Floor Statements

I also want to thank Mr. Green of Texas and Mr. Murphy for their leadership on this issue.

All of us recognize the importance of community health centers. They are spreading throughout the country and they are playing an important role in providing primary health care for the American people.

At this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to one of the real leaders in this area, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I think all of our speakers have explained very clearly why we need to support this legislation. I urge all of our Members to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 5710, would reauthorize the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, known as NASPER, which provides grants through HHS to the States to establish and operate prescription drug monitoring programs.

I also want to thank Congressman Stupak for his tremendous leadership. Without him we wouldn't have this bill on the floor. Chairman Pallone has been helpful, Ranking Members Barton and Shimkus. And I would also like to thank our late friend Charlie Norwood of Georgia, who was very much interested in this legislation.

NASPER was designed to reduce prescription drug abuse by providing physicians with the tools to stop the abuse before it starts. The law allows physicians to provide proper medication therapy to patients while also cracking down on the interstate diversion of prescription medications.

Importantly, the law contains safeguards to ensure this sensitive information is protected and accessed appropriately.

This is an important piece of legislation. I urge all of our Members to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of S. 2781, Rosa's Law, and I certainly want to thank the majority and all of those involved in this important legislation for bringing it to the floor for final passage.

This legislation is really very simple, but very important. It simply modifies specific terms used in Federal law and instead of referring to the people as mentally retarded individuals, it refers to them basically as individuals with developmental disabilities.

It will affect the Social Security Act, the Public Health Service Act, and a lot of other Federal laws. I think it certainly is a step in the right direction, and I would urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2781, Rosa's Law, and I would like to thank the Majority for finally bringing this legislation to the floor of the House for final passage.

Rosa's Law follows previous Congressional action to modify the specific terms used in Federal law to refer to individuals, or broad categories of individuals, when earlier terminology became outdated, offensive, or otherwise inappropriate.

I would like to note that our former colleague, Nathan Deal of Georgia, actually offered an amendment during the Energy and Commerce Committee's consideration of the ObamaCare legislation back in July of last year that would have changed references in Federal law to mentally retarded individual to references to an individual with an developmental disability, but unfortunately, Congressman Deal's amendment was not accepted by the Majority, which prevented it from being included in the House-passed version of the health reform legislation.

However, by bringing this legislation to the floor today, the Majority can atone for their past mistake, and finally correct this glaring problem.

And speaking of health reform, I would also like to note that today is the 6-month anniversary of the Democrats' ObamaCare package being signed into law, and just as Republicans, independents, and a few brave Democrats predicted, insurance premiums are rising and people are losing their current health insurance coverage as a direct result of the flawed provisions in that legislation.

Reports of problems in ObamaCare abound, but has this Congress held a hearing on its implementation? No. In fact, the Subcommittee on Health--on which I serve--has held 15 hearings since the passage of ObamaCare, but we have not dealt with the most radical change to America's health care system in generations.

As all of us have noticed lately, people back home are experiencing the unhappy reality of the Federal Government's health care takeover. And as many news reports indicate, many people seem to prefer a Congressional Majority that wants to get the truth from the Obama Administration about what's gone wrong. I know the seniors in my district are completely clear about their desire to have us look into the Administration's plans to cut $575 billion from Medicare. They also want to know about statements by the Chief Actuary of Medicare that providers ``could find it difficult to remain profitable'' and might ``end their participation in the program.''

And any American concerned about the disastrous spending policies of this Administration and the current Majority would want oversight over recent revelations that after passage of ObamaCare, health care spending is projected to increase more than the Obama Administration had projected before passage of this deeply flawed legislation.

During the run-up to passage, miracles were promised day in and day out. Seniors were told the law would strengthen Medicare, only to see reductions to the program spent on new entitlements. Everyone was told the cost curve would be bent down, only to see the Administration's own actuaries report it will continue to go up.

Families were told that if they liked their current coverage they could keep it, only to learn that the law encourages employers to drop coverage, that health insurers will pass along increased costs through increased premiums, and that every plan will be subject to a host of costly new Federal rules and restrictions.

Where is the oversight? Where are the hearings? As the election nears, I would like

to note that the American people seem to want a new kind of Congress, one that is willing to find its mistakes and to fix them.

With that, I will urge my colleagues to support the bill before us today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in support of House Resolution 1433, expressing support for the designation of September 2010 as Blood Cancer Awareness Month.

At this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who was the primary sponsor of this legislation and who has been a real leader on cancer awareness in the U.S. Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise also in support of the Safe Drug Disposal Act, and certainly I want to thank Mr. Inslee for his leadership and Mr. Moran, Mr. Pallone, and many others.

Two months ago, I was invited by Sheriff Carter of Allen County, Kentucky, to a meeting of concerned citizens in that little community, and what they wanted to talk about was prescription drug abuse. And not only is it a problem in Washington State; it's a problem in Kentucky, and it's a problem throughout this entire country.

We are fortunate that many pharmacies, States, and localities have established prescription drug take-back programs; but, unfortunately, they are unable to take back controlled substances due to a technical reading of the Controlled Substances Act. This legislation will correct that and will allow a take-back program to also apply to controlled substances. And by passing this legislation, these programs will help further reduce the likelihood of prescription drugs being diverted to those to whom they were not prescribed.

I'm delighted that we are bringing this legislation to the floor, and I look forward to its passage and would urge all of our Members to vote for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

First of all, I do want to thank Congressman Lipinski of Illinois for introducing this legislation on the National Manufacturing Strategy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize in America today that our manufacturing sector, while still one of the strongest in the world, has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. In fact, we have lost way too many. This legislation, while providing additional studies to look at the problems for our manufacturing sector, I firmly believe does not go far enough and does not address the real problems with manufacturing in America today.

One issue that we certainly need to look at, in my view, is the American tax policy. It is my understanding that the United States has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world and will soon move into the No. 1 slot because Japan, evidently, is getting ready to drop its corporate income tax rate.

We also know that, already in the Federal Government, there are many task forces that are looking at this manufacturing issue. For example, there is an Interagency Working Group on Manufacturing Competitiveness. The Commerce Department has a manufacturing council. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is in existence, and the Interagency Working Group on Manufacturing Research and Development is operating today. Additionally, both the Department of Commerce under the Bush administration and the White House under President Obama has issued reports and recommendations on the state of domestic manufacturing.

Then just recently, in June of this year, the National Manufacturers Association issued an extensive report on what was needed in America to make manufacturing in America more competitive. One of the things that I pointed out was tax policy and a more aggressive trade policy to have tariffs lowered in other countries. Then the ability to compete in the global marketplace is vitally important.

One of the reasons I have been very much concerned about some of the energy policies of this administration, particularly as they relate to cap-and-trade, is that, if that kind of legislation is adopted, it is going to increase electricity costs and make manufacturing in America less competitive in the global marketplace.

The CEO of CSX Railroads was in my office 2 weeks ago. He said the railroads are moving more coal to the ports for export to China today than they ever have in the past. He also said the same thing is happening in Australia. The reason for that is that the Chinese are depending more and more upon coal to produce electricity. A delegation of them came to Washington, and said one of the reasons they were doing it was that they wanted the lowest electricity costs in order to be more competitive in the global marketplace and to encourage more manufacturing plants to move to China.

So I think we need to take concrete action. We know the problems. I will say that this legislation will provide an additional study, and that may be important.

I would like to commend Chairman Rush and Mr. Lipinski, because I think they improved this bill a great deal when they eliminated the task force and created one strategy board so that there would be less repetitiveness on the studies that this legislation calls for.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

May I ask how much time we have remaining on this side?

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make some concluding remarks.

All of us on this side of the aisle support Mr. Lipinski's effort. We believe that this legislation is good and we commend Mr. Rush and Mr. Lipinski.

But we reiterate that this administration is not doing enough to improve manufacturing in America. The majority leader said we want more products produced in America. But in order to do that, we need a tax policy that encourages investment, not making it more expensive to do business in America. We need a policy to provide incentives for more research and development to be more competitive in the global marketplace. We need a strong program to defend and protect intellectual property developed by our manufacturers. We need a strong international trade policy that encourages more American products to be sold abroad.

And as the gentleman from Illinois said, we need an energy policy that does not raise energy costs. And every objective analysis of the Obama administration's cap-and-trade system indicates that that bill would dramatically increase electricity costs making American manufacturers less competitive, not more competitive. I have already talked about China and the steps that they're taking to decrease their electricity costs.

So we support this bill, but we need to do more. And we call upon the administration to do more than just talk about these issues.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I also would like to thank Congressman Moran for being a real leader on this legislation, and I certainly want to thank Chairman Rush and Chairman Waxman and others on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

This legislation, as Mr. Sarbanes adequately described, is relatively simple. It simply amends the Fur Products

Labeling Act of 1951. That act required accuracy in the labeling of fur products and apparel, but it did not apply to any apparel sold for less than $150.

A series of recent investigations revealed that a significant number of clothes designers and retailers were selling some fur-trimmed garments described as faux or raccoon or coyote or mink or whatever, when actually it turned out to be dog fur or something else. As a matter of fact, of 38 jackets subjected to very specific tests, every single garment of those 38 was either unlabeled or it contained a label that misidentified the animal's fur that was used in that garment. And so this legislation is about transparency, providing consumers with accurate information on what they're buying.

Eighty-seven percent of garments sold in the U.S. today with fur already are required to abide by this. This will simply require the other 13 percent, those valued below $150, to abide by the same law. And consumer protection organizations, retail, and even the fashion industry all support this legislation. And I would urge our colleagues to support it as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 36th anniversary of the Turkish peace operation which prevented an attempt by Greece to annex the island of Cyprus. Although peace prevails in Cyprus today, the social, economic and political development of the Turkish Cypriots has been restricted for more than four decades.

Despite their continued commitment to achieving a just and lasting settlement that respects the political equality of the two peoples on the island, the Turkish Cypriot people are still waiting for the international community to honor the promises it made to them that their isolation would be listed. While the Greek Cypriots were given full membership in the European Union, despite rejecting a United Nations plan to unify the island, Turkish Cyprus is still largely isolated from the international community.

Madam Speaker, if the process is to move forward toward a lasting settlement it is important that the United States Congress recognize the unwavering commitment of the Turkish Cypriot people to unify the island and encourage the lifting of their isolation.

The current opportunity for a settlement arises from the ongoing negotiations conducted under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General. The Turkish Cypriot side needs to be commended for the seriousness and commitment it has displayed in the negotiations. I would particularly like to applaud the new Turkish Cypriot president, Dr. Dervis Eroglu, who wasted no time after his election in resuming negotiations. It is time that this positive stance of the Turkish Cypriots be reciprocated. The Greek Cypriots should be encouraged to respond in kind to these gestures of good will.

We now find ourselves at a critical juncture in the history of Turkish and Greek Cypriot relations. It is vital that the United States joins a number of other voices in the international community who hope that a mutually acceptable settlement might be reached. In order to promote the spirit of good will generated during the recent meetings, I encourage this body to seize this opportunity to support the two Cypriot leaders as they work toward reunification.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of Kentucky's Metcalfe County and city of Edmonton. Metcalfe County became the 106th county in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on May 1st 1860 and was named in honor of Kentucky's 10th governor, Thomas Metcalfe. Its sesquicentennial is a significant milestone for Metcalfe County and one I am pleased to honor.

Through the course of the history of Edmonton and Metcalfe County, its citizens have endured hard times and sacrifices. Its sons and daughters have answered the call to serve in every war beginning with the Civil War and continuing through this day. The town of Edmonton was settled as a result of the sacrifice, work and vision of Edmund Rogers, a Revolutionary War veteran and cousin to General George Rogers Clark and William Clark. In March of 1826, the first United States Post Office was established in Edmonton, which changed its image from that of a trading post

to a more permanent settlement. By an act of the Kentucky Legislature in 1836, the settlement of Edmonton became officially established as a town and gradually became the largest population center in the area.

The citizens of Edmonton and Metcalfe County have a deep appreciation for the sacrifice and struggles endured by their predecessors in the development of their hometown. Today its citizens continue the rich history of their forefathers and it is with great pride we celebrate this momentous occasion.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3993, the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act. We have a lot of students and military personnel around this country who depend on prepaid calling cards. Unfortunately, we have discovered that the majority of prepaid cards only deliver 50 to 60 percent of the minutes advertised. While a private enterprise certainly has the right to shape its business model as it sees fit, it does not have the right to misinform and to mistreat customers with exorbitant hang-up fees and maintenance fees, and as I said, many people who have prepaid cards simply do not know what they actually provide them.

That is why H.R. 3993 is so important. It is going to go a long way toward preventing these occurrences in the future. This legislation will ensure that consumers are better informed by requiring an accurate and reasonable disclosure of the terms and conditions of prepaid telephone calling cards and services.

Under the bill, prepaid calling card providers would have to clearly disclose how many minutes they offer and the prices for those minutes. They would also have to clearly disclose any additional fees levied on the consumer as well as the card's expiration date and other relevant information.

I want to especially thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and certainly Mr. Engel, who introduced this bill--for working so closely with the minority on this important issue. Because of our working together, we have a bill that, I believe, helps consumers without unduly hampering the industry. This legislation includes commonsense preemption standards, liability exemptions for retailers, which is very important, and, of course, strong protections for the consumer.

I would urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this issue is so important that I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Dr. Joe E. Ellis of Benton, Kentucky.

Dr. Ellis will soon be elected president of the American Optometric Association during their 113th annual meeting, where he will be installed as AOA's 89th president on Saturday, June 19th, 2010 in Orlando, Florida.

Dr. Ellis is a graduate of the Southern College of Optometry and has a private practice in Marshall County. He was named Kentucky Young Optometrist of the Year in 1992 and has also received three President's Awards from the Kentucky Optometric Association.

Dr. Ellis' particular area of interest is advocacy, especially as it relates to patients' access to optometric care. He has been active in legislative and government relations at the state and national levels and recently served as Chairman of the AOA's State Health Care Legislation Committee.

Dr. Ellis was instrumental in the passage of the first state law of its kind that requires that all Kentucky children entering public schools receive a diagnostic eye examination. The Kentucky General Assembly identified problems with vision as an important factor limiting children's abilities to learn and succeed. Through this, they recognized that the early diagnosis and treatment of children's vision problems is a necessary component to school readiness and academic learning and the enactment of this legislation in 2000 ensured that children in my state are able to meet their developmental potential.

Doctors of optometry serve patients in nearly 6,500 communities across the country, and in 3,500 of those, they are the only eye doctors. Optometrists provide two-thirds of all primary eye care in the United States. The American Optometric Association represents approximately 36,000 doctors of optometry, optometry students and paraoptometric assistants and technicians.

Dr. Ellis' enthusiasm for optometry and commitment to excellence in eye and vision care has earned him this prestigious national office and public recognition. I am confident that he will have a very successful term as the American Optometric Association's president. His election is a tribute to his years of service to the profession of optometry in Kentucky and throughout the nation. I join his family, friends and colleagues in congratulating him on this achievement and wishing him the best of luck in this endeavor.

Madam Speaker, on February 26, 2009, the Office of Architect of the Capitol (AOC) received a letter signed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader directing a reduction in the use of coal at the Capitol Power Plant, in favor of natural gas. In response, I wrote a letter to the AOC inquiring about the impacts of this proposal and the costs associated with it. The text of that letter and the Architect's response follow.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 4, 2009.

Mr. Stephen Ayers,

Acting Architect of the Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Ayers: There have been several articles written

about the Capitol Power Plant in recent weeks and I have had

several groups in my office lobbying to stop using coal at

the plant. I would appreciate your providing me some basic

facts about the plant.

1. When was it constructed, what was its initial cost, and

when did it begin operations?

2. What was/is the rated electrical capacity of the plant?

3. How much coal was burned at the plant during its peak

years of operation?

4. When was natural gas first used as a fuel in the plant,

and what was the cost to convert the plant so that natural

gas could be used?

5. What is the mix of fuel used today at the plant, in

percentages?

6. What has been the additional cost or cost-saving

associated with the use of a mix of natural gas and coal,

instead of coal only?

7. What is the timeline for converting the plant to natural

gas only, and what will be the cost of the conversion?

8. What is the projected additional cost or cost-saving

over the next five years, by converting the plant to operate

only on natural gas?

9. What type of coal is presently burned at the plant, and

where is it produced?

10. Does the plant produce electricity, or only steam and

cooled water for the Capitol complex?

11. If electricity is produced, what amount of income does

the sale of the electricity produce annually?

12. If electricity is not produced, why not?

13. If electricity is not produced, what would it cost to

convert the plant so that electricity could be produced and

sold, and what would be the projected annual income from

those sales?

14. What emissions controls are in place at the plant, when

were they added, and at what cost?

15. Is the plant presently in compliance with federal Clean

Air Act regulations?

16. If the plant is not in compliance with emissions

limitations, what additional controls might be needed to

continue to use coal or a mix of coal and natural gas, and

what are the estimated capital costs of those additional

controls?

Thank you very much for your attention to this request. I

will look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Ed Whitfield,

Member of Congress.

The Architect of the Capitol,

Washington, DC, March 20, 2009.

Hon. Ed Whitfield

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Whitfield: Thank you for your interest in

the U.S. Capitol Power Plant. As a matter of background,

Congress authorized $1,545,975.65 for the design and

construction of the Capitol Power Plant on April 28, 1904,

and it was completed and began operations in 1910.

Originally, the plant was constructed to produce electricity.

However, since 1951 it has not produced electricity and only

generates steam and chilled water for the Capitol Complex.

The Capitol Power Plant is currently capable of using three

fuels; coal, natural gas, and fuel oil. In a series of

projects starting in 1989, individual boilers within the

plant have been modified to be capable of burning natural

gas. In Fiscal Year 2008, the fuel consumed by the plant was

65% natural gas and 35% coal. The largest amount of coal

burned during the last 20 years was in 1993, when the plant

used 47,393 short tons. The plant currently burns low sulfur

bituminous coal which is purchased through the General

Services Administration and the Defense Energy Support

Center. The following table provides details on the fuel

usage and costs for Fiscal Year 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Utility type Energy (MMBTU) Cost ($) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Natural Gas............................. 975,046 $12,653,649 Oil..................................... 120 $2,291 Coal.................................... 528,489 $2,444,511 Heating Energy Total.................... 1,503,655 $15,100,451 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Capitol Power Plant operates in full compliance with

current Federal Clean Air Act regulations. The plant utilizes

two reverse air bag houses, installed in the early 1980's, to

control particulate emissions. Emissions are further

controlled via fuel specifications and combustion controls.

On February 26, 2009, the Office of Architect of the

Capitol (AOC) received a letter signed by the Speaker of the

House and the Senate Majority Leader directing a reduction in

the use of coal at the plant, in favor of natural gas. Our

preliminary estimates indicate that operating the plant using

100% natural gas will cost an additional $5-$7 million

annually in fuel costs and will require a one-time capital

investment needed to equip the plant. We are currently

preparing preliminary designs with cost estimates for the

capital investment requirement.

The AOC has undertaken a comprehensive strategic planning

process for the Capitol Power Plant. Leveraging the skills of

expert consultants and in-house staff, the AOC is analyzing a

number of options for the plant, including several scenarios

which utilize cogeneration systems to generate electricity.

Those options are also being reviewed by the National Academy

of Sciences and later will be reviewed by the Department of

Energy. We expect to publish a final report in Sumner 2009.

Should you have further questions about the Capitol Power

Plant or any of AOC's activities, please do not hesitate to

contact me at 228-1793.

Sincerely,

Stephen T. Ayers, AIA,

Acting Architect of the Capitol.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 25, 2009.

Mr. Stephen Ayers,

Acting Architect of the Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Ayers: Thank you for your prompt and very helpful

response to my letter to you of March 4, 2009, regarding the

Capitol Power Plant. I would appreciate your further response

to these two additional questions:

1. You indicated that ``in a series of projects starting in

1989, individual boilers within the plant have been modified

to be capable of burning natural gas.'' What was the total

capital cost (or your best estimate) of those modifications?

2. In my previous letter I asked where the coal is produced

that is burned in the plant, and you responded that the coal

is purchased through GSA and the Defense Energy Support

Center. Can you tell me which state(s) the coal comes from?

I appreciate your attention to this request, and look

forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Ed Whitfield,

Member of Congress.

The Architect of the Capitol,

Washington, DC, April 2, 2009.

Hon. Ed Whitfield,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Whitfield: Thank you for your letter of

March 25, 2009 regarding the Capitol Power Plant. I

appreciate your continued leadership on energy issues and

your support of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol

(AOC). Your letter contained two questions addressed below.

You asked for an estimate of the total capital investment

made in recent years for modifying boilers at the Capitol

Power Plant to burn natural gas. We have completed several

projects stretching over the past twelve years to convert

individual boilers to burn natural gas. The capital

investment for these projects was approximately $1.5 million.

You also asked which state supplies coal used at the

Capitol Power Plant. The AOC purchases coal through the

Government Services Agency (GSA) and the Defense Energy

Support Center. These entities are responsible for

determining the source of coal supplied under their contract.

It is our understanding, based on information from the GSA,

that the most recent supplier of coal for the plant is

located in West Virginia.

Should you have further questions about the Capitol Power

Plant, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Stephen T. Ayers, AIA,

Acting Architect of the Capitol.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 24, 2010, an editorial was printed in the Paducah Sun by Ben Lieberman with the Heritage Foundation regarding wind power. This article highlights the negative impact a renewable electricity standard, RES, would have on our economy and energy sector as well as the inability of wind power to meet our energy demands.

[From the Paducah Sun, May 24, 2010]

Wind Power Too Inefficient, Costly To Solve Energy Woes

(By Ben Lieberman)

Think Washington can't get any more out of touch? Well,

Congress is considering measures that would raise our

electric bills and kill more than 1 million jobs.

Sounds like hyperbole. But that's exactly what a renewable

electricity standard (RES) would do. An RES (imbedded in

legislation already approved by a Senate committee and part

of the House global warming bill that passed last June)

requires that a set amount of the nation's electricity be

generated by wind or other approved alternatives.

It stands to reason that an RES would raise electricity

costs. After all, if wind energy could compete with

conventional sources like coal, natural gas or nuclear, there

wouldn't be any need for a federal law forcing us to use it.

We don't have to guess, however. A study by The Heritage

Foundation looked at a hypothetical RES starting at 3 percent

in 2012 and rising by 1.5 percentage points each year after

that--reaching 15 percent by 2020 and 22.5 percent by 2025.

This roughly coincides with the pending proposals in

Congress.

Heritage projects that such a provision would raise

residential electric bills by 36 percent, or about $300

annually for an average household of four. Industrial

electricity costs would be even harder hit, rising by 60

percent.

Wind turbines tend to be pricey relative to the amount of

juice they generate, but that's only part of the cost of an

RES. Since the best sites for wind are remote mountain ridges

or plains far from the customer base, multi-billion-dollar

transmission-line projects would be required--with customers

(that's you and me) picking up the tab.

The biggest and costliest problems of all stem from wind's

unreliability. The wind doesn't always blow, and it's least

reliable during hot summer days when electricity demand peaks

but the air is often still. In other words, unlike coal or

natural gas or nuclear, wind power can't be relied upon,

especially when it is needed most.

Since the wind can stop at any time, it must always be

backed up by reliable non-wind sources, ready to step in and

carry the load. Thus, utilities can't really cut back on

conventional electricity sources when they add wind to the

mix. For this reason, an electric system that's forced to

include wind becomes a marvel of expensive redundancy. And

make no mistake--every penny will show up in our monthly

bills.

One big selling point of an RES is the ``green'' jobs

created by it. President Obama has made numerous trips to

wind turbine factories and boasted about the jobs at each.

Granted, there will be employment among those who build,

install and maintain wind turbines, but the expensive

electricity that results will send many more to the

unemployment line.

The Heritage Foundation projects net job losses reaching

330,000 in 2012 and exceeding 1 million in 2017 and

thereafter. Overall, the hit to the American economy of an

RES reaching 37.5 percent by 2035 would be $5.2 trillion.

That's right, America would be more than $5 trillion poorer

with a wind-power mandate.

That works out to $2,400 per year per family of four. Know

anybody who's got an extra $2,400 just sitting around? At a

time when Americans consider the economy to be Washington's

top priority, Congress shouldn't be considering an RES. The

last thing we need is a multi-trillion dollar anti-stimulus

package that would harm struggling homeowners and businesses.

Renewable energy may have a future, but Washington can't

force it through costly mandates.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Hakan Evin for all that he has done over the past 20 years to promote and foster U.S.-Turkish relations. Mr. Evin has used his role as an esteemed Turkish businessman to forge friendships with leaders, diplomats and everyday citizens from the United States, and around the world. Through these efforts he has become an `Ambassador of Goodwill' and has helped to strengthen the ties between Turkey and the United States.

For nearly 2 decades Mr. Evin has run a successful carpet business at the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul, one of the world's oldest and largest shopping centers. A third-generation shopkeeper, he learned about the art, culture and science of carpet making before joining the family business as an apprentice after high school. Now the owner of several shops in the Bazaar, Mr. Evin has built a reputation for excellence and established a loyal customer base which spans the globe.

Mr. Evin has played host to countless heads of state, foreign dignitaries, business leaders, government officials and celebrities over the past 20 years including President George H. Bush and First Lady Barbara Bush, First Lady Laura Bush, President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Still, he remains committed to providing outstanding service and top quality products to everyday patrons from around the world. Mr. Evin has made it a point throughout his career to reach out to foreigners living, working and traveling in Turkey, fostering positive feelings among the many individuals he has met towards the Nation.

Additionally, Mr. Evin has brought the deep-rooted history and culture of Turkish rugs to the United States on numerous occasions. He frequently brings many of his rugs to the U.S. and a few years ago brought hundreds of rugs to Lexington, Kentucky. As the guest of L.V. Harkness and its owner Meg Jewett, Lexington became the site of a temporary Grand Bazaar.

Mr. Evin's acumen as a businessman, integrity, honesty and genuine love for America and its people make it easy to be his friend. Thanks Hakan Evin.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and sacrifice of the brave men and women stationed at Fort Campbell who I have the distinct privilege to represent in Congress.

Later this week, soldiers from the 101st Airborne, Air Assault will be deploying yet again to Afghanistan to help defeat extremism in a nation not yet completely safe from those who prey on freedom. For many of these courageous Americans, this will be their 4th or 5th tour to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

There is no doubt that these frequent deployments have taken a serious toll on military families. However, when I had the opportunity to visit with the soldiers readying for deployment, they looked at that fact as just an example of the supreme confidence that our military leaders have in their ability to accomplish our mission as efficiently and effectively as possible. I, for one, could not agree more.

In a very short period of time, our country will be marking the 10th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. And along with that, we recognize the decade-long commitment from our service members and their families to prosecute the Global War on Terror and bring peace and stability to a war-torn region of the world.

Madam Speaker, I hope that every member of this body will keep the soldiers of the 101st Airborne, as well as all of the members of the Armed Forces, in their thoughts and prayers as they continue to keep our country safe and secure.

May God bless and watch over our Nation's finest and their families, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.