John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CARTER. We accept the amendment.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, on which I have the joy to serve, and I commend him on a great product, and I commend Mr. Bishop on a great product. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5854, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. This bill is very important because it takes care of our soldiers and our warriors, wherever they may be, their families, and the Nation's veterans. This bill ensures our warriors and their families will have quality housing, schools, medical and dental facilities, training facilities and much, much more. In fact, this bill provides a recommendation of over $546 million for the construction or replacement of DOD education activities and schools. As a consequence, what we appropriate with this bill is a peace of mind dividend to our warriors because they're like parents everywhere: you've got to worry about your kids and their schools when you're away doing your job. So this is an indication by us that our Nation cares for our soldiers and our warriors, wherever they may be, and want to provide the best. Madam Chair, this bill is a good bill. And yet, it meets the obligations we have to these warriors, and we stay within our projected view that it's time for us to keep a close eye on and squeeze every budget to make sure that we're saving the taxpayers' dollars. Chairman Culberson has been a warrior on behalf of those savings and, joined by Mr. Bishop, they have produced a good product, one that is worthy of this Congress and worthy of this country. And I'm glad to have had a small part in that.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of section 552 of H.R. 4310. In fact, I rise in favor of the entire National Defense Authorization Act but specifically of this provision which justly awards the victims of Fort Hood and the Arkansas recruiting station shootings with the Purple Heart. Mr. Chairman, I have the distinct honor of representing Fort Hood, Texas. We call it the ``Great Place.'' The day after the attack at Fort Hood, I was there. At that point in time, I began working on legislation to award combat status to the victims so that they could all receive the appropriate benefits that they deserve. The shootings at Fort Hood and in Little Rock left 14 dead and 44 wounded. These soldiers were at a deployment processing center in Fort Hood and at a recruiting station in Arkansas when they were fired upon. Many of them at Fort Hood were getting ready to go to war or were returning from war for the reassignment to other assignments. In my opinion, the shooters extended the battlefield from Iraq and Afghanistan to Fort Hood and Little Rock in order to claim their targets before they reached their destinations in Iraq or Afghanistan. While I am pleased to see the victims receive the Purple Heart, we should continue to work towards awarding the victims combat status and the appropriate recognition that they may deserve, including recognizing the civilians who were killed. But make no mistake, at Fort Hood, they targeted soldiers. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this language but to continue to work towards awarding combat status for the victims as well. This is a bipartisan issue. I am very grateful to Chairman King for getting on board with this issue and for driving the force, as are all of our soldiers, and I am very grateful for the bipartisan consideration this concept had on both sides of the aisle. I support the National Defense Authorization Act. It is good for our country.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I am the person who introduced this language. At the time that I introduced it, I started my conversation by saying I am not opposed to--in fact, I am in favor of--access to swimming facilities and hot tubs and other bodies of water by the disabled in this country. But the facts are in this case that, yes, this has been looked at for a long time and everybody recognizes the fact that access to swimming pools and possibly hot tubs or therapeutic facilities is important for the people who are disabled. I agree. I agree with everything my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle. Sometimes, when you're dealing with bureaucrats, you cannot get their attention to have a little bit of common sense. And you have to get their attention. And the purpose behind this is to get the Justice Department to back off until they can listen to some common sense. My colleague on this side of the aisle has tried to point out that what the Justice Department has said, and has not been willing to clarify otherwise, is, regardless of what the regulation which was passed originally says, their ruling in January of this year was that it would be a fixed facility. That means it has to be placed permanently by the side of the body of water. That means it would be placed permanently beside every hot tub, placed permanently beside every kiddie pool, placed permanently beside every swimming pool that anybody has at any location. That would be a fixed device. I don't know how big this device is, but I would assume it's taller than I am because it has to lift someone and put them somewhere. And I also happen to know that there are 13-year-old kids around every swimming pool in the country that figure if there's something you can climb up on and dive off of, you're going to do it. So the swimming pool people, both publicly and privately--and let me tell you that lots of communications from public pool managers in my district, say, We don't want to close our pool this summer, but they've set a deadline we can't meet. They've required something that we cannot physically get because the manufacturers are not prepared to do it. And even though they're willing to push the deadline down the line, they're setting up a situation of danger which could easily be resolved by what we've been using already in many of the pools in our area of Texas, and that is a portable device that does exactly the same thing, but when it is not in use it is moved away from the side of the pool to a safe place where someone cannot harm themselves. What if a child climbed up on the one fixed next to the hot tub which is 3-feet deep and dove into it? He may be stupid, but kids are stupid sometimes. We would have another disabled person. And so the consequences of this and the cost are something that we should say, How about a little common sense, Justice Department, and answer the question: Can we use a portable device? And so far they have not answered, because they wrote the last thing in January. They set the deadline of May 15 and extended it. And all we want is an answer to that question. I want everyone to have access to a swimming pool, and I want the disabled to have a device that's safely able to locate them there and that can safely be put away when there's no one in need of that device so that nobody else can be hurt by false use of that device. I'm not against the disabled, and nobody on our side of the aisle is, even though our colleagues seem to accuse us of that. But I started this conversation--and my colleague on my committee knows this--and I finished the conversation by saying: All I want is to allow them to have access and let the Justice Department say something besides ``fixed device'' so that we can go forward. If we can get that, we solve this issue. It's not about putting aside the ADA. It's not about being against the disabled. It's about common sense. And the folks that have five pools can have a device to sit around in a safe place to be moved out to accommodate whoever needs this device. It's common sense, it's good judgment, and it's a safety issue for children. And nobody wants to deprive anybody of going swimming. So to make this very clear, I think this is something that I agree with, my opponents on the other side of the aisle agree with, and we should be in agreement and bipartisan in trying to get a commonsense resolution. I yield back the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the proposed amendment. * Mr. Nunnelee from Mississippi and Mr. Flake from Arizona are cosponsors of this amendment. Opening Statement My amendment prohibits the DOJ from using funds to implement the regulation and guidance that would require every public pool and spa in America to have a permanent pool lift. This would not only affect hotels and resorts, but governmental entities such as public pools as well. Let me make this clear, I am not against disabled Americans having access to pools and spas. But what I am against is unreasonable regulations that don't pass the common sense test. Over the past year, hotel owners and city managers asked the Department of Justice to clarify the accessible means of entries for swimming pools and spas. This past January, the Justice Department responded to this request by issuing revised guidance. The guidance that was issued is alarming, to say the least. The revised guidance only allows a place of accommodation to have a portable pool lift under a very narrow set of circumstances. The guidance also doesn't allow a city or place of accommodation to share a pool lift between multiple pools and hot tubs. Furthermore, the revised guidance requires a pool lift to be pool side and fully operational during all pool hours, but does not address the safety risks posed by children playing on and climbing on the pool lift, which I imagine would make a pretty good climb and dive target for a 13 year old. It just doesn't make sense that if a hotel owner or city pool has multiple pools and hot tubs in one location that you would have to purchase a permanent lift for each pool and spa. Doesn't it make more sense to allow for one portable lift per location? A major concern is the cost of purchasing and installing permanent pool lifts. In speaking with hotel owners and pool lift manufacturers in recent weeks, the costs of pool lifts can range from $2,500 to over $9,700. The cost of installation can range from $500 to over $3,000 in States such as California. If a hotel owner with a small pool and hot tub in California needs to install two (2) permanent lifts (one at each body of water), the costs for purchasing and installing the two lifts could range from $11,000 at the low end to $25,400 at the high end. It is significant to note that for hotels that have had pool lifts in place for years; we have reports that guests with disabilities have not been using the lifts. A hotel owner very close to my district, in Austin, Texas, reported that twelve (12) years ago he constructed a pool at his hotel. At that time, Austin had a requirement that all hotels must have a lift for their guests with disabilities. During the 12 years that he has maintained the pool lift at the hotel, he never had a guest request or use the pool lift. Based on his information and belief, none of the hotels in Austin has ever had a guest use their pool lifts. (See attached Affidavit of Hitesh ``H.P.'' Patel.) And we haven't even discussed how in six weeks, approximately 309,000 pools or spas would have to purchase and install their own individual permanent lift. According to the Association of Pool and Spa Professionals, while present production capacity by pool lift manufacturers is a transient figure, greatly affected by many factors, it is reported that the manufacturers can produce between 2,500 and 5,000 lifts a month at this time. Can you believe that a bureaucrat in the Justice Department really thinks that 309,000 facilities can become compliant by May 15th, when production can't support that? Mr. Chairman there is a little something called common sense that is missing here in Washington DC. My amendment will only prohibit the Department of Justice from requiring a permanent point of entry, not a portable one, and will buy time for the Authorizing committee to pass the Pool Safe Act and bring some common sense back to this city. Let's send a clear message to the Justice Department that this regulation and guidance is not acceptable and that if they won't listen to the American people, then the Congress will act. Additional Talking Points Hotels with fewer than 100 rooms are most negatively impacted by the pool lift mandate. The high costs of purchase and installation, along with the non-use by guests, makes it economically unrealistic for these small business owners. The end result will be that many simply close their pools, which is not a benefit to anyone. In its comments submitted to the DOJ, the Association of Pool & Spa Professionals (APSP) cited reports by P.K. Data Inc. that there are approximately 310,000 public pools, 85,000 of which are classified as ``lodging'' and 30,000 classified as ``clubs.'' It is estimated that approximately 33% or 38,000 of these pools are accompanied by a spa, for a total estimate of 153,000 pools or spas likely to fall under Title III, the majority of which are hotel pools and spas. The other public pools such as ``community,'' Parks and Recreation, and Schools likely fall under Title II. In 2010, the Department of Justice (``D0J'') adopted updated standards for accessible design to replace the 1991 standards. These updated standards included requirements for hotels to make pools and spas accessible for our guests with disabilities. The deadline for compliance was March 15, 2012. On January 31, 2012--only six (6) weeks before this deadline--the DOJ issued a new Guidance Document on the 2010 ADA standards for pools. This new Guidance Document contained significant revisions to the 2010 ADA Standards concerning existing swimming pools. This was done without providing advance notice to pool owners. The January 31 changes in the ADA requirements included: (a) For all existing, altered and newly constructed pools, they must install a ``fixed'' pool lift. If installation of a fixed lift is not readily achievable, the owner may only then consider alternatives such as use of a portable pool lift that complies with the 2010 Standards. (b) Pool lifts must be at poolside and fully operational during all open pool hours. (c) Sharing of accessible equipment between pools is not permitted. As a result of these rules, there was confusion in the hotel industry and among the pool lift manufacturers.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor a decorated war veteran who has made countless sacrifices for our great nation. Retired Colonel George D. Burrow, an American hero, has received numerous medals and recognitions for his unwavering service. Colonel Burrow was born on May 6, 1932 in Port Arthur, Texas. He began his military career in 1950, when he joined the Texas National Guard. By 1958, he graduated from Officer Candidate School as a Distinguished Military Graduate with an Army commission. Shortly after becoming an officer, Mr. Burrow became airborne and aviator qualified. Colonel Burrow served five tours overseas during times of crisis, including in Germany, Korea and Vietnam. During these conflicts, Mr. Burrow built the reputation of a genuinely modest, superior warrior that executed his missions with phenomenal efficiency and brilliance. One of the many examples of Burrow's impressive leadership was his guidance over the Bravo Troop of the famed 1st Squadron, 9th Calvary during the Vietnam War. Burrow commanded the 27 Huey helicopters of Bravo Troop and the legendary group of choppers acquired the nickname- ''Burrow's Barbarians.'' Bravo Troop accounted for more than 2,000 confirmed enemy kills between April 1967 and February 1968. Colonel Burrow demonstrated unparalleled bravery and perseverance during battle. He was shot down a total of 13 times in Vietnam. When asked about how he managed to survive these seemingly hopeless events, he doesn't boast of his courage and inordinate ability to lead. Instead, Burrow praises his fellow service men that courageously fought alongside him and often times rescued Colonel Burrow and his men. Colonel George Burrow retired after 39 years of service to the United State of America; his medals include the Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Crosses (3rd Award), Legion of Merit, Bronze Star (2nd Award), Air Medal (34th Award), Purple Heart (31st Award), DOD Meritorious Service Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award), Korean Defense Service Medal, Army Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, Combat Infantry Badge, Expert Infantry Badge, Master Army Aviator Wings, Parachute Badge, and Joint Chief of Staff Badge. Furthermore, to continue the remembrance of Burrow's service, he was inducted into the Infantry Hall of Fame in 1979. Mr. Speaker, Retired Colonel George Burrow celebrated his Eightieth Birthday on May 6th, 2012 and it is a great honor for me to recognize an American hero on this day. I will conclude this account of Colonel Burrow's selfless accomplishments by asking my colleagues to join me in reflecting on, and recognizing him, as one of America's greatest men.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the 75th Birthday of the Air Force's 3d Weather Squadron at Fort Hood, Texas and honor the squadron's first commander, Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient General Leon W. Johnson. Mr. Speaker, I have the high honor of representing the brave men and women at Fort Hood, Texas, the largest military installation in the world. Every day that I have the opportunity to serve in Congress, I do so knowing that my number one responsibility is to give our men and women in uniform the support and resources they need to be successful. Each time I visit Fort Hood, I see America's finest, the Airmen and Soldiers who put it all on the line to allow us to live in the greatest country on Earth. Representing Fort Hood, Texas also comes with the sober reminder of the sacrifice that our young men and women in the military and their families make to the cause of freedom. For 75 years, the Airmen of the 3d Weather Squadron have exemplified this sacrifice as they stood alongside their Army brethren in support of a long list of military operations. In just the past 20 years, the 3d Weather Squadron has deployed for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Operation Allied Force, Operation Unified Response, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operations Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn. When activated on 1 July 1937, the 3d Weather Squadron was a part of the U.S. Army, as the Air Force had not yet been established. Today the squadron continues a proud history of faithfully providing Battlefield Weather support to the Army, both in garrison and in combat. The stated mission of 3d Weather Squadron is to ``deliver superior weather capability when called upon to support any worldwide land component tasking.'' True to this mission, the Airmen of the 3d Weather Squadron have sustained a continual, unbroken deployed presence in Southwest Asia dating back to 2003 alongside numerous Army units including III Corps, 1st Armored Division, 1st Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, and 4th Infantry Division. On any given day, approximately 25 percent of the squadron is deployed with the Army. Mr. Speaker, the 75th Birthday of 3d Weather Squadron also affords us the opportunity to celebrate the extraordinary life of the squadron's first commander and a singularly heroic warrior, General Leon W. Johnson. Leon W. Johnson was born in Columbia, MO, in 1904. He spent his boyhood in Columbia and Moline, KS. He later graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in June 1926. Lieutenant Johnson decided he'd ``have to know something about weather if he intended to be a leader in the Air Force,'' so he enrolled at the California Institute of Technology and earned a Master's Degree in Meteorology in 1936. The next year he became one of the Army Air Corps Weather Service's first 22 weather officers and assumed command of the 3d Weather Squadron when it was activated on 1 July 1937. General Johnson subsequently took command of the 44th Bomb Group during World War II and earned the Medal of Honor for his role in the strategically crucial raid on the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania. General Johnson served in a wide variety of critical positions with both the Army and the Air Force throughout his 34 years of service. Mr. Speaker, I will close by asking my colleagues to join me in recognizing the heroic Airmen of the 3d Weather Squadron as they mark the 3d Weather Squadron's 75th birthday and that we also honor an American patriot and hero, Medal of Honor Recipient General Leon W. Johnson.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend, Ms. Foxx, for yielding to me on this important issue. Madam Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for this important legislation, H.R. 2117. Recently, bureaucrats at the Department of Education promulgated a rule which would require institutions that offer distance education programs to meet State requirements in every State in which they have a distance education student. This legislation that we have here would repeal that rule, a rule that negatively affects hundreds of colleges and thousands of students around this country. Specifically, in my district, I'm very proud that I have Central Texas College. Central Texas College may be the largest community college in the United States, possibly the world; and it consistently has students of 75,000-plus every year. They provide both on-campus and distance education for thousands of American warfighters, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines around the world. These folks who are in any place you could imagine are taking courses from Central Texas College, and they would be specifically impacted if the rule the bureaucrats have put upon us is not repealed. This is very important to the future of the educated warfighters. Under this rule, only colleges that maintain significant resource reserves would be able to comply with these State authorization requirements. Just let me point out that Central Texas College is a small public school doing great work for educating our soldiers around the world. We shouldn't let the bureaucrats in Washington take away the opportunity for an education for thousands of soldiers and other students that rely on distance education. This little school that sits on the edge of Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas, is educating soldiers around the world on shipboard and in military posts, and we need to make sure that this H.R. 2117 is passed to protect their education.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, over the past month, I've heard from many of my constituents about the closing of the contract post office in my district, the South Temple Post Office. My constituents enjoy going to the South Temple Post Office because it is fast, efficient and the service is outstanding. However, the United States Postal Service recently announced it would be closing this office, along with 19 other contract postal units. Why? Because these contract post offices are not hiring enough union workers or are, allegedly, taking union jobs away from the main branches. In other words, even though the United States Postal Service was $8.5 billion in the hole in 2010 and even though the owner of the South Temple Post Office sends a check of $1 million every year to the postal service under their contract, they have decided to close it because of union dispute. This is just plain wrong. My constituents should have a choice of what post office they want to use and to use the one that serves them the best. If the privately owned contract office is performing better, they should be able to use that privately owned contract office. Rest assured, I will fight this nonsense and try to get this post office kept open.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank you, Representative Kelly. I will be glad to have you in the fight. You are a man I stand back-to-back with. Mr. Speaker, we have been here talking about something that many of us realize is a shocking change of our world. It seems a small thing, but 54.5 miles per gallon, everyone will tell you the kinds of cars we drive in Texas, which is pickup trucks, they can never get there. They can't gear and torque to get to that number, 54.5. Therefore, unless you pull a scam that was being talked about, every electric car offsets the pickup trucks, we're in trouble. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CARTER. In reclaiming my time, there is an agenda that is being sold here. In testimony we had before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, which I happen to serve on, we talked to our former colleague about this administration's vision of the world it wants us to live in. It wants us all to live in high-rise apartments and to take public transportation. They will tell you straight out that's the future of America--concentrate. There have been at least some in the administration who have said the days of the two-story home in the suburbs are over. I don't know if America knows that. This is a perfect example of part of the plan to drive us out of the suburbs and into concentrated populations where the only solution is public transportation. Quite honestly, where I live, that's not going to be very popular.

Mr. CARTER. In reclaiming my time, I'd like to ask the gentleman a question because it just dawned on me the economics that you're describing here. What they're doing now is not saying, Okay, we're going to make a Chevrolet pickup or a Ford pickup that gets 54.5 miles per gallon. What they're saying is, Yeah, we've still got a Ford pickup or a Chevrolet pickup or a Chrysler pickup that gets 18 to 20 miles a gallon. But, hey, look at all these electric cars that don't use any gasoline, so we get an offset for those. You also said the market for these is the rich people, that 1 percent that everybody is complaining about. No one is going to be able to afford to buy these electric cars. They're the market, and yet that's how they get this number down, but it's not real--it's imaginary.

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, and thanking my colleague for his comments--you know, we're talking this whole year of how we're going to get this economy back on its feet, how we're going to put people back to work, how we're going to make our decisions make sense to put people to work and make our economy grow. And I'm concerned, where we already have the NHTSA--or whatever it's called--setting these standards, we had CAFE standards established--gosh, that's 8 years ago--with a plan to study on down the road, looking at the economic consequences and the job consequences, as well as the environmental consequences. And the EPA chose to make a decision based solely on their global warming view of the world and not take into effect the job--in fact, they say in their statement, we don't even know what the job consequences are going to be, and we don't know what the economic consequences are going to be. And we don't know if you can sell a car, $3,200, but we're passing this regulation anyway. That's not the kind of decisions we ought to be making around this place. So I really thank you for raising those economic points, Scott. It helps a lot. The next person I believe was here, Alan Nunnelee was the next one. I yield to my good friend from Mississippi.

Mr. CARTER. I would now like to have you hear from my colleague from Virginia, Scott Rigell, who has been waiting to talk. I learned in a conversation before we started here tonight he's been in the car, the automobile business, and so he brings a good perspective to this conversation.

Mr. CARTER. That is a real eye-opener, and I thank you for explaining that. I didn't really get that concept. So, in addition to playing games with numbers, the Federal Government is subsidizing the playing games with numbers, and then your State also subsidizes it. I hope Texas doesn't--but heck, who knows.

Mr. CARTER. That's shocking. I do remember that the car that my wife and I are driving right now cost more than our first three-bedroom, two-bath house that we purchased when our first two children were born. That's kind of shocking as to how all that gamesmanship can drive that price up. I did have a person in the transportation business who was telling me--and I'm not going to disclose who it was--they do studies on selling tickets for the planes. It was the air industry. The ticket price is the price at which they know people will fly. They have done studies to determine, if they were to add $10, in some instances, to that price of the ticket that people will fly, you'd lose like 18 percent. Add $50, and you could lose half of your flying public. That's how much the margin is, and you have the same kind of deal in the automobile industry.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting conversation we just heard. I was very impressed by that. And I agree, we need to expand infrastructure. Everything that was said there is important. You know, I've been talking on the floor of the House about regulations recently; and as I listened to my Democratic colleagues talk about infrastructure, I was reminded that we have a bunch of new regulations on cement that are going to drive our cement industry out of the country. It's going to be a little tough to build bridges without cement. We have moratoriums on oil and gas. Asphalt is made with oil, so we need to think out these projects as we go forward. Today I'm going to talk about some regulations, and I'm very grateful to be joined by numerous of my colleagues; and we are going to be talking about some new regulations that are going to attempt to be imposed upon an industry that is struggling and will, quite honestly, be a setback, in my opinion. I'm going to start off by recognizing Mr. Guinta and letting him tell us his comments on the subject of the new 54-mile-per-gallon rules that are being proposed for our automobiles.

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend from New Mexico for a very strong statement. I want to recognize Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, my friend from Maryland. He wants to get up here with some of his own charts, and I'm going to step aside and let him do it.

Mr. CARTER. I thank you, and I agree with absolutely everything you've said. I think it's a real eye-opener to realize that we sit here and we have a State of the Union address where the middle class was referenced, I don't know, a dozen times probably, how it is all about the middle class and how we are going to do things for the middle class. I guess we can start off by saying that the first thing we are going to do is raise the price of a car for you by $3,200, not because we have to, not because it fits our plan of coming up with fuel standards, which we had in place before the EPA in California interfered, no. We're going to do it now even though it was supposed to be 3 years from now that we start looking at these standards, and we're going to take $3,200 out of your pocket when you buy that first car. That doesn't seem to be looking out for the middle class. I think this House ought to be looking out for the middle class. I think they ought to be looking out for the buyer. I think we ought to realize that in a time when we have an industry which we had to pour literally billions and billions and billions of dollars in to save--and we've done it. We've got it, at least we hope, back on its feet--and then all of a sudden we impose standards upon that industry which, quite honestly, will probably harm them, you raise the price of your product $3,200 that you weren't expecting to raise, you're not ready for that kind of problem. Finally, and most importantly for Texans, the pickup truck capital of the world, I'm told this will eliminate SUVs and pickup trucks. And them's fightin' words where we come from. So that's the other thing that we ought to be concerned about. The lifestyle of Americans is going to be changed by requiring standards that some certain vehicles, quite honestly the engineers tell us, just can't get there. We're not thinking these things out. We're too busy. There's too many people around this town that are too busy trying to get the government in control of your entire life that they're not thinking out what they're doing. Thank you for your comments. My co-partner of sorts from Ohio (Mr. Austria) is here. He and I have been in this battle a good while, and we have done some stuff on the Appropriations Committee to raise this issue. We've got folks who came here ahead of you, but we're kind of co-chairing this thing, so you can make an opening if you would like, Steve.

Mr. CARTER. I would now like to recognize my good friend, Steve Pearce from New Mexico, Texas' good neighbor to the west.

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend for his great comments. One of the things I like to say about Washington is to show us the common sense, and, Mr. Manzullo, I think you made a good, commonsense argument that we can understand. I'd now like to introduce my friend, Mr. Kelly from Pennsylvania, and hear what he has to say on this interesting new challenge the Obama administration has given us.

Mr. CARTER. I would now like to recognize Mr. Manzullo from Illinois, who is a champion of starting up the manufacturing again in this country. He understands the economy and how it works.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3261.