able to produce goods cheaper in those countries. They will be a magnet to draw jobs to those countries, to become manufacturing bases, as they are already growing to be. It is just going to get worse.

Even though China has grown so much in terms of its manufacturing in

recent years, the United States is still the world's largest manufacturing country. We are going to lose that when this bill takes effect if we don't get the American people to speak out about it and let the Members of Congress know that this kind of damaging legislation will cost jobs and raise the cost of living in this country if it is not brought to a halt.

Every source of energy that we have, whether it is coal or nuclear power or oil or natural gas or solar or wind power or geothermal or renewable biofuels, all of them have environmental issues attached to them. You can't name a one that doesn't.

Wind power has all kinds of environmental issues attached to it. People have attempted to build wind power facilities in my district and have gotten great push back on the effect about birds and bats and noise.

Solar generating facilities that have been proposed for the southwest of this country have had lawsuits brought against them to prevent them from building these solar facilities because of the impact it will have on desert vegetation and desert wildlife and so on.

Ethanol and other renewable fuels have environmental opponents to them as well.

So it seems to me that the all-of-the-above approach of the Republican Conference, of promoting the development of new sources of energy, of promoting energy conservation and efficiency, and of promoting the development of all of our sources of energy, including our traditional sources, and producing them domestically to reduce our foreign trade deficit problems and to create more jobs in this country is the way to go here. That ought to be the alternative that this Congress turns to instead of a cap-and-tax government planning scheme that stifles private sector innovation, that causes higher consumer energy prices and causes job losses and lower wages and stock devaluation.

Its potential for abuse and corruption is great. It is a windfall for certain people who didn't do anything to deserve the benefits that they will get when they suddenly find that they have something to sell or trade under this system. And it is not likely to actually reduce any emissions significantly.

This idea that somehow we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent that we can turn down the thermostat of the world when other countries are going to increase their CO2 emissions around the world is folly. That is what this legislation is, and it has no guarantee that it will solve the global warming issue that many have focused on. Instead, we do have a guarantee that it will have a devastating impact on our economy.

I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak during this Special Order.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her hard work on the Rules Committee, on this rule fight, and I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.

My goodness. How long are we going to debate this? 40 minutes or an hour? This very important piece of legislation under this rule?

I can understand why we only have that amount of time because, after all, we're going to be working as late as 4 this afternoon here in the House. How could we possibly go just a little later than 4 to debate a very, very important piece of legislation?

And then what amendments will we be debating? None. It's a closed rule.

This is an atrocity. This is a very highly contentious piece of legislation. We held a 2-day markup on this bill with numerous amendments in the Judiciary Committee, and it is very clear that we need a rule that will allow for amendments to be considered on the floor of the House. But we certainly don't have that.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

I would also point out that this underlying piece of legislation, which I will have the opportunity to speak more on in the general debate, is something that does, indeed, deal with thought. The only difference between beating up a senior citizen and beating up somebody who is in a protected class, under this piece of legislation, or beating up a pregnant woman, or beating up someone who's in a protected class, under this legislation, is the thought process that went into the motivation to assault that particular person. And that is legislation that is founded on criminalizing thought.

It is very deeply concerning, because I, like most Americans, believe that every victim of every crime is entitled to be treated the same under the law. Why would a senior citizen not be deserving of these additional protections that are provided based upon sex or sexual orientation or race or religion?

Why would pregnant women who suffer all kinds of violent crimes against them not be deserving of that same kind of protection?

This legislation is bad. Vote down the rule. Vote down the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, despicable, regardless of its motivation and regardless of who the victim is. However, this bill, no matter how well-intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system and raises significant constitutional and federalism concerns.

Under the provisions of H.R. 1913, justice will no longer be equal but will depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. In my view, all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law.

Why should other groups like senior citizens, veterans, children and pregnant women not also receive the added protections under this bill?

The distinguished majority leader says that this is not about thought crime; it's about conduct. But the fact of the matter is that the identical crime, be it a murder, a rape, an assault, a battery, whatever it might be, conducted against one of the protected classes will receive additional penalties, compared to that pregnant woman or senior citizen or veteran or child, simply based upon the thought process of the perpetrator of the crime. Every victim is entitled to the same fair treatment under the law.

This will have a chilling effect on citizens' willingness to speak freely, as citizens will adapt to a new world where the Federal Government can use any unpopular statements they make against them in the future.

The bill raises the real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be criminally prosecuted based on their speech or protected activities. No one should be put in fear that their constitutionally protected free speech about controversial issues will be subject to efforts by prosecutors attempting to link that speech to violent action taken by others.

There is no evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent crimes involving hate. In fact, 45 States and the District of Columbia already have specific laws punishing hate crimes.

I abhor acts of violence against any citizen, including crimes motivated by bias against certain groups, and I believe that such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. However, this legislation gives special preferences to certain classes of citizens and would create a chilling effect on one of our most cherished constitutional rights.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this budget conference report.

Tomorrow, the President will have completed 100 days in office. The American people look back on these 100 days and what do they see from this Congress but a blizzard of spending. We've seen an over $1 trillion stimulus package, an omnibus appropriations bill that we called for a freeze on that, instead, will spend over $400 billion in spending. The stimulus package, we called for something that spent half as much money and would have created twice as many jobs according to the economic projections that were relied upon.

Now, the capstone of this first 100 days is an unbelievable budget conference report that projects to spend more than $3.5 trillion this coming year and which forecasts budget deficits as far as the eye can see.

Much has been made about the fact that this year, the budget deficit will be approximately $1.7 trillion, but that includes the $1 trillion in spending. It includes the omnibus appropriations

bill that we talked about here. And yet at the end of this time, the majority feels that it is worth boasting that we will have cut that deficit by two-thirds, to more than $500 billion. In the entire history of this country, our budget deficit has exceeded $500 billion only once or twice to this point. Yet this budget plan projects $500 billion budget deficits for as far as the eye can see and raises our national debt over the next decade to more than $23 trillion.

We talk about these numbers like they are abstract concepts. A million dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 4 inches high. A trillion dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 63 miles high. For just this next year, we project a deficit of more than $1.2 trillion, 75 miles high up into outer space. And that's where this budget belongs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the Democratic budget that is before the Congress and in support of the Republican alternative and the Republican Study Committee alternative--two far more responsible budgets.

I know there are many on the Democratic side of the aisle who are proud to call themselves fiscal conservatives. You cannot vote for this budget, which spends too much, which increases spending by more than two-thirds over the course of this budget, to $5.1 trillion per year without avoiding the charge of ``big spender.''

You cannot support this budget, which taxes too much--which taxes $1.5 trillion over the course of this budget, without avoiding the charge of being a big spending tax-and-spend liberal. That is what you're facing in this budget. You cannot support this and continue to call yourselves fiscal conservatives.

My greatest concern is that this budget calls for borrowing too much. Our budget debt will rise to $23 trillion by 2019--2\1/2\ times the amount that it is today, yet we will have those on your side of the aisle who will claim to be fiscally conservative on a debt that we leave our children and grandchildren and mortgages their future. That is not fiscal responsibility.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``To preserve the independence of the people, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.'' Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that Congress has chosen this disastrous path.

I urge my colleagues to avoid this spending addiction and to vote tomorrow for responsible budgets that will lead our Nation back to prosperity and a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 166, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''