Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on Thursday, April 29, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 228 on final passage of the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act of 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of World Press Freedom Day, celebrated on the 3rd day of May each year. I do so with a profound sense of humility and with a sense of privilege about being able to come to the floor to speak in support of freedom of the press around the world.

World Press Freedom Day has been observed for 16 years now and serves as a reminder to us all of the vital importance of this core freedom. It is a day in which we celebrate the indispensable role played by journalists in exposing abuses of power, while at the same time we sound the alarm about the growing number of journalists that are still being silenced by death or jailed as they attempt to report on important issues of the day and bring to light information in the public interest.

Since this day was first celebrated, 692 journalists have been killed. The majority of victims were local reporters covering topics such as crime, corruption, and national security in their home countries. Adding to this tragic figure are the hundreds more each year who face intimidation, censorship, and arbitrary arrest--guilty of nothing more than a passion for truth and a tenacious belief that a free society depends on an informed citizenry. In every corner of the globe--from Iran to Zimbabwe, Burma to Pakistan, Cuba and Venezuela-- there are journalists being actively harassed and exercising self- censorship because of threats and intimidation from repressive regimes.

As part of combating this intimidation and censorship, Mr. Adam Schiff of California and I recently introduced the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act. As many will remember, Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in Pakistan, just 4 months after the September 11th attacks.

At the time of his kidnapping, Pearl served as the South Asia Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal, and was based in Mumbai, India. He went to Pakistan as part of an investigation into the alleged links between Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence, ISI. He was subsequently beheaded by his captors. This legislation is dedicated to Daniel Pearl, the many that have gone before him, and those that still face such dangers today. The legislation seeks to highlight and promote freedom of the press by establishing an annual State Department report on the status of press freedom in every country in the world and create a grant program aimed at broadening and strengthening the independence of journalists and media organizations.

Now, more than ever, the defense of the freedom of the press must continue. Here at home, the Constitution of the United States provides: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' Not since those words were adopted has this body passed a law to ensure the freedom of the press. Last month, the House passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, legislation I was honored to introduce with Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia. The bill provides a qualified privilege of confidential sources to journalists-- which is sadly missing in Federal law--and enables reporters to shield sources in most instances from disclosure. I urge its swift passage by our colleagues in the Senate.

While it is my great hope that a Federal Media Shield bill will soon be signed into law here at home, the struggle for freedom of the press is much more primitive in its evolution in many parts of the world. And for that reason we must stand in solidarity with all those around the globe who love freedom and continue to strain at the bonds of tyranny and oppression on this day of remembrance.

On this day, we remember reporters like Roxana Saberi. Miss Saberi is a 31-year-old American journalist who was arrested in February 2009, and is being held in Iran on charges of espionage, which her lawyer and the U.S. Department of State call baseless. Saberi is a freelance journalist who moved to Iran 6 years ago and reports for NPR, the BBC, and other news organizations. A true representative of this melting pot that is America, she grew up in Fargo, North Dakota, the daughter of Reza Saberi, who was born in Iran, and Akiko Saberi, who is from Japan.

As we learn of cases like Miss Saberi, we understand the stakes that are at risk here. We understand why oppressive regimes like that of Iran want so desperately to muzzle the unfiltered reporting of journalists like Saberi. And we understand why it is so important to cherish and protect freedom of the press as a vital check on abuses of power. Today, we call on the government of Iran to free Miss Saberi, hospitalized in her desperate attempt to win her freedom with a hunger strike that might appeal to the conscience of her oppressor where her valid legal arguments did not.

As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press. A free press ensures the flow

of information to the public, and let me say, during a time when the role of government in our lives and in our enterprises seems to grow every day--both at home and abroad--ensuring the vitality of a free and independent press is more important than ever.

I salute the bravery of reporters and press outlets around the world. I urge you to stand firm and take heart. The U.S. House of Representatives stands firmly behind your right to increased freedoms; soon we hope to see this right enshrined in our public law, and stand in solidarity with those on the front lines of the worldwide fight for freedom of the press.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget conference report because it borrows too much, spends too much and taxes too much, and the American people know it.

At a time when every American family is sitting down around kitchen tables making sacrifices and making the hard choices necessary to get through these difficult days, here in Washington, D.C., we see a Democratic majority and a new administration bring forward a budget that will double the national debt in 5 years and triple the national debt in 10, a $1.2 trillion deficit in 2010 and deficits of nearly $1 trillion a year every year for the next 10 years.

The distinguished majority leader spoke of ``political courage'' on the floor just moments ago, but let me say there are no profiles in courage in this budget. The truth is, the Democratic majority in this administration has brought to the floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history.

Congress should be doing what every American family is doing--cutting expenses and finding within themselves the faith, and, yes, the courage to get through these times with sacrifice. Instead, here in Washington, D.C., it is more government, more spending, more debt and more taxes.

In just 100 days, a new administration and this Democratic majority have decided to continue and to greatly expand the mistakes of the past. But we can do better, and I believe, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we must do better.

Let's reject this conference report and start over with a budget that will serve ourselves and our posterity with fiscal responsibility.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I especially thank the ranking member of this committee for his strong and principled and thoughtful opposition to H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, those who know me, including my colleagues on this committee and the distinguished chairman of this committee, know that I abhor discrimination. I have associated myself throughout my career in Congress with efforts to advance the interests of minorities, and I will continue to do so. People who know me back home know that I have no tolerance for unkindness or disrespect to any individual for any reason, but most especially any disrespect or discrimination that is based on race, creed, or color is anathema to me. So I don't question the motives of those who would advance this legislation. I think I know the heart of many and understand it.

But I rise in opposition to this legislation for three reasons:

Number one, I believe that we should not treat thought the same way we treat action before the law. Number two, I believe this legislation is unnecessary when a careful examination of State prosecutions and the work that's being done at State levels is examined. And lastly and most ominously, I fear this legislation, intentionally or unintentionally, could have a chilling effect on the religious expression and the religious freedom of millions of Americans. So let me speak to each of those points.

Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith and his worship, the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, not opinions.'' Thomas Jefferson again stated the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation as a whole, and that is that violent attacks against people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them. And it seems to me that the wisdom expressed by Thomas Jefferson in that quote is wisdom that ought to discipline this legislative body, that we ought to focus the reach of government on actions only and not opinions. And that remains the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation.

But even to those who believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is appropriate, I must say that it is also important for our colleagues and anyone looking in to understand that this legislation is also unnecessary. The underlying offense in each of these crimes is already fully and aggressively prosecuted in all 50 States.

This bill designates in particular gender identity for federally protected status without, I might add, any evidence of any hate crimes occurring against individuals for gender identity. The hate crimes bill before us today makes a Federal offense out of any violent crime that is alleged to be motivated by gender identity including, for instance, people who describe themselves as transsexuals, even though the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, as amended in 1994, never collected any data to show that such hate crimes are even occurring. In fact, the truth be told, FBI statistics show that the incidents of what are described as hate crimes has declined over the last 10 years, for which we have data. In 1997 a total of 8,000 what are called ``bias-motived'' criminal incidents were reported to the FBI. The data for 3 of the last 10 years, 2003 through 2005, demonstrated a steady decline in the number of those crimes, and the incidents as the present day approaches decline even further.

And, also, lastly, there is zero evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent crimes that are motivated by hate or for any other reason. Every State in the Nation prohibits a variety of violent crimes that constitute ``willfully causing bodily injury.'' For whatever the purpose of the will of causing bodily injury, those crimes are prosecuted. And for those who advocate hate crimes legislation, a Federalist note: 45 States and the District of Columbia already have specific laws punishing hate crimes.

Which brings me to my last objection to this Federal legislation, and that is the concern that I have about the threat to religious freedom and religious expression. The gentlewoman who just spoke said, memorably, that this is not a hate speech bill, this is a hate crimes bill. But because those 45 States already have legislation involving hate crimes, we can see how this kind of legislation actually operates in practice.

One case in particular, in 2004 in Philadelphia, 11 individuals were arrested at something called OutFest, which is a gay pride festival. These individuals held signs that displayed segments of the Holy Bible. They were arrested after protesting peacefully. They were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors. Their felony charges included ``possessions of instruments of crime,'' which apparently was a bullhorn; ethnic intimidation, which was apparently their statement that they believed as Biblical Christians that homosexuality is a sin; and also they were charged with inciting a riot for reading passages from the Bible related to that moral practice. Now, whether or not a riot occurred involving these Christians was debatable, but they faced $90,000 in fines and possible 47-year prison sentences.

In San Francisco a city council enacted a resolution urging local broadcast media not to run advertisements by a pro-family group. In New York a pastor who rented billboards posting Biblical quotations on sexual morality had them taken down by city officials who cited hate crime principles as justification.

We saw a new colleague today take that oath that we all take, and it was a solemn moment, Mr. Speaker. But we swear to support and uphold the Constitution, which reads, I remind my colleagues, ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

We must not pass this hate crimes bill. It is unnecessary and it threatens that constitutional obligation that we have.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in the midst of a debate and rise in opposition to the conference report on the Democratic budget.

I do so following after the quite typically forceful remarks of the gentlelady from Connecticut, whom I respect as a colleague. She, as the gentleman from California just said, focused a

great deal on the last 8 years. As someone who in this body through the course of the last 8 years was, as my colleagues know, a harsh and public and consistent critic of runaway Federal spending under Republican control, allow me to stipulate that the gentlelady makes a point.

The truth is in the 8 years of the Bush administration's tenure, under Republican control 6 of those years, we did manage to double the national debt. And that was a disappointment to millions of Americans, me included. And I believe it was part and parcel why the American people in 2006 showed us the door because they know we can't borrow and spend our way to a healthy America. So I will stipulate to that point, Madam Speaker.

But it doesn't follow or stand to reason that coming to the floor as the gentlelady from Connecticut did and as others have today and complaining about overspending under Republican control of Congress, that the answer would be this budget which would--on top of what has already happened--double the national debt in 5 years and triple the national debt in 10.

It just simply doesn't make sense.

I would expect, Madam Speaker, that anyone that is looking in, that in the midst of these difficult times--a time when the American people are hurting, when every family and small business and family farmer across this country are sitting down around kitchen tables and metal desks and offices and figuring out how to make ends meet, they are making sacrifices, they are putting off until tomorrow what they don't have to spend today--here they see Democrat majorities in the House and the Senate bringing to the floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. And I say again, according to the numbers--and we can get lost in the numbers--outlays of $3.5 trillion for fiscal year 2010, $1.2 trillion in deficits in 2010. The deficits over this period never fall below $500 billion. A number that was roundly criticized when the Bush administration and Republicans hit that number is now accepted to be the norm.

As I mentioned, public debt by the year 2014 will rise to more than two-thirds as a share of the economy. It is astonishing to point out that the European Union requires countries to keep their debt below 60 percent of their economy.

If this administration and the Democrat majority have their way, the United States of America, by 2014, wouldn't even qualify under the criteria of the European Union--not that I would ever want to join. It just gives a perspective here, Madam Speaker, that what we have before us today is a budget that is out of step with the American people. It is a budget that does not embrace the sacrifice and the resilience and the demonstrated virtue that millions of American families and millions of small businesses are practicing today.

The truth is, we can do better. The truth is, the American people know that this Congress has the capacity, even during these difficult times, to do the right thing, to take our jackets off, to roll our sleeves up, to do the hard work.

I look across the aisle and I see a gentleman with whom I serve that I personally and deeply respect. And I have to believe there are many colleagues on the other side of the aisle that also know this we ought not to do. After a so-called stimulus bill that spent $1 trillion, an omnibus bill that increased spending by 8 percent for last year's business, and now the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history, enough is enough.

The American people want this Congress to begin to practice fiscal discipline and reform. We ought to do so by rejecting this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Speaker, this week, House Democrats begin hearings on so-called ``cap-and-trade'' legislation. It is their legislative response to concerns over global climate change. Even former Vice President Al Gore will testify tomorrow here on Capitol Hill. But as many around the country and in this body are realizing, there are a lot of inconvenient truths about the cap-and-trade bill.

The Democrat plan actually caps growth and trades jobs, and the truth is this cap-and-trade legislation is essentially an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals in Washington, D.C., and it must be opposed.

Under the Democratic plan, estimates suggest the average American household could face more than $3,000 a year in higher energy costs, and people in the Midwest, like us in Indiana, will bear the largest burden. Even the President, as candidate, said, ``Under my plan of cap- and-trade, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' We can only estimate these numbers, Mr. Speaker, because the Democratic plan includes no numbers.

The truth is the American people deserve to know what all this is going to cost. The Democrats and the Congress need to come clean about the cost of their cap-and-trade bill, and when they do, this Congress and the American people will reject it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the remarkable life of Megan Miller. I was deeply saddened to learn of her passing and believe her courage in the face of adversity is something special that deserves recognition today on the floor of the people's House.

Megan Nichole Miller was born on November 26, 2000, to her loving parents, Scott and Suzanne Miller of Jamestown, Indiana. Megan attended Granville Wells Elementary School and was a member of New Brunswick Church of Christ.

Though Megan faced remarkable challenges throughout her brief time with us, she will be remembered by her friends and family for the spirit with which she lived and the faith that guided her life. Megan's passion for life brightened the world for everyone around her. Instead of focusing on her physical difficulties, she used her disabilities to teach others the importance of accepting all people--no matter what their circumstances. It is fitting that Megan loved music, especially hymns about God and heaven, where I am certain she is now.

None were more blessed by Megan than her family. She shared a special bond and deep love with her sister Hannah. Megan's parents are forever blessed by their remarkable daughters, and have gained a greater understanding of the worth that we all carry in the eyes of God.

Though Megan sadly has passed away, those who knew her will continue to benefit from the inspiring example that she set throughout her life. I would like to offer my sincere appreciation to the doctors and nurses who gave Megan the best possible care and my deepest condolences to Scott, Suzanne, and Hannah.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with an issue of enormous importance before the American people on my mind. And I'll be joined in just a few moments by distinguished colleagues from around the country who share my profound concern about legislation that has come to be known as cap-and-trade legislation. It is an effort that is under way here on Capitol Hill and from the Obama administration that could well result in an increase in energy cost for the average American household of more than $3,000 per year.

Now we want to talk about the facts and the data here because, even in newspapers and in wire services tonight, that number, which is the calculation of a study done by MIT, is the subject of some dispute and of some debate. I want to concede the point that the impact on the average American household, if the President and the majority's cap- and-trade bill were to become law, could actually be much higher than that. In fact, it would be President Obama, himself, as a candidate in January 2008, who spoke these words in a meeting with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle, and I would say to any of our citizens who are looking in and who are Internet savvy: Don't take my word for it. Go to youtube.com and type in the President's name and the San Francisco Chronicle, and you can watch him say it for yourself.

I give the President, whose office and his person I respect, credit for candor. In January of 2008, he referred to this plan upon which he was campaigning and a plan upon which Democrats have now offered legislation, hearings for which begin this week.

The President said, ``Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Adding, ``That would cost money, and they will pass that money on to consumers.''

Let me say again: While a careful calculation of a study done, I believe, in 2007 by a distinguished university, MIT, estimates that the average American household would experience increased energy costs of some $3,128 per year, then candidate and now-President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, said that, if his cap-and-trade system passed into law, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

Now, the last time I checked, which was just late last week, most of this country was going through one of the worst recessions we've experienced in decades. I say with a heavy heart that the people of Indiana recently learned that the unemployment rate in my fair State is now at 10 percent. The American people are hurting, struggling under the weight of the listing economic fortunes of this Nation. Let me say that the last thing, I believe, the American people want this Congress to do is to pass energy legislation in the name of dealing with climate change that could result in, to borrow the President's phrase, a skyrocketing of electricity rates on working families, small business owners and family farms.

As I prepare to begin to recognize some of my colleagues, many of whom have gotten to know more about this topic than I will have a chance to learn, I also want to make one more point about this: This legislation, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, offered on March 31, 2009, by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Waxman of California and by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Markey, could not only result in this massive energy tax increase, but I want to say, if this legislation were to pass into law, it would be tantamount to a declaration of economic war on the Midwest by the liberal majority of this Congress.

Now, people who have known me over the last 8 years in this Congress know that I like to turn a phrase, but I don't like to be an alarmist, and so, for me to come to the floor of this Congress and say that I believe if the President's cap-and-trade bill were to become law it would, in effect, be a declaration of

economic war by liberals in Washington, D.C. on the Midwest, allow me to defend that point.

According to a recent study done by the Heritage Foundation, what they call their Manufacturing Vulnerability Index, a picture is worth 1,000 words. This map demonstrates the vulnerability being the highest among the dark red-colored States and the beige States being the least impacted by the cap-and-trade legislation. It tells the tale. I can't do better than this. So, when I say that to pass the cap-and-trade legislation could result in a massive national energy tax and would fall foursquare on States that are most dependent on coal-burning power plants for the electricity that we use in our homes and in our small businesses and on our farms, the map tells the tale.

The least affected areas are on the coast--on the west coast and in the Northeast--in places like New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Maine, and New Hampshire. A wider diversity of electricity sources of energy would be the least impacted. Likewise, California, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington State would be among the least impacted, but for the Midwest and my State, which according to this study is virtually ground zero of the impact of cap-and-trade's economic burden, the coloration of this map tells the tale. States along the Ohio River Valley, States across--let me say with pride--the heartland of this country, States that depend the most on coal-burning power plants will bear the greatest burden and households and small businesses and family farms in that region, a region, which if I can say on a very personal level, is already struggling in these difficult times.

As I mentioned, there is 10 percent unemployment in the State of Indiana, and for my Michigan neighbors who are looking in tonight, forgive me for not knowing the number, but I do know it's worse, and to think that this Congress, even as we speak, would be contemplating a cap-and-trade piece of legislation that may result in a massive national energy tax increase, falling most harshly on the Midwest, is unconscionable.

Now let me say one last item before I yield to a freshman. I'm going to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, and we'll hear from Utah and from the gentlelady who just spoke. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, you've heard that I've qualified my estimates here, because the truth is that the American Clean Energy and Security legislation, offered by the distinguished gentleman from California and by the gentleman from Massachusetts, actually includes no specific numbers on how CO2 emission allowances would be allocated to energy producers. In other words, we don't know whether they'll be free, whether they'll be auctioned--the so-called cap-and-trade scheme. We don't know what price. Therefore, the bill that is going to be the subject of hearings on Capitol Hill this week provides so little information that the Congressional Budget Office confirmed again today that they cannot score the cap-and-trade bill.

Now, as I told members of the media today, we had a little budget debate a few weeks ago, and I remember the Republicans came out with a budget alternative, you might remember, Mr. Speaker, and a few days before that, we thought it would be helpful to put out an outline of that budget alternative. Yet it's a live-and-learn deal around here, and what I learned was that the media really doesn't appreciate it when Republicans come forward without all the numbers in the proposal. I've internalized that lesson, and I'm applying it to the Waxman-Markey bill.

The truth of the matter is that a nonbinding budget resolution is one thing, but legislation that could literally change the economic fortunes of the heartland of America for generations is another.

The American people, Mr. Speaker, are entitled to know what all of this is going to cost, and we don't know today because the bill that will be the subject of hearings, that will be the subject of subcommittee markups just in a matter of days, I'm told, and that may well be on the floor here before we get to Memorial Day weekend has no numbers, no numbers for us to estimate the impact on the average American family, on the average small business owner and family farmer, and that is just not acceptable. So Republicans are left to use estimates like the study from MIT.

We took MIT's estimate of a key cap-and-trade bill from the 110th Congress, cosponsored then by Senator Obama, because the targets of that Senate bill tracked the emission targets outlined in the President's budget. We took MIT's own number, $366 billion, divided that by the number of U.S. households. We assumed about 300 million people and an average household size of 2.56 people, all right? If we use that formula, you get roughly $3,000 per household. Using current census figures, you get $3,128 per household using MIT's own numbers.

Why are we using that? Why are we doing this calculation? Because we don't have any numbers in the bill.

The American people have a right to know. They have a right to know that the price tag is on the plans of this administration and of this majority to raise a massive national energy tax in the name of climate change. We urge them with all deliberate speed to cease and desist any further progress on cap-and-trade legislation until they put the numbers in the bill--leave aside Republicans in the Congress--and until they give the American people the opportunity to count the cost. You know, the old book tells you: Before you build a tower, before you go to war, you count the cost. The American people deserve the right to count the cost on the cap-and-tax legislation that is going to begin to be considered this week. They deserve nothing less.

So, with that, I'd like to yield to a new Member of Congress from Texas. The distinguished gentleman (Mr. Olson) is recognized for 5 minutes.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks and congratulate him on arriving on Capitol Hill and in such a short period of time commanding the respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Pete Olson, we thank you.

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota, let me amplify a point that Mr. Olson made about the impact on this economy and jobs.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, passing the cap-and-tax regime the likes of which Democrats are considering would result in the destruction of at least 3 to 4 million American jobs. According to the nonpartisan association, the National Association of Manufacturers, which really--as the gentlelady arrives at the podium-- and I will recognize Michele Bachmann from Minnesota--but this really begs the question, and I think this was a little bit of a question that was asked at some of the so-called TEA parties last Wednesday, people wonder if anybody in Washington here gets it anymore. I mean, during difficult times, every American family, every small business, every family farmer is out there finding ways to put off to tomorrow what they don't have to spend today. They are making sacrifices, they are making hard choices, they are looking for a little in-town income to supplement--looking for extra means to make it through.

What they are not doing is increasing spending in their family budgets and small business budgets, and they are certainly not increasing their costs. But that's what Washington, DC, is doing.

We've been on a spending spree over the first 3 months of this year: stimulus and omnibus and massive budget. And now the American people-- as we dust off from being home with our families over the Passover and Easter holidays--and Congress is prepared to begin to have hearings on what could well be the largest tax increases in American history, a national energy tax that could raise the cost of living on every American household by more than $3,128 a year, which I hasten to add, as I recognize the gentlelady for 5 minutes until she asks me for more, I hasten to add that the President of the United States, that as a candidate in January of 2008, ``Under my plans,'' speaking of the President's plan of a cap-and-trade system, ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' And that is precisely the massive tax, national tax increase that we are here to oppose today.

I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann.

I thank the gentlelady. And before she departs the floor-- reclaiming my time--I would call the attention, Mr. Speaker, to you and anyone who might be looking in, to a map that reflects recent research done by the highly respected Heritage Foundation. They call this the manufacturing vulnerability index, which really calculates what the gentlelady said about her home State of Minnesota, my home State of Indiana, represent those kind of heartland States that will be undeniably most impacted by a cap-and-tax system.

I would yield to the gentlelady for a quick response. We're struggling in Indiana. Our economy, Mr. Speaker, has a 10 percent unemployment rate. The idea of Congress actually making a priority today--in the name of climate change--to pass legislation without numbers in it. Again, I want to emphasize we don't have numbers in this bill, but the estimates are based on independent studies that it will cost millions of jobs, the estimates are that it will burden families.

I would just ask the gentlelady, are the good people of Minnesota in a better position than the people of Indiana to absorb a national energy tax of some $3,128 per household?

I would yield.

I thank the gentlelady. And I will let her get on to her evening. But I did hear news reports of the administration's suggestion that they might consider phasing in the cap-and-tax. It kind of reminds me of that story of how you boil a frog, whether you turn the heat up slowly and bring it to a boil or whether you drop it into scalding water, it seems to me you've still got a dead frog at the end of that story.

The truth of the matter is that there are better solutions, solutions where we don't end up transferring enormous amounts of wealth from the heartland of the country, from the manufacturing bedrock of this Nation, if I can say with some regional pride. There are better solutions where we can deal with CO2 emissions, with new technologies. We can develop a broad, comprehensive energy strategy. And as I thank the gentlelady, Mr. Speaker, and wish her a restful evening, I am prepared to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Let me just assure, it has been mentioned by several of my colleagues, I was actually asked by the Republican leader of the Congress to lead a Republican Energy Solutions Working Group. We have brought together not only the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton, but also I've got the capable assistance of co-chairmen in the likes of Congressman John Shimkus, Congressman Fred Upton, men who have the experience and the background that helped us develop the American Energy Act as a Republican alternative in the last Congress and are in the process of building a comprehensive Republican energy alternative as we speak.

There are better solutions. There are better options. We can achieve cleaner air without raising taxes on every American household in the form of a national energy tax, a cost of living tax, according to estimates, of more than $3,128 per year.

Before I yield to the gentleman, let me say this point again because it is--you can probably tell I am a pretty patient man, Mr. Speaker, but when it comes down to denying the American people the information that they need to make informed choices, I am an impatient man. The truth is--and anyone looking on deserves to know--that this week this Congress will begin to debate what could well result in a massive change in our energy generation system in this country, the so-called cap-and-trade system, which would fall foursquare on coal-burning power plants in this country, would fall foursquare on the region of the country that I call home in Indiana and the industrial Midwest that relies so heavily

on coal-burning power plants. And this massive multigenerational impact on our economy, on our way of life, all in the name of climate change, and we have no numbers.

Mr. Speaker, it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that the American Clean Energy and Security legislation that will be the subject of hearings beginning this week has been brought to the floor so bereft of detail that the Congressional Budget Office cannot tell the Members of this Congress or the people of the United States of America how much this is all going to cost. That is not acceptable. I urge my colleagues, burn the midnight oil, put the numbers in, or pull these hearings, pull this legislation until you can produce a bill that my colleagues--like the gentleman sitting across the aisle tonight, colleagues that I respect, colleagues with whom I differ vehemently on issues, but whose integrity I respect--that our colleagues can come together and have an honest debate about what this will really cost the American people.

Let's debate climate change. Let's debate the science. Let's debate the solutions for achieving carbon dioxide reductions and particulates. But let's also debate the cost. Let's allow the American people to count the cost before this Congress considers a massive national energy tax that could change our economy forever and essentially amounts to an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals here in Washington, D.C.

With that, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the former Speaker of the Utah State House, a distinguished member of the Republican minority, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), an expert on issues of energy and an eloquent spokesman about positive solutions.

I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary remarks and eloquence. And let me thank my colleagues who have joined me and let me thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the courtesy of recognizing us for this debate. It will be the first of many, many hours on this floor, in committees, on the airwaves, and on the stump that House Republicans and, I expect, more than a few Democrats are going to be taking a case against this extraordinary national energy tax increase to the American people.

I am very provoked by the larger themes that Congressman Bishop brought forward tonight because, as I have been tapped to lead the House Republican Energy Solutions Working Group. Republicans will be coming up with an alternative energy strategy that will be built on precisely those ideals, on choices and options, on empowering individuals and small businesses, and on not only not raising taxes, as the President's cap-and-trade plan intends to do, a strategy of tax increases and fees on utility companies that will be passed along to the consuming public, most especially those of us who live in the Midwest; Republicans will be bringing forward ideas to actually use the Tax Code to give incentives for energy-producing companies to develop the new technologies that will result in cleaner air and a safer environment.

But let me recap, if I can. Anyone looking in tonight, Mr. Speaker, has a right to know this week, in the midst of these challenging economic times, this Congress is going to begin hearings and in a matter of a few days is going to begin the process of legislating, marking up, and ultimately bringing to the floor within this month legislation that could result in an increase in the cost of living, energy cost of living, of some $3,128 per year for every working family, small business, and family farm in America. And as the Heritage Foundation's recent Manufacturing Vulnerability Index showed, the President's cap-and-tax proposal will fall most squarely on the heartland of America, where my heart is, in the State of Indiana, and other great States of the industrial Midwest. Why? Is there an intention to go after a part of the country? Of course not. It's that we out in the Midwest along the Ohio River Valley, there where I went to college, we rely on coal-burning power plants for an inordinate amount of our electrical energy, in our businesses, in our farms, and in our homes. So the President's plan to cap and tax utility companies that burn coal principally will fall foursquare on the Midwest. In fact, the President admitted this point, and I give him high marks for candor and clarity.

In January, 2008, the President said: ``Under my plan of cap-and- trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. That will cost money. They,'' referring to utility companies, he said, ``will pass that money on to consumers.'' Give the President of the United States credit for candor.

And, you know, as I always tell folks back home, don't take a politician's word for it. Go to youtube.com and type in the President's name respectfully and type in ``San Francisco Chronicle,'' and you can watch him say it for himself, as more than 200,000 Americans already have.

The last complaint I have is just that it's about the numbers. I spoke to a number of colleagues in the media today and pointed out to them that the Waxman-Markey bill that will begin hearings today includes no specifics whatsoever on how CO2 emission allowances will be allocated to energy producers. In other words, we don't know if they'll be free or if they'll be auctioned or at what price. This legislation they are about to have hearings on is bereft of numbers. That the Congressional Budget Office can't even tell us what it's going to cost. Namely, the American people are expecting this Chamber to take up legislation that could transform the economy of this Nation forever, transform the economy of the Midwest forever, and we are not being given the numbers necessary to count the cost and make an informed judgment. And that is simply not acceptable.

I close with some words that I first noticed about a year ago. They are the only words chiseled on the wall other than ``In God We Trust,'' which I also believe. But Daniel Webster has got some words up there that without my reading glasses on, I can't get all of them, but they are actually words about the environment, and they are words about natural resources. Isn't it interesting that in the last century as they put together this room, they put words up on the wall that talked about natural resources and energy. It's pretty interesting. Daniel Webster, at some point in his storied career, said, ``Let us develop the resources of this great Nation and call forth its power, and in so doing, let us do something worthy to be remembered.''

I really believe that the foundation of American greatness is our faith in God, our freedom, and our vast natural resources. The combination and our fealty to those three things, our belief

that America wasn't just an accident with somebody sailing on the way to India, that Providence had His hand on this miracle, our belief in freedom and free institutions and private property, economic and political freedom, combined with this extraordinary continent of natural resources, has allowed us to build the freest and most prosperous Nation in the history of the world. We can confront every challenge facing us in the 21st century if we build on that foundation of a belief in freedom and embrace those natural resources and renewing our faith in Him who set this miracle on these shores. But it all begins with knowing what we're doing.

So let's get the details out. The American people deserve to know what's in the cap-and-tax bill before the hearings start tomorrow, and we will keep coming to this floor until we get the numbers for every single one of those Americans that will be affected.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The budget brought to the floor by the Democratic majority today spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know it.

This Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple it in 10; 2010 spending alone is $3 trillion, 25 percent of GDP. More than $1 trillion in tax increases in the majority's budget. The 2010 deficit estimated at $1 trillion, and independent estimates suggest a deficit of nearly $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years.

The numbers tell the tale. The Democratic majority is proposing the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. But this isn't just about the numbers. It's not about dollars and cents alone.

It's about who we are as a country. It's about the American dream, and it's about our kids. It's about those small business owners and working families and family farmers that are dreading the idea of paying higher taxes during these hard times, higher marginal rates, higher national energy tax on every American household. And it's about our kids who may not even know or understand what they have to fear in the mountain range of debt that we are piling on.

It reminds me of a time a few years back I went to the CVS, forgot my wallet. I was with my 10-year-old daughter, and I reached down and I grabbed her purse, and I took out her little kid's debit card to pay for my Coke. I felt so guilty about it. I still feel bad about it today. Truth is, that's exactly what we're doing here.

Let's not do this to our kids. Let's not borrow from the next generation of Americans things that we ought to be dealing with in sacrifices and hard decisions today. Every American family, every American business is answering these challenging times by sitting down around tables, sitting down around desks, and with sacrifice and frugality, they're finding their way through these challenging days. Congress should do no different.

Let's reject this Democrat budget. Let's reject runaway Federal spending of those who believe we can borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy, and embrace fiscal discipline and reform and tax relief in the Republican alternative that will truly put our fiscal house in order and get this economy growing again.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I commend the gentleman from Ohio for his work on the Republican Study Committee Budget Alternative, and I especially commend the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Tom Price, for his extraordinary and visionary leadership.

The budget brought to the majority today, as has been said again and again, spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much, and the American people know it. The Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years. It will triple it in 10. The 2010 spending $3 trillion, 25 percent of gross domestic product, more than $1 trillion in tax increases on virtually every American, a 2010 deficit of $1 trillion and nearly $1 trillion deficits every year for the next 10 years.

The hard truth is the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. And the American people know we can do better. They are doing better. And every family farm or small business across this country, around every kitchen table, Americans are making tough choices. They are sitting down as families and in enterprises, deciding what they can put off for tomorrow, what they don't have to spend today, finding ways maybe for a job in town for a little more income. Everywhere in America, the American people are meeting these challenging economic times with frugality, with sacrifice, and with courage, everywhere but in Washington, D.C.

The American people long for men and women in this Congress to show the same character, to make the same tough choices. And I'm proud to stand with the Republican Study Committee and this budget alternative that answers that call.

A balanced budget; under the RSC alternative the budget outlook improves every single year, and achieves a surplus budget in 2019, $1.2 trillion of tax relief over the next 5 years for virtually every American, fully funding defense spending, and provides zero growth baseline for non-defense spending, and repeals the obscene spending

spree of stimulus bills and omnibus bills that has overtaken our country.

No changes in Social Security, increases in Medicare, and provides increases equivalent to inflation in Medicaid. And a raft of reforms of unnecessary spending, ending the earmarking culture on Capitol Hill.

After years of runaway spending, the American people long for courage and sacrifice on the floor of this Congress. And my Republican colleagues have brought together an alternative that answers that call.

It's time that we embrace fiscal discipline and reform, lower taxes and growth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Republican Study Committee budget alternative.

The budget brought by the majority to the floor today spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know it.

The Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple it in 10. 2010 spending: $3 trillion. More than $1 trillion in tax increases in a recession, and deficits of nearly $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years.

Truth is the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history.

While every American family and every small business is answering these challenging times of sacrifice and frugality, the majority in this Congress continues to believe that we can borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. But not Republicans.

Thanks to the bold and innovative leadership of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, Republicans have a better solution. In stark contrast to the Democratic budget, the Republican budget alternative puts America on a path to prosperity, spends nearly $5 trillion less than the Democrats' budget over 10 years, brings debt under control, borrowing nearly $4 trillion less than the Democrat budget over 10, and it does not raise taxes.

Creating 2.1 million more jobs than the Democrat budget, this Republican alternative puts its faith in individuals and businesses and private sector. Suspending capital gains taxes, reforming the tax code, reducing the corporate tax rate so we can keep American jobs here.

And even while we do so, we fund our national priorities, increasing defense, increasing veterans, providing for healthy retirement security, and touching not one cent of the Social Security program and trust fund.

I urge my Democrats to do the unexpected, as Daniel Webster says on the wall just before us, Let us do something in this generation. Let us perform something worthy to be remembered.

Embrace bipartisanship today. Embrace fiscal discipline, tax relief, and reform. I say to my Democratic colleagues with the deepest respect, say ``yes'' to the American people. Vote ``yes'' on the Republican budget alternative.

I rise in opposition to the Democratic budget.

The budget, brought by the majority to this floor in this debate, spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know

it. The Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple it in 10, and the numbers tell the tale. 2010 spending, $3 trillion, 25 percent of GDP, more than $1 trillion in tax increases. The 2010 deficit, $1 trillion, and estimates suggests deficits nearly $1 trillion for the next 10 years.

The truth is, Madam Chairman, the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. During debates like this we hear a lot about the numbers, but this isn't just about the numbers. The truth is, it's not about dollars and cents. It's about the American dream, and it's about our kids. It's about small business owners, working families, and family farmers that are dreading the idea of facing higher taxes, higher marginal rates, a national energy tax. And it's about our children and our children's children who may not yet understand what they have to fear and a mountain range of debt.

Let us not do this. Every American family, every American business is answering these challenging times with sacrifice and frugality. This Congress should do no different. Let us reject this Democrat budget. Let us embrace fiscal discipline and reform and growth in the form of the Republican alternative.

Madam Speaker, I would like to honor a man whose iconic voice forever changed broadcast radio and to whom our Nation will be forever indebted.

As a high school student, Paul Harvey began his storied career in his hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Spending time to help clean the studios of KVOO, Paul was eventually given the opportunity to fill-in on the air. It quickly became clear that Paul Harvey was a gifted broadcaster as he was soon promoted to become the station's program director.

After spending time covering World War II and serving in the United States Army Air Corps, Paul Harvey moved to Chicago where he began broadcasting for ABC. He quickly became a fixture on Chicago's airwaves and on April 1, 1951, `Paul Harvey News and Comment' debuted. Eventually gathering an audience that spanned 1,200 stations and well over 25 million people, Paul Harvey was often the ``largest one-man network in the world.''

Madam Speaker, the list of awards and honors to the credit of Paul Harvey is long and distinguished. His election to the National Association of Broadcasters Radio Hall of Fame reflects a career that spanned more than 70 years. In October 2005, Paul Harvey was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation's most prestigious civilian decoration.

Illustrating the extent to which Paul Harvey captured the American voice, his broadcasts and newspaper columns have been reprinted in the Congressional Record more than those of any other commentator.

Because of my time in radio, I am especially thankful for the life and character of Paul Harvey. There is no doubt that every broadcaster has taken inspiration from the unique style and unparalleled legacy of Paul Harvey. Epitomizing the values and ideals of everyday Americans, Paul Harvey was a master of his craft and a pioneer in the format of broadcast radio that many Americans continue to rely on.

Paul Harvey, Good Day.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009. I do so with a profound sense of humility and with a sense of privilege about being able to come to the floor today in support of this thoughtful and bipartisan measure that may, may well, be a lasting contribution to the vitality of liberty in this Nation.

The Constitution of the United States provides: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Not since those words were adopted has this body needed to legislate to ensure the freedom of the press. Not until today. We do so because, sadly, the free and independent press in this country is under fire. In recent years, more than 30 journalists have been subpoenaed, questioned, or held in contempt for failure to reveal their confidential sources.

For a journalist, maintaining the assurance of confidentiality of a source is sometimes the only way to bring forward news of great consequence to the Nation. Being forced to reveal sources chills the reporting of the news and restricts the free flow of information to the public.

As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe the only check on government power in real-time is a free and independent press. A free press ensures the flow of information to the public. And, let me say, during a time when the role of the government in our lives and in our enterprises seems to grow every day, ensuring the vitality of a free and independent press is more important than ever.

In order to maintain this charge, I coauthored the Free Flow of Information Act with my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Rick Boucher. I would like to take a moment to thank my partner in this legislation. He is truly the gentleman from Virginia. For over 4 years, we have worked on this issue in a spirit of bipartisanship. Rick Boucher is a champion of the first amendment. It has been my great privilege to work with him.

I also want to commend the chairman of this committee, Chairman Conyers, Vice Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte, and Representatives Coble and Blunt, without whose efforts in the last Congress the bipartisan compromise in this bill would not have been possible.

The bill is known as the Federal Media Shield. It provides a qualified privilege of confidential sources to journalists, enabling them to shield sources in most instances from disclosure. But the bill is not about protecting journalists; it is about protecting the public's right to know.

It received wide bipartisan support in the last Congress, and I hope in this, because we addressed the very real and legitimate concerns about how a privilege for journalists could impact security at the national level. The Federal Government, we acknowledge, is tasked with the tremendous responsibility of protecting our country, and we must also keep national security concerns in the forefront. I submit, the Free Flow of Information Act does just that.

Many Americans will assume that the fining and imprisonment of journalists is something confined to tyrannical regimes in far corners of the world. They might be surprised to learn that the United States does not have a Federal law on the books that prevents that from occurring. More than three-fourths of State Attorneys General have written Congress in support of this legislation. In fact, 49 States and the District of Columbia had already recognized a journalist's privilege to protect confidential sources.

It is important to emphasize, this bill only provides a qualified privilege; meaning, the disclosure of a source's identity may be required in certain situations, as described by my colleague from Virginia.

With this I close: Long ago, Thomas Jefferson warned, ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press nor that limited without danger of losing it.'' Jefferson's words ring into this chamber today.

The passage of the Free Flow of Information Act I believe is necessary and consistent with that charge to not only explicitly and fully provide for the freedom of the press in our Nation but protect the liberty of future generations.

With the bipartisan support of my colleagues and Congress and this new administration, let us seize this opportunity to put a stitch in this tear in the first amendment, freedom of the press, and let us do our part to ensure the vitality of a free and independent press for ourselves and our posterity.

I urge my colleagues to join me and our bipartisan support for the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009.

After years of runaway spending at the Federal level, the American people want this Congress to put our fiscal house in order. Instead, President Barack Obama has brought forward the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. The President's budget spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much, and the American people know it.

The American people don't want more spending, more government, and more bailouts. They don't want to see this President's budget result in, as CBO projected, nearly $1 trillion in annual deficits for the next 10 years.

The President's budget would actually double the national debt in just 6 years, and even worse, the President's budget pays for all this spending with higher taxes on virtually every American, small business, and a light-switch tax that would raise utility rates for every American household by more than $3,000.

Today, Republicans will continue to offer better solutions, unveiling today a blueprint for recovery that's built on fiscal discipline, growth, and reform.

Let the debate begin.

Yesterday, the President of the United States took to prime time television in defense of a budget proposal that spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know it. Our Nation is beginning to understand that the President's proposed the most fiscally irresponsible budget in the history of our Nation.

It comes at such a difficult time for our country. I recently met firsthand with families in my district who are facing these difficult times with courage and sacrifice.

The leaders of Rushville, Indiana, were sitting down around a kitchen table at a farm last week, practicing the kind of fiscal restraint and determination necessary to make it through these difficult times, and the people in all of our Nation want Washington to do likewise. They want us to put our fiscal house in order with fiscal responsibility and a commitment to grow.

The President's budget increases spending and raises taxes on almost every American household and small business, and invites record deficits, and adds roughly $1 trillion to our national debt every year for the next 10 years.

The American people know there's a better way. In the coming hours, Republicans will unveil a better solution to pass a budget bill based on fiscal responsibility and the principles of growth.