Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The Frelinghuysen Amendment is yet another example of Congress wrongfully interfering with vital aviation infrastructure projects. It would bring to a screeching halt the years of investment, in time, expertise, and money, which the FAA has contributed to this important airspace redesign project.

The last comprehensive change to the airspace in the Northeast occurred in 1987 and 1988--over twenty years ago.

Since that time, air traffic has grown significantly, new markets have developed at home and abroad, aircraft are significantly quieter, aircraft performance has improved, and regional jets have replaced many of the turboprops. Just as the nation's highway infrastructure must change over time to meet increased demand, to maintain safety and relieve congestion, so must the airspace.

To meet this increase in demand, the FAA announced in April 1998 the initiation of the New York/New Jersey/ Philadelphia (NY/NJ/PHL) Airspace redesign project.

For the next seven years, the FAA conducted numerous public meetings and received input from a variety of aviation industry and community interests, public agencies, and political representatives. The FAA released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in 2005 outlining the project's environmental impacts. Following a series of public meetings, many of which presented alternative plans, the FAA released its Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2007.

This redesign plan should come as no surprise to Congress. The FAA has hosted 14 Congressional briefings since March 2003. Clearly, the entire process has been conducted in an open and transparent manner.

The proposed airspace redesign will address the most critical problem in today's air traffic control system--air traffic congestion.

The redesign involves four of our nation's most congested airports: Newark, LaGuardia, JFK, and Philadelphia. Even with the current downturn in air travel, these airports remain the most delayed in the system. Almost 83% of chronically delayed flights begin in New York Air Traffic Control airspace. The system of air corridors around New York and Philadelphia are currently congested and are due for even more traffic in the future.

As seen repeatedly, severe weather adds to the problem of an already congested air traffic system. The airspace redesign will improve operations in severe weather. Delay savings could be as much as $1 million per day.

A 1999 independent aviation study found that air traffic congestion nationwide could cost $46 billion to the nation's economy in 2010, resulting from a change in travel time of 3 minutes per flight. This includes costs to airlines, loss of service to people who wish to travel, and over 200,000 lost jobs in aviation and other industries.

Despite the years of the hard work, the open and transparent process, adherence to safety, regulatory and environmental requirements, and the tremendous benefits to the airspace system, the New York/New Jersey/ Philadelphia economies, and the Nation as a whole, this amendment would throw it all away.

The FAA must be able to redesign outdated airspace configurations rendered inefficient and obsolete by air traffic control modernization, improvements in aircraft systems, and the growing demands of the aviation system.

It is imperative that these decisions be made in a manner that is insulated from political influence.

This amendment severely undermines FAA's efforts to reform an inefficient and overburdened key component to our national airspace. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Thank you so much for the time, for the introduction and for the opportunity to speak on this important Transportation and HUD funding bill.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to compliment Mr. Olver and Mr. Latham, the two leaders of the appropriations subcommittee, on the great job that they have done and for their efforts and for the efforts of both staffs in addressing the transportation and infrastructure needs of the Nation.

This is one of the most important bills that we will pass because this job will actually put people to work. I can tell you--and my colleagues and every one of you knows the statistics--that the national unemployment is at 9.5 percent. In my State of Florida, we're at 10.5 percent. I have some counties in my district that are at 15 percent. We have a problem. One of the ways to get people working and into jobs is by building infrastructure, and we'll actually have something tangible when we get done.

I do want to raise an issue that I have with the bill, but it is not something that is the responsibility of the

authors of this legislation, Mr. Olver or Mr. Latham. They have been most cooperative. We've had a great working relationship, myself as an authorizer and the two of them as appropriators.

From time to time and in the past, there have been great battles-- I've seen some of them--about authorizing on an appropriations bill. Now, I went to the Rules Committee, and I didn't get a chance to speak on the rule, so I voted against its passage. I asked the Rules Committee to pass an amendment that would have sped up the process by which we could get these dollars out so that we could actually get people working sooner rather than later. I know people have asked me for bigger government programs and for more bailouts, but now they have asked for an opportunity to work, and nothing has been harder hit than transportation projects.

I've got one little quote here from the Secretary of Transportation in Pennsylvania, who says that the unemployment rate for construction workers there is 21 percent.

It's high all over the Nation, but we can get people to work. The Rules Committee ruled out of order my amendment that would have sped up the process for the consideration of transportation projects, both for stimulus and also for this type of funding legislation.

Actually, I had my staff go through, and they just tabbed one section of this, of legislating on appropriations bills. All of these tabs represent legislating on an appropriations measure, but I don't raise any questions about these. Some of this is probably fine. We've talked together, and we agree on it.

What I'm concerned about is that the Rules Committee took the bill as it stood, but failed to take my proposed amendment. They said I was legislating on appropriations. My measure, again, would have sped up the process. Don't think we can't do that. I stood here with Mr. Oberstar the day that the bridge collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. We rebuilt that bridge in 437 days. Normally, the process to rebuild that, if you went through all the normal hoops and red tape and Federal requirements, would take 6-7 years. We can do the same thing because we have a national emergency now, and we need to get this transportation money that this good, well-intended and very effective subcommittee is bringing forth. It's a good measure. They work together in a bipartisan fashion.

What I'm saying is we need to get that money, the stimulus money, out. We're having the same problem with our stimulus money, getting it out. There is $48 billion under the Department of Transportation's responsibility. So far, we have $771 million. Let me say the State Transportation Departments across the country are doing their level best. They're doing a great job getting that money out, but that's less than $1 billion of $48 billion out.

There is a reason it's caught up in red tape. Let me take, not what a Republican Governor said, but what, I believe, North Carolina Governor Perdue said, which is that there is so much red tape that it's discombobulating.

Now, just for the record--and I will give the Clerks the proper spelling of ``discombobulating'' for the Record of the House--he said it's irritating. That's Perdue.

Here is a little engineer in a county in Indiana. He said, ``I've got an engineer full time, and just 'bout all he's doing is red tape every day.''

Again, I want to take not just the Governor or the Secretary of Transportation in Pennsylvania or the Governor of North Carolina. Here is a county engineer in Elkhart County, Indiana who says, I've got an engineer full time, and that's just 'bout all he's doing is red tape every day, filling out forms, filling out forms.

So my proposal, had the Rules Committee accepted it, would have sped up the process. I didn't come here to say we should roll over any environmental requirements or regulations. What I said is we should condense the process because this, my fellow Members of Congress, is a national emergency. If you don't think it's a national emergency, go back to your office, and find some of those letters from folks who are pleading with Congress to help them find a job, to get people employed in their families so they can pay their mortgages, so they can build their dreams like we all want to do, but they're not able to do that, and we're not able to get the money out because of the red tape and constraints.

So, again, I regret that the Rules Committee rejected my proposal. I'll be back here again.

Yes, I will always yield to the chairman.

I know what went on in the past with my committee and its calling points of order on authorizing on an appropriations measure.

Let me say that I did not come to burn Rome. I came to help you build Rome. I have no objection to these, and I did not object on any, but I did object to my one. Here is 45 not being considered by the Rules Committee, and your committee is not the Rules Committee.

Let me say this, too: We have obligated money, but you know, I can't go back to my office and say, Mr. So-and-so or Madam So-and-so Constituent, we've obligated money. It's not out there, so there isn't that hope for a job. All I'm trying to do is get the money expedited so we can get jobs going again.

Finally, let me tell you why it's important to get that money out there now, folks. Listen to this. This is one American dollar. I can tell you that, right now, you will get the best deal ever to do infrastructure projects in the country.

My district secretary told me that bids are coming in 25 to 30 percent lower. Do you see this three-quarters of a dollar? I can get a dollar's worth of construction now for three-quarters of a dollar. We have American infrastructure on sale wholesale, and we should be getting that money out in the interest of taxpayers and building that.

Heaven forbid, you know, it's not like some of these other programs or like the bailouts. I didn't come here asking for a bailout. All I'm asking for is something tangible, and that's what your subcommittee provides so well for our Nation is something tangible--roads, bridges, highways, transit systems--all of which we need across this land from sea to shining sea. We're drowning in congestion. We don't have high- speed rail systems like the Europeans, Asians and other people around the world. So I don't mind spending it.

My dad used to say, ``It's not how much you spend, Son. It's how you spend it.''

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, my district extends from Orlando to Daytona Beach. The State of Florida now has in excess of 10 percent unemployment. Nationally, 9.5 percent unemployment. Where are the jobs?

Congress passed a $787 billion so-called stimulus package. I took to the floor and spoke from the Democrats' side of the aisle and pleaded with folks that we needed jobs and we needed to invest in America's infrastructure; instead, we put less than 7 percent. So to date, out of $787 billion and $48 billion for transportation highway money, we have $523 million expended.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, where are the jobs? People want to work. They don't want government handouts. They don't want government welfare or food stamps. They want jobs in my district and throughout the Nation.

Where are the jobs, I come back to ask, that this country needs and our people need?

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY10 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Account Flagler Beach Shoreline Protection Project.

I have received $233,000 in the FY10 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Flagler County, 1769 East Moody Blvd, Bunnell, Fl 32110. The FY 2010 funding will complete the feasibility study of the Flagler County shoreline which was begun with funding provided in FY 2004.

The shoreline of the City of Flagler Beach has experienced critical erosion that threatens State Road A1A, which serves as an emergency evacuation route. A1A was closed in Flagler Beach for the month of January, 2006 as the road was completely washed away due to erosion. The erosion also has caused a severe loss of public recreation opportunities and a degradation of environmental habitat. The beach is so narrow that the high tide line extends into the existing revetment, making it unsuitable as nesting habitat for sea turtles and almost unusable for recreational purposes. The City believes that restoration of the beach is a primary component of preserving safe passage along A1A while also providing public recreational opportunities and environmental habitat.

Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Account, St. Johns Shoreline Protection Project.

I have received $700,000 in the FY10 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is St. Johns County, 2740 Industry Center Road, St. Augustine, Fl 32084. Federal funding will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the St. Johns feasibility study and proceed to preconstruction engineering and design. The study area will include all of St. Johns County, including the South Ponte Vedra Beach area.

The shoreline of St. Johns has experienced significant erosion due to tropical storms and major hurricanes, particularly Hurricane Floyd of 1999 and the Hurricanes of 2004. This project is currently authorized by the Water Resources Development Acts of 1986 and 1999, which seeks to lessen down drift shoreline impacts caused by the federal navigation channel at St. Augustine Inlet, and to provide strong damage protection to the shore. The Army Corps of Engineers will begin supplemental nourishment in 2010 due to the recent storm damages and the third Renourishment of the St. Augustine Beaches scheduled in 2010 will begin the design phase also this year. The approximately $700,000 dollar design and $15 million dollar construction project will require about $1.85 million from the County and $1.2 million from the State as a local match. This is a shore protection project with continuing Renourishment anticipated every five years. Federal assistance is necessary and in dire need to provide protection to the coastline.

Department of Energy, Science Account Bethune-Cookman University STEM Research Lab.

I have received $250,000 in the FY10 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Bethune-Cookman, 640 Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Fl 32114.

Bethune-Cookman's School of Science, Engineering and Mathematics provides specialized training for students majoring in biology, chemistry, computer engineering, computer science, mathematics and physics. The School of Science, Engineering and Mathematics is housed in the Gross Science Hall which was built in 1948 and has not been renovated or upgraded since 1972. Much of the original classrooms, laboratories and equipment are still in use today. Federal funding will allow Bethune-Cookman to update and expand a 10,000 square foot wing of aging laboratories, classrooms and equipment in the Gross Science Hall. The upgrades are needed to accommodate the increasing numbers of students who are majoring in STEM fields at B-CU, provide these students with the educational benefits of up-to-date technology and modern equipment, and provide university students and faculty researchers with the technological capability to engage in research projects. The upgrades will include two ``clean'' labs, safe spaces for storage of chemicals, modern ventilation equipment, electronically enhanced lecture classrooms/theatres integrating computer, multimedia and network technology and ``ill'' feature technologies that help the environment and reduce energy costs.

Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Account, Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.

Along with Representatives Crenshaw; Hastings; Klein; Kosmas; Meek; Ros-Lehtinen; Wasserman Schultz; and Wexler; I have received $4,500,000 in the FY10 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Florida Inland Navigation District, 1314 Marcinski Road, Jupiter, Fl 33477.

The funds would be used to dredge the Intracoastal Waterway in two locations: Matanzas Inlet (St. Johns County) and in the vicinity of St. Augustine. In addition, funds will be used towards the 1) Restoration of Dredged Material Management Area in St. Johns County and 2) Construction of Dredged Material Management Area in Indian River County. Dredging the Intracoastal Waterway will allow for navigation of the channel by commercial and recreational vessels along the entire east coast of Florida. The project will restore protected freshwater wetlands. The Intracoastal Waterway in Florida annually transports over 1.7 million tons of commercial cargo and over 500,000 recreational vessels; increases property values by up to $22.3 billion; and provides $16.2 billion in economic output that includes $4.8 billion in personal wages and 110,400 jobs. Studies have shown that these benefits would be reduced by over 50% if the waterway is not properly maintained.

Madam Speaker, on March 21, 2009, hundreds of Central Floridians gathered in Orlando to express their grievances regarding the recent actions of their federal officials in dramatically expanding our federal spending, federal deficit, and federal programs. As a Representative for Florida's 7th Congressional District it is my honor to present their grievances and declaration.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that the first amendment that will be considered is the DeLauro amendment, which is a manager's amendment that incorporates a number of provisions that do, in fact, legislate on an appropriations measure.

Is it not correct, Mr. Chair, that within the rule, H. Res. 609, providing for consideration of this measure before the House, all points of order were waived against any objection to legislating on an appropriations measure?

So, in fact, Mr. Chair, is it not correct that we are legislating on an appropriations measure with some of the provisions contained in this first amendment to be voted on by the House and, in fact, that a provision of the rule does waive any point of order against that action?

Does it not, in fact, contain measures that are new?

Point of order. This does legislate on an appropriations measure which I was denied the opportunity to do but in fact they're doing in this first amendment?

I appeal the decision of the Chair.

I thank the Chair.

Part A Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, in order to properly address the point of order, I think it is important that we look at House Resolution 609, which was adopted by the Rules Committee to set the order and the consideration of the legislation that's before the House today. It also excluded a large number of amendments that were crafted, Mr. Speaker, to the objection--the same objection that's being raised here--that in fact those amendments were legislating on an appropriations bill, which in fact is out of order because of the way this was crafted.

Now, the gentleman from Georgia has in fact offered a motion that does contain some provisions that would change the law, but only the appropriations which this part of the bill deals with. And this point has been raised against the motion to recommit.

So, in fact, what I was denied was the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to offer one of the amendments. And I believe the reading clerk--I couldn't hear, but I believe the reading clerk mentioned my name among the names of those who were denied an amendment that would legislate on appropriations.

Again, I think the point of order is that the Rules Committee crafted a rule, and we adopted previous amendments--one by the gentlelady who is now objecting--that did in fact legislate on an appropriation matter, no different from what the gentleman from Georgia is now attempting to do. The precedence of the House--Mr. Young, I talked to him earlier, he said he's been here 39 years and he has never seen appropriations handled in this unfair manner.

So, again, I think the point is that the gentleman from Georgia is proceeding in good faith, in fact, in the order that has been presented by the Rules Committee on the order to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, reluctantly, but on behalf of my potato farmers who were not addressed by the amendment, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I just want to take a couple of minutes of the House's attention on this rule. I'm not a happy camper tonight because my amendment was not accepted as part of this rule.

I have the honor and privilege of representing not only suburban and urban areas in central Florida, but I have some rural areas. Maybe you have some rural areas. I asked for a simple amendment to assist my potato farmers. Now you wouldn't think in Florida of potato farming being a big industry; but in part of my district and rural area, we had an incredible disaster hit several months ago. We had 25 to 30 inches of rain over several days, and it wiped out the potato crop. Have you ever seen rotten water-sogged potatoes? These are rotten water-sogged potatoes.

Now this may not mean a lot to many of the folks on the Rules Committee, but we've had a custom in the House of helping Members when they have a disaster in their district. I had a disaster in my district. This isn't affecting me personally. We're talking about $45 million not that I even need appropriated, just that I need a small adjustment to get to these potato farmers, who are losing their livelihoods, who are closing down their farms.

Again, we had a disaster in my district. I asked for an amendment-- one of many that were rejected--to give a little bit of leeway to farmers in central Florida who will lose their businesses, not be able to employ people, not to be able to have the money to plant the crops so next year they won't be in business. That amendment was rejected summarily by the Rules Committee. So I'm not a happy camper.

Now I thought of coming out here and calling a motion to adjourn after every bit of business that went on here in the House. I didn't do that. I still may take that option, I'm telling you, because I have people that don't have jobs, don't have the possibility of continuing their farm business. I have asked for a simple change, not more money-- the money's there--but to allocate money through some of the existing programs so they can get the money now to put people to work, save their crops and save the next crop. I didn't get that cooperation, so I'm not a happy camper.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered on the resolution, H. Res. 609.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Kingston, for yielding time.

I would have liked to have actually spoken on the rule. As some of you may know, I protested the rule. I didn't bring the House business to a halt, but I did ask several reconsiderations and a motion to adjourn, exercising my right in the minority, and as a House Member, to proceed on business that I felt was only fair and equitable as far as treatment of a Member when a Member has a problem in his district.

I have the great honor and privilege of representing an urban area, a suburban area, and also a rural area from basically north of Orlando to just south of Jacksonville. The western part of the central and the center part of the northern part of the State is agriculture and rural. It is a great area. People work hard. They are some of the most dedicated, hardworking Americans I know.

Unfortunately, several months ago, we had a disastrous series of rains. We had up to 30 inches of rain in some of the areas. I have pictures of potato fields. My district is one of the largest potato growth and farm areas in the Nation. These fields behind me here were all covered with water and covered for multiple days with sun and rain. What happened is basically the potatoes rotted and we had $50 million worth of damage, which really isn't a huge amount of money when we deal with billions here, but it means the difference between life and death, between staying in business and keeping people employed in my district.

I had asked the Rules Committee for a small change in a program that is called Supplemental Review Assistance program, and those are Federal programs that farmers in my district paid premiums for, participated in, and were eligible for. In fact, 85 percent of the potato farmers were eligible for participation in those programs, but the problem that we had, in spite of their having this insurance, is that the timing of the disaster was such and the rules by which they assess eligibility and disaster payments under SURE would arrive after the crop losses, because some of the data has to be computed for payment rates a year after the harvest. Now, that doesn't help people who are trying to do plantings, and we have different seasons from other parts of the United States. It doesn't help people who are trying to keep folks employed in the farm business, and it doesn't help farmers who are trying to keep their door open.

I asked for a small change, and if you look at the rule, they actually put in some changes, and they were, I hate to say it, legislating on appropriations to help folks. And we normally do that. We help each other in the House of Representatives when our areas have a disaster.

Now, I wasn't asking for any more money. I wasn't asking for another bigger program. There is plenty of money there. It is the timing of the disaster and this particular requirement to get funds and make my farmers eligible and farmers through this devastated area eligible.

So I'm very disappointed. I must say that I have the highest respect for Mr. Kingston, and I have the greatest respect for Ms. DeLauro. They do a wonderful job. My argument, again, is not with you. My argument is with the Rules Committee that did not extend the courtesy to a Member to assist his district in a time of natural disaster. I intend to pursue this no matter what it takes. However, I have to get the attention of the House. We are going to find a way to bring aid to people in my district who just want to stay in business, who want to continue farming, and who want to create jobs in a very difficult economy and not be shut down. They have paid their dues. They have paid their fees.

We are not asking for any more money. We are just asking for a slight change in some of the language on the funds that are available, and there are plenty of funds available.

Madam Speaker, due to inclement weather canceling US Airways flight No. 2041, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcalls 478 and 479. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these measures.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I received in the amount of $500,000 as part of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Account for the South Seminole and North Orange County Wastewater Improvement Project. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Orange County Wastewater Transmission Authority located at 410 Lake Howell Road, Maitland, Florida.

This project will replace wastewater pipes and mechanical equipment that are approaching the end of their service lives. Portions of the Force Main that will be replaced are under the travel lanes of Aloma Avenue. The roadway carries 33,000 vehicles per day and a collapse of the Aloma Avenue pipe and a resulting collapse of the road would be a major public health and safety liability.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996--Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This legislation appropriates $500,000 in the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, for land acquisition for the Florida Trail Association. The entity to receive this funding is the Florida Trail Association, 5415 SW 13th St., Gainesville, FL.

Funding will be used for the acquisition of land to protect 16 critical segments of the Florida National Scenic Trail. Designed by Congress in 1983, the Florida National Scenic Trail is an essential part of maintaining Florida's natural beauty for future generations and serves as an inspirational, educational tool for conservation efforts in the state.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of H.R. 2996, the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This legislation appropriates $500,000 to the Department of the Interior National Park Service account for the Castillo de San Marco National Monument in the City of St. Augustine, Florida, which is in my district. The entity to receive this funding is the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Castillo de San Marco National Monument located at 1 South Castillo Drive, St. Augustine, FL 32084.

The City of St. Augustine, founded 444 years ago in 1565, is our nation's oldest enduring settlement of European design. Prominent within the Historic Spanish Colonial District, which features thirty- six original colonial buildings, is the majestic Castillo de San Marcos stone fortress that began construction in 1672.

As the only existing 17th century fort in North America, the Castillo de San Marcos is an important historical and cultural landmark that features the oldest surviving masonry in our nation. About 538,500 people visited the Castillo in 2008, hosting as many as 3,751 tourists in just one day.

Authorized by Public Law 108-480, this funding will be used for the planning and design phase of the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument Restoration Project, as outlined in Alternative C of the March 2007 Final General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.

This planning will help preserve and expand the Castillo by constructing a visitor center in the Spanish Quarter of St. Augustine and removing a portion of the visitor parking lot to restore the glacis.

Madam Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives today passed H.R. 2454, the so-called Cap and Trade bill. I noted in opposition to that measure and offer the following statement.

The Cap and Tax bill could not come at a worse time and could be a job killer. The 1,200 page measure will impose a national tax on ALL energy and lead to higher energy prices for ALL American households, Most families cannot afford the estimated $1,400 yearly increase in energy costs. With the economy struggling, this bill, with its increased expense to industry, will cause additional unemployment by sending jobs overseas where doing business is cheaper. This bill also further expands the role of government by imposing new restrictions and requirements on everything from light bulbs to water dispensers.

As the Republican Leader of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I want to point out that Transportation accounts for 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation contains significant provisions in the committee's jurisdiction, yet we held no hearings on this massive tax increase, and willingly surrendered our responsibility to consider any amendments to try to improve the bill.

According to the Heritage Foundation, by 2035 this Cap and Trade bill would: reduce aggregate gross GDP by $9.4 trillion (or reduce Florida gross state product by $28 billion); raise electricity rates 90 percent; raise gasoline prices by 58 percent; raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent; and Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $28,728 additional federal debt per person.

For this any significant other reasons I voted against passage or