Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a memo and article, ``OMB Memo: Serious Economic Impact Likely with EPA CO2 Rules'' and also the article that is from the Dow Jones Newswires that brings attention to this. I have both documents right here, and I encourage my colleagues to read both of these documents.

As the memo points out, and the article also states, contrary to administration statements, some within the executive branch have serious reservations about regulating CO2 through the Clean Air Act. They highlight that such regulation will place a tremendous cost on our economy. I share their concerns, and I have introduced H.R. 391 to prohibit the EPA from undertaking such regulation.

The regulation of greenhouse gases by the EPA would, and I am quoting from the memo here, ``is likely to have serious economic consequences.''

Mr. Speaker, we all know what that is, and we know it will be realized if the cap-and-trade bill currently under consideration is passed.

I encourage everyone to join me on H.R. 391 and to read the memos.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to honor Lieutenant Roger ``Chip'' Webster for being selected as the Bartlett Fire Department's 2008 Officer of the Year.

Since joining the Bartlett Fire Department on August 16, 1998, Lieutenant Webster is known around the fire station for his leadership abilities that have become a trademark throughout his career. After being hired as a front line firefighter, Lieutenant Webster began his assent through the ranks of the Bartlett Fire Department serving first as a Driver and then promoted to Fire Lieutenant. As a testament to his character and determination, Lieutenant Webster challenges himself to keep his personal level of training, education and certification above all recognized standards in the fire profession. With his ``can do'' attitude in tact, Lieutenant Webster motivates other fire professionals to aspire to higher standards through his leadership and inspiration.

I am pleased to know that experienced public servants like Lieutenant Webster are hard at work each day keeping the citizens of Bartlett, Tennessee safe. With his broad knowledge of the various facets of the fire department, Lieutenant Webster is a valuable asset not only to the Bartlett Fire Department but to the entire Shelby County community. Lieutenant Webster has my deepest gratitude and respect as he selflessly protects our neighborhoods each day with courage under fire.

Please join me in honoring Lieutenant Chip Webster on receiving this truly well-deserved award as the Bartlett Fire Department's 2008 Officer of the Year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join the millions of Americans who will participate in the National Day of Prayer on Thursday, May 7, 2009.

Since the earliest days of our republic, our nation's leaders have seen fit to formally acknowledge the value and power of our people's prayers by designating specific times where we encourage prayer for the future of our country. President Truman declared the first National Day of Prayer in 1952, and in 1988 President Reagan signed a law declaring that the first Thursday in May would be an annual National Day of Prayer.

I can think of no greater calling than for people of all ages, races, and religious creeds to join together and raise their prayers and petitions to the Almighty.

To that end, the YMCA of Middle of Tennessee and the Operation Andrew Group are organizing National Day of Prayer events all across Middle Tennessee. These events will encourage citizens to pray for the future of our communities and our nation, to pray for those placed in positions of societal leadership, and to thank God for the many blessings we enjoy.

At the Maryland Farms YMCA, in the City of Brentwood, individuals will gather to lift up prayers and participate in this wonderful occasion.

I invite all Members of Congress to please join me in praying for the City of Brentwood, the State of Tennessee, and the United States of America during the National Day of Prayer.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to honor Detective Jeffrey Swindol for being selected as the Bartlett Police Department's 2008 Officer of the Year.

Since joining the Bartlett Police Department in 1998, Detective Swindol has made an immediate impact in a police force through his professionalism and loyalty to the Bartlett community. It is through Detective Swindol's chosen career path that is a testament of the values that were instilled in him by his parents and family members. Detective Swindol displays his leadership that is expected during investigations for illegal sales, distribution of narcotics as well as other substances.

On April 1, 2007, Detective Swindol was promoted and began utilizing his talents on the Bartlett Police Department's Narcotic Unit. Detective Swindol has displayed his ability to adapt, overcome obstacles, and thrive under pressure. His dedication and diligent work with the unit even led to the seizure of $62,000.00 cash as well as the suspect. Detective Swindol was an integral part in this investigation, which deserves the credit for one of the largest cash seizures in the department's history. I can proudly say that all of this hard work paid off. I commend Detective Swindol for his exemplary example of dedication and service. I have no doubt that Detective Swindol's hard work has improved the lives of everyone that calls the City of Bartlett their home.

Please join me in honoring Jeffrey Swindol and wishing him and his family the best on this well-deserved award.

Madam Speaker, we are learning that the Environmental Protection Agency is poised to declare any body or company or plant that emits more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide as a major emitter. A body of 435 adults all endlessly emitting hot air certainly will meet that annual threshold.

It appears that the EPA and Congress are literally in a race to see who can get there first. Are we going to tax the air we breathe, or are we going to regulate the air we breathe? If CO2 and other greenhouse gases are so dangerous to our environment, the American people truly must be puzzled by the actions of the body this week.

While the details of a cap-and-tax system are negotiated behind closed doors, Congress has debated such staggeringly important work as supporting the goals of Public Service Recognition Week and National Train Day. If our environment were truly in serious peril that could only be effectively addressed by a cap-and-tax system, one would think we would be burning our carbon credits debating that bill, not the suspensions we have passed.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this issue and for hosting this Special Order hour. I am so pleased to come and join with you and discuss the issues that we have before us with the Democrats' national energy tax, or the cap-and- tax legislation as some call it, or cap our growth and trade our jobs, or, Mr. Speaker, many people refer to cap-and-trade as just that, because it is certainly what they are going to do.

Now, we also know that if they don't get their way on cap-and-trade, what they are talking about doing is an end run and coming back around and letting the EPA regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. Indeed, I have a bill, H.R. 391, that I would encourage all colleagues in this House, all Members of this House to sign on and support this bill and keep the EPA from going around against the will of the people and regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that as we are having this hour tonight and as we are looking at the logic of EPA and the logic of some of my colleagues, I wonder if we have considered that if you look at the EPA's threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2, that would make you a major emitter, if we have considered that the EPA threatens to use that regulation against every business, every farm, every church, or every building in this country. And, of course, before the EPA gets the chance to regulate CO2, many of our colleagues want to come in and tax it right here so that they can both regulate the air that we breathe and tax the air that we both breathe and then that we exhale.

The debate that we have before us is not about making energy cleaner; it is not about making energy more plentiful. What we would see happen from this debate is that energy would become more and more scarce, and we also would see that the cost to every family would be more and more expense.

So, here we are. We are talking about cap-and-trade; we are talking about the expense of it. And as expensive as energy costs got last year, we are not going to take any action that will make it more plentiful, we are not taking any action that would make it more readily available, we are not taking actions that are going to make it cleaner, and we are not taking actions that are going to make it more affordable. Indeed, the legislation before us would do quite the opposite.

So I join the gentleman from Illinois in being from a State, my State of Tennessee, that would be among the hardest hit by this new energy tax and by the efforts that are coming from the other side, indeed, their efforts to make energy more expensive. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have conveniently forgotten how quickly economic slowdowns follow escalating energy costs. They have forgotten how dramatically high gas prices impacted family budgets last summer. They look upon the increased use of mass transit in the wake of those energy costs as a positive development, forgetting that in many rural districts like mine in Tennessee there is no mass transit, there is no bus service that goes from Waynesboro to Adamsville to Selmer. There is no mass transit in these rural communities. And in picking winners and losers--which they do in this legislation; they pick lots of winners and decide who is going to be the losers--they are asking the American people in their bill to make a choice between very expensive energy or no energy at all. All their scheme will cap is American productivity and trade American jobs.

Now, I think, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to ask each and every Member of this House, we would all say that we believe in clean air, clean water, and clean energy. We believe in conserving our environment for future generations.

Certainly, I grew up in a household with a mother who dedicated much of her life to conservation and beautification and preservation and historic preservation efforts, so much so that in 1997 Keep America Beautiful gave her

their lifetime achievement award. We grew up doing the things that helped clean this planet, looking for ways for energy to be more affordable and more accessible.

Now, Republicans as a whole believe in that type conservation for future generations. We do not believe that you need to tax the American people out of their house and home to pay for it, a house, by the way, which under a cap-and-trade system is going to be hotter during the summer and colder during the winter.

Republicans believe that we have more alternatives than wind and solar as sources for clean, secure energy. We know that we can safely exploit American oil resources to provide for a less expensive transition to alternative fuels. We know that we can power a next- generation electricity grid with safe nuclear power that will allow for practical electric cars and reliable transmission, rather than forcing the costs of energy to explode so that Washington might fund yet another expansion of the Federal Government.

Tennesseans know that hydroelectric power is safe and reliable. It is clean. It has powered our State for two generations. What bewilders me is that these kinds of innovative solutions are discouraged under the Democrat cap-and-tax system. It reinforces my belief that this bill is more about revenue than it is about revolutionary energy.

We should be doing things to encourage our innovators. We should be doing things that will incentivize exploration and transition to new types of energy, rather than making it more expensive, making it more scarce, and cutting off energy and innovation.

Republicans have proposals for safer, cleaner, cheaper domestic energy that will conserve our resources, secure our energy sources, and expand our economy. We do it without picking losers but, rather, by inspiring that innovative spirit that has solved problem after problem after problem in this Nation. We do it without making energy more expensive and more burdensome to the family budget. We do it without making power more scarce, but by making it more abundant.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this issue, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us in making certain that we stand against cap-and-trade and also that we support H.R. 391, which will prohibit the EPA from regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership is moving forward on the change that they've promised. Last week, the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, moved forward to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act, with or without congressional consent.

This week the Committee on Energy and Commerce is holding hearings on cap-and-tax legislation. And this is what we're learning. The renewable energy requirements in the bill are entirely unrealistic.

Currently, 3 percent of our electricity that is generated is by renewable energy, and the chairman's bill is mandating 25 percent by 2025. That would require 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy to come online every year until 2025. That is far above what the projections are, the government-generated projections.

So our question is, are we saddling our States and our energy consumers

with unrealistic demands and mandates at prohibitively high prices? Well, basically, the Democrat leadership presents a choice. We can acquiesce to bad regulation that will have certain and disastrous impacts on our economy, or we can legislate an even more harmful system.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, it's as though, when faced with a gun to our heads, we are taking it and opting to shoot ourselves in the chest.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to honor and recognize 11 truly inspirational women who have each played a part in making the music of Memphis world renown. Memphis's music heritage has been called the ``soundtrack of America'' and these talented artists deserve our thanks and are extremely justified in the recognition bestowed on them today by the Memphis and Shelby County Music Commission.

The esteemed emissaries are Jo Bridges, Joyce Cobb, Jackie Johnson, Susan Marshall, Judy Peiser, Di Anne Price, Reba Russell, Linn Sitler, Pat Kerr Tigrett, Deanie Parker and Ruby Wilson.

Tennessee is the home of country and blues music and the birthplace of the ``rock and roll.'' We are also proud of the thousands of singers, songwriters, performers, producers, and other music industry professionals that make their homes and livelihood within the state and allow Tennessee to compete with New York and California as a hub of creativity and entertainment.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in both thanking and congratulating the new Emissaries of Memphis Music for their dedication and devotion for enriching our lives with wonderful sound and music. These 11 women are truly worthy recipients of this outstanding honor.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership on our alternative budget because, indeed, it is important that we bring forward a budget that is fiscally responsible because the Democrat budget does spend too much, tax too much, borrow too much, and it compromises hope and opportunity for future generations, and that is of such concern to me.

It is something that should not be lost in this debate, that after 232 years in this great Nation and 43 Presidents and the debt that was accrued there and for many of us, like me, that's too much. This budget is going to more than double that, and it is reckless.

I do think it is irresponsible that my grandchildren, one who is 10\1/2\ months old, one that will arrive in June, are going to be burdened with a $70,000 price tag because of the actions of this House. Indeed, I do see that as irresponsible, and it is something that angers me.

It also angers me that section 303 of this bill, it does have an energy tax in there. You can call it anything you want to, but according to MIT, not according to Marsha, but according to MIT, $3,128 per household. Now, that $8 a week tax rebate that you're going to see in your check certainly goes away when compared with $3,128.

And Madam Chairman, a previous speaker said we've inherited a mess, the numbers are bad, these deficits are going to continue. You know what, they must have liked the deficits so much that they're going to double and triple them, because that is exactly what they're doing with these actions. Those deficits and that debt should be coming down, but these actions are going to see it double. They're going to triple it. So you must have liked it an awful lot because you're certainly dishing out more of it in the actions you're taking.

Someone else said this budget is just a guideline. You know what, Madam Chairman, isn't it interesting, if you don't spend everything that's in that guideline, all of the sudden the bureaucracy yells, well, look what, they cut us. Let's act responsibly.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his great work on our RSC budget, because it is a responsible approach. It is good common sense. It is built on stability. And that is what the American people want to see right now.

I am also so pleased that we continue the tax reductions that were passed in 2001 and 2003. One of the things we are hearing from so many of our small business constituents is that they want to be sure that the death tax does not come back in 2010. Of course, we know the Democrat budget does that. And it is so interesting; our budget does something that is important: It leaves money with the taxpayer, leaves it in their pocket.

And, Madam Chair, I have heard comments from this floor about failed policies and tax codes being too convoluted. But I will tell you, leaving money in the taxpayers' pockets is neither a failed tax policy nor a convoluted tax policy. It is what ought to be done. They have earned that money. They deserve to keep it.

The fact is that our budget would balance, it would come into balance without a tax increase. Without pulling more money out of the taxpayers' pocket, it would come into balance by 2019.

That is something that is important for our children, our grandchildren, and for future generations, because we know you get there by making a reduction in discretionary nondefense, nonveteran spending. That 1 percent across-the-board reduction is legislation I have offered every year that I have been in Congress, and I am so pleased it is included in this budget, as it was in 2006 in the Deficit Reduction Act.

I commend my colleagues for their good work on this. This is a responsible, stable, commonsense approach to our Nation's fiscal situation. I encourage an ``aye'' vote for the RSC budget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for the excellent work that he has done on a substitute, for addressing this issue the way it should be addressed.

We are all concerned about cigarette smoke and the effects of tobacco on our health, and I don't think that is the debate that is here. But one of the things that concerns me in this debate is that there are some pieces that have kind of been left out, that are not being addressed.

Well, we all are concerned about what has happened with teen smoking, with the effects of tobacco on an individual's health. One of the things that has happened is the Synar amendment and the good work that the Synar language has done in reducing teen smoking has been left out, and what we are having brought forward is this bill that will actually give the FDA stamp of approval to some tobacco processes and uses. And for someone as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a community volunteer that has actually worked to address school health curriculums, to address smoking, to fight and work with smoking cessation programs, I know that that is a dangerous step to give the FDA stamp of approval to tobacco usage.

In addition to that, this is legislation that is going to build a bureaucracy. It is going to pull the government into our farms, into our manufacturers, into our retailers further and further.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think that actually that's a lot of what is going on in this entire Congress, growing the bureaucracy. We're hearing it's going to take 250,000 new Federal employees to implement the stimulus and this massive budget that is before us; new Federal employees, 250,000 new Federal employees. It is building bureaucracies, taking power away from individuals, taking power away from the House and handing it over to a bureaucracy that continues to grow every single day.

And the steps that are being taken with moving tobacco to the FDA is another part of that. We know the FDA can't do the job in front of them now when it comes to dealing with policing drugs, looking at contaminated food, addressing the issues that we have had with everything from peanut butter to pistachios. They are not getting the job done, and now we want to pull them on to our farms and into our manufacturing facilities addressing tobacco, and we have processes that already work. But it's not about funding and keeping attention on processes that work.

What we know is this is all about growing a bureaucracy. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, you know, this budget of the President taxes too much, it borrows too much, and it spends way too much money. And the focus of the White House should be on what they can do to generate economic growth rather than finding new ways to tax our families, hardworking families. And we hear they are going to be taxed to the tune of $1.9 trillion--with a ``T''--in new taxes.

My constituents have had enough of this economic abuse and so have our children and our grandchildren. They don't want the government to continue to spend money they have not made for programs that they do not want. They are worried about the future of their small businesses, they are worried about their retirement plans, and they are worried about the future of those children and grandchildren. So Republicans are offering an alternative that will be there to help ensure our economic prosperity.

I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this alternative because Americans deserve more than wasteful government spending at unprecedented levels. They deserve freedom and economic prosperity.

My constituents are tired of Congress spending money they haven't made yet for programs they don't want. According to the CBO, total spending in 2009 is going to be over $4 trillion. The price tag on the President's budget is over $3.6 trillion.

Our country can't afford this budget because it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much money on our future.

The CBO predicts that this budget will push our deficit to 9.6 percent of GDP in 2010. That's historical. CBO predicts that this country will run historically high deficits for the next decade. The global demand for American debt will only continue if our economic policies are sound.

Although we don't know the limits of the debt market, this budget is going to push us into unchartered territory. As lawmakers, it is our duty to preserve and protect prosperity. If we pass this budget, we will be abusing the economic opportunity for our children and our grandchildren. What kind of protection is that?

Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents recently said to me, ``I'm tired of the government spending money I have not made yet for programs I don't want.'' And my constituents are right on this.

On top of the trillions that have already been spent, the President's budget is proposing doubling Federal spending by the year 2019. My constituents are saying, ``How are we going to pay for this?''

Well, as we have heard this morning, there is the tax-and-cap scheme which is $646 billion and is going to cost every American family an additional $3,128 per year out of their household budget.

There is also the small-business taxes, $637 billion of new small- business taxes. It is going to wipe out any kind of tax reduction that would have gone to the 95 percent of working Americans.

So the question becomes: Where does all of this money come from? Well, we know that the Democrat leadership is going to borrow too much, they are going to tax too much, and they are going to spend too much of the taxpayers' money.

I thank the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk a little bit about the budget issues that are before us and about how we are spending too much, we're borrowing too much and we're taxing too much. Recently one of my constituents came up and she had a child in her arms. It was her 6- month-old grandchild. She looked at me and she said, Marsha, you know, it makes me really angry when you all spend money that I haven't made, but when Congress is spending money that this grandbaby has not made, it just absolutely infuriates me. It makes me want to come to Washington and knock on the doors of the Members of Congress and say, What are you doing to this child's future?

Madam Speaker, that is what our constituents are saying when they look at this budget proposal that contains the largest tax increase in history, $1.4 trillion, over a 10-year period of time. Now some of my constituents have said, where do they get this money? Where does this come from and what are they taxing to come up with $1.4 trillion? Well, I want to talk a second about the cap-and-tax proposal that the President and the administration has brought forward. I want to use a quote that the President made in an editorial board with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008. It said under my plan of a cap- and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. That will cost money. That will pass the money on to consumers.

That was in January 2008. What we see is, yes, electricity rates will go up. Every time an individual flips on a light switch, every time they punch the brew button on their coffee maker, every time they turn on their computer, it is going to cost them more

money, every single time, to the tune of $3,128 per family per year. That is what we are beginning to see. This is going to increase your cost of doing business in your home every single day of living, that maintenance of life that we all go through.

We're very concerned about this part of the proposal, the cap-and- tax. It is part of the $1.4 trillion increase.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back my time, and I thank you for yielding the time.